joel/is/blogging/now

In a sour note for progressive types in this week's election here in California, a ban on gay marriage was passed by 52% of voters, and added into the state's constitution. I don't know what bonehead made it legal to change the state constitution with a slim majority like that -- I think it would've been a lot more sensible to require at least a 60% majority to change the constitution with a ballot measure -- but apparently that's how it's set up here.

This is certainly stupid and disappointing. If we're going to have a state-sanctioned institution of marriage, obviously it should be available to same-sex couples.

For what it's worth, I would like to point out that the institution of marriage is just an idea. Of course it's an idea that has real-world repercussions, involving money, power, perceptions of legitimacy, property, activity, and what happens to people's children, pets, houses, and stuff. But nevertheless, it all proceeds from an idea of marriage. The meaning of that idea is in flux within the collective consciousness, so groups of people are fighting over it.

On the individual level, I counsel you to free your mind. If the majority of the people have a narrow or unenlightened idea of what marriage means, that's unfortunate, and there's nothing wrong with trying to change the laws or influence the perceptions of the collective. But right now, you are still free to choose your own definition of what it means or should mean, and you can still do a lot to arrange your life according to your own wishes and understandings. You just have to be more conscious and intentional about it. I think if you let something like Proposition 8 get under your skin and substantially interfere with your happiness, you are giving up your individual power to the collective.

On the legal level, marriage in California is now an officially homophobic and discriminatory institution under the state constitution.

So, here's what I think the new campaign should be: Any heterosexual person in California (or any other state that has these stupid constitutional bans) who recognizes that same-sex couples ought to have the right to marry should refuse to participate in a legal structure that discriminates against and excludes their homosexual and bisexual friends from enjoying the same options.

I am certainly happy to take the pledge. I will not get legally married to anyone until that option is available to everyone. If I want to make a legally-recognized relationship commitment, I will confine myself to the options that are available to my gay/lesbian/bisexual friends: domestic partnership, and private contractual arrangements.

Opt out. Boycott marriage. Or boycott legal marriage anyway. You can still have private weddings if you want, whether you're opposite sex, same sex, or a group of people. Define it how you like, do it, proclaim it to your friends, and let it be your reality. You can make private contracts, and file for domestic partnership if you feel that it's in your interest to do so. But don't participate in a homophobic legal construct.

If conservatives insist on trying to enforce an antiquated definition of what marriage means, then leave the whole institution behind, let it go... and see how they like that!

I think there are advantages in being put in a position where you have to explicitly, consciously and intentionally define the relationships you are creating. When people marry legally, they accept a prefabricated structure on their relationship... kind of like deciding you're too tired or lazy to cook, and it's easier to just go buy the prefabricated Happy Meal already packed neatly in a box. If you marry legally, the state can and will impose it's definition of what that relationship means, and later on, some people are unpleasantly surprised with the results, especially when the thing unwinds and they're trying to extricate themselves. Remember, gay marriage necessarily means gay divorce, with all the disputes, resentments, lawyers, court orders, alimony, custody battles, and other assorted painful dramas pertaining thereto.

A more libertarian solution might be to get the government out of the marriage-defining business altogether, and leave it to individuals, churches, and private contracts. That would seem to be an enlightened approach to me. But as long as there is a state-sanctioned institution of marriage, it should be boycotted until it's available to all.

I do think that the Evil Overlords, people like Dick Cheney, have to love the gay marriage debate. Why? Because it distracts us, gives us a culture war to fight amongst ourselves, and takes our attention away from issues of greater gravity, like how many people we are killing in other countries, how many governments we are subverting or overthrowing, how many military bases we have, how the constitution is being ignored, how the nation's treasury and our futures are being looted by antisocial criminals, or how the entrenched two-party system (which is actually an entrenched one-party system) has subverted our government.

Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter. Does he care that she can't legally marry? I don't think so. Why? Because in his mind, he and his daughter are above the law anyway. They are above mass-market mental constructs in general, like religion, patriotism, and the classic concept of a nation state in general. People like Dick Cheney will live as they please, and when dealing with the masses, they can pretend to believe in legal marriage, patriotism, religion, or "America" if doing so will allow them to herd the masses into doing what they want, or serve the illusions which they want the masses to believe in. One of those illusions is that there are really big differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and that proves we are a democratic society where we have real and important choices to make in how the nation is to be governed. Sure, there are significant differences, but by amplifying those differences and encouraging us to get all worked up over them, the shepherds distract us away from critical analysis of many fundamental realities, and how the viable political candidates only represent one choice on 96% of the most crucial issues. Think about it.

Dick Cheney may be power mad, dishonest, manipulative, mean-spirited, and selfish, but at least in freeing his mind from some of the mass-market mental constructs, he is a role model. Even though you may never have Dick Cheney's money or power, you can still be wealthier than him, because any kind of freedom of thought that Dick Cheney enjoys is as available -- no, more available -- to you. You can have a free mind without the mean-spirited contamination that Dick Cheney is burdened with, and you can define success in terms other than how many people you can intimidate or kill, or how much money and property you can steal or hoard for yourself and your allies. Evil can never win, because no matter what it does or what it gets for itself, it's still evil, still suffering from a lack of something, still not OK. And consciousness and love can always win, because even when we are being oppressed and ripped off, we can still be conscious and loving, and define success in those terms.

"I always question the received reality. The consensus reality is often intentionally misleading."'

- George Carlin, 2007

OK, so the election is decided.

I was rooting for Obama, if only because any party that could throw up a criminal pig like George W Bush up for president twice deserves to be sent to the bottom of the ocean for at least two or three hundred years. George W is the worst president this country has ever had, and no one else even comes close.

Obama preaches "hope" and "change." So, ok, I'm hopeful. But cynical. (The two are not mutually exclusive as I've discussed in this blog before.) As always, we have a president who seems careful not to rock the boat on any of the issues which I think are of vital importance to this country... things like the continuation of the American military empire, the Federal Reserve, the falseness and criminality of most of our wars, and a few other hot-button issues that can get you killed if you deviate from certain party lines. I'll be pleasantly surprised if Obama ever really takes us out of Iraq, makes any noticeable cuts in the obscenely bloated military budget, repeals the so-called Patriot Act, abdicates much if any of the excessive dictatorial powers that have been grabbed by the executive branch over the last 90 years or so, subordinates the CIA to the chief executive (or any other branch of any government anywhere), puts the coining of US currency back under US government control as per the constitution, challenges the country's addiction to "terror," de-escalates the brutal "drug war," prosecutes any of the criminal frauds perpetrated against the nation by no-bid contractors in the theft-fests of Iraq, Afganistan, Katrina, etc., or reverses any of the money-and-power grab that just happened in the trillion-dollar Paulson "bailout" plan.

But I'm certainly willing to be surprised on any of the above points. Any one would be something to cheer about.

Today is a historic election day here in my country of origin.

I spoke with an unnamed close relative yesterday evening, a former Reagan supporter and recovering southern Baptist, who in more recent years has become remarkably and impressively radicalized in her interpretations of American politics and history. She predicted a surprise victory for McCain, not on the strength of his actual support among voters, but as a result of election fraud, supported by brainwashing from the mainstream media with all their recent smoke & mirrors about how the race is tightening, and was always closer than it looked, thanks to the so-called "Bradley effect," where racist people are ashamed to admit that they'll never really vote for the "black guy."

In my own polling of the men and women on the street, I have encountered one group with a surprisingly strong reluctance to vote for a half-African-American candidate: Mexicans. How ironic is that? I tell them their thinking seems hypocritical and misguided. They shrug it off, not inclined to disagree, but seemingly not much interested in re-evaluating their positions either.

I am more optimistic. I think this election is not actually going to be close enough to steal. Polls have shown some apparent tightening in recent days, but not enough to change the results. The most recent polling data (which I get from electoral-vote.com) shows Obama leading in enough states to add up to 353 electoral votes, well above the 270 needed to win, and even if we only count the states where he is polling 5% or more ahead, the total is still 278.

That said, there could still be surprises, and there has been propaganda pumping through the airwaves which can be interpreted as softening the populace for a poll-defying upset. John McCain offered a personal guarantee sometime in the past week that he would win the election. Does he know something we don't know? It's possible. I think if we get a screwy result in this election, there may be riots. But if so, maybe "they" want riots? It does seem possible.

If you find yourself wanting to riot in protest of anything that happens in this country in the next few months, don't. If there are riots, it will only be used as an excuse to take away more civil liberties, and to haul a lot of people away to prisons under the Patriot Act. If people really want to oppose a corrupt American regime, the most fundamental way that I see to do it would be to stop paying taxes, and stop dealing in US dollars in general. Short of that, we're all supporting a corrupt and violent machine. Unfortunately, the economic system is so entrenched now, it's hard to imagine how we could find food, clothing and shelter for ourselves without dealing in currencies or generating tax revenue somewhere.

In any case, the next year will be dicey. Joe Biden has prophesied that Obama will win the presidency, but then be sorely tested within his first year. These are curious times. We will see.

In other news, I went with a friend to see Appaloosa. Another film I wanted to like but didn't, at least not the first 35 minutes or so that I watched with my friend Helene before we both agreed to spare ourselves the rest. We walked out. Featuring some good actors, and interesting sets, the film began as a gritty, sparse vignette about some remarkably tough American fronteirsmen, and then with the introduction of a female lead (Renee Zellweger) it quickly morphed into trite, narcissistic, neurotic, domesticated, anachronistic melodrama. A lot of people seem to be liking this film; See it at your own risk.

Next we tried Body of Lies at the next door down. We lasted about 25 or 30 minutes in that film before walking out again. Too much violence for Helene, and too much American propaganda for me. After that we just went home.

But back to the elections. All the Europeans I talk to say something along the lines of: Please, please don't let another American election go the wrong way. We want to like you. Stop making it so hard!

Good luck, America.