By JOE McMAHON
Donald Trump has recently come under fire, yet again, for appearing to suggest that supporters of the 2nd amendment should take matters into their own hands and “stop” Hillary Clinton. While much of the country was, unsurprisingly, outraged by his comment, the Trump campaign tried to paint it in a less threatening light. Spokesperson Jason Miller claimed that the quote was just supposed to encourage people to vote in order to prevent Clinton from becoming president in the first place. On CNN, Trump’s aide Paul Manafort argued, “Most people did not see it as a threat.” Which, honestly, is probably the case. The problem is, Paul, what about the people who did?
Let’s get one thing out of the way. Trump might have meant exactly what Jason Miller said he did. Like most of Trump’s comments, this one was beautifully vague and ambiguous. The fact is, though, that it doesn’t matter what he meant.
While much of the media attention has been on the intent of Trump’s words, the far more important thing to consider is how those words were perceived by his audience. More importantly, how those words were perceived by the darker, more impressionable subset of his audience. The angry, down-on-their-luck audience, perhaps with violent tendencies just looking for someone to blame for their misfortune. Because, believe me, Mr. Trump, that audience did not hear that and think “Well, darn, I better show up in November and vote.” No. What they heard was a man they idolize cavalierly validating those dark thoughts in the back of their minds. What they heard was a man of incredible influence and power making them think that maybe those violent ideas weren’t as wrong as society made them out to be. Maybe, after listening to Donald Trump, they decided that they did have a right to do something about the “Clinton problem.”
The thing that you need to learn, Mr. Trump, is that you cannot choose your audience. You cannot make a dangerous claim and then defend it by saying that you intended it in a different way. Because that doesn’t change how people interpret it. That didn’t stop the racists in this country from jumping all over your incendiary remarks about Mexicans as validation of their racist thoughts. And it’s not going to stop your violent, angry, gun-toting supporters from interpreting your recent comments in a way that could lead to tragedy.
Now, I’m not saying that politicians need to make sure that their words have no dangerous interpretation. That would obviously be possible. But Donald Trump has made a habit of saying intentionally vague and ambiguous things and then hiding behind the excuse of “That’s not what I meant” while watching the world tear itself apart fighting over it. Donald Trump loves saying things that have both a benign interpretation that can protect him and an incendiary interpretation that can capture headlines. His entire campaign has been built on saying things that enrage half the country and excite the other half, while riding the resulting tension and strife all the way to political stardom.
But this time, he’s gone too far. This time, an obvious interpretation of his comments wasn’t just racist or sexist or Islamophobic. This time it was dangerous. This time, the possible repercussions are much more severe. Maybe Trump doesn’t care. Maybe he likes the idea that millions of people interpreted his remarks as a violent threat against Hillary Clinton that could put her life in danger. But hopefully that’s not the case. And if Donald Trump has even one moral bone in his body, that will be the last time he ever makes that kind of a statement.
By JOE McMAHON
The United States is one of the most diverse countries in the world. This “nation of immigrants” has people of all different religions, ethnicities, cultures and ideologies co-existing in the melting pot we call home. And yet, with all this variety, the United States is still one of the few developed countries in the world with only two major political parties to represent such a broad array of people.
With significantly more differing viewpoints and ideologies than there are parties, people have been told for decades not to pick the candidate who represents their views the best, but to vote against the candidate that represents their views the least. If you’re a far left liberal who only agrees with half the platform of the moderate Democrat who’s running for office, you’re told to suck it up and vote for him/her anyway because at least it’s not as bad as the Republican option. If you’re a fiscal conservative who believes in limited government but is appalled by socially conservative views of the religious right, it doesn’t matter. You have to vote for the Republican anyway because the Democrat is even worse. In a system where two parties have to try and represent vastly more ideological viewpoints, a large number of people are forced to compromise on their values to support the candidate they dislike least.
Never has this been more apparent than in this election cycle. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have two of the highest disapproval ratings for presidential nominees in American history and, because of this, they have spent more time arguing against their opponents than arguing for themselves. This is why the major theme of the Republican National Convention was not “Donald Trump will fix this country” although that message was half-heartedly touched on. The major themes were “Crooked Hillary” and “Lock her up.” The Trump campaign correctly realized that the best way to win the presidency was not to convince the American people that their candidate was the best man for the job but to convince them that Democratic nominee was even less fit to be president.
This strategy is a depressing reflection of how far our political system has fallen, but it’s also a strategy that has a good chance of working. All you need to do is read the comments section of any political story that mentions third party candidates and you’ll find a litany of comments arguing that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote and that the country needs to do whatever it can to keep Trump/Hillary out of office.
We can’t have a political system where people are discouraged from voting their conscious out of fear. We can’t have a democracy where we tell large groups of people to suck it up and vote for a candidate that they don’t believe in because the single alternative offered is terrifying. We need to have a system where there is a large enough number of viable candidates that Americans can go to the polls and cast their vote for a candidate they believe in. And the options are out there. For those far left progressives who feel that Hillary is too moderate of a candidate, Jill Stein’s Green Party is a competent alternative. And for fiscal conservatives who are more socially progressive than mainstream Republicans, look no further than Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party for a candidate who more closely represents your views.
Whatever you, as an individual, happen to believe in, the goal of a democracy should be to make sure that you have representation in government. And to do that, there needs to be an adequate number of parties to represent the vast number of ideologies and beliefs that the people of this country have. No more can we endure what we’ve seen over and over again in this election, where members of the two political parties try to scare people who don’t believe in their platforms into supporting them by demonizing their opponents. We can’t call this a strong, representative democracy if large numbers of voters are going to their polls with the mindset that they need to vote against a certain candidate rather than for one. We need to change the mindset in this country that settling and compromising on our values out of fear is acceptable. We need to stop trying to convince the far left that they are betraying Democratic principles by refusing to fall in line behind Hillary Clinton. We need to tell Republican voters that it’s okay to be appalled by the hateful rhetoric of Donald Trump and want to look for another option. First and foremost, we need to make sure that every American can go to the polls in November and vote their conscience; that they can vote for a person who they think represents them. We need to make sure that no one is bringing fear to the ballot box.
Because if we, as a nation, send the statement that it doesn’t matter who the major parties pick as their standard bearer, then it’ll just get worse. If we tell the Democrats and Republicans that all they have to do is terrify us and we’ll vote for whomever they want us to, the American people lose their power to ensure that competent candidates lead their parties into November. 2016 brings us a unique opportunity to show the two major parties that our loyalty is dependent on nominees that reflect the values of the parties they’re supposed to represent. If we don’t now, when will we?
For all those undecided voters trying to figure out for whom to cast your ballot this fall, don’t let anyone tell you that a vote for a fringe candidate is a wasted vote. To summarize Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, the only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate you don’t believe in. Vote your conscience this November; vote for the candidate you think will be the best for America and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe one of the fringe candidates will be competitive. Maybe they won’t. But at the very least, the major parties will know that our support has to be earned. And that’s a victory in and of itself.
DAVID: Absolutely! I think such a change in public perception would be vital to bringing forth positive changes.
PATRICK: Raising our voices is a start. And David beat Goliath. Progressive outrage over this system has even gotten Hillary Clinton, a centrist Democrat, to say it’s flawed.
PATRICK: It is. And not only do we have people in prison for silly reasons, we have placed them in uncaring hands. The more the private company that owns and runs the prison skimps on providing for the inmates, the more money they make.
DAVID: It’s truly disgusting.
Streamlining Vote Counting
*People sign into a polling place.
*You bubble in a paper ballot.
*You scan the paper ballot with a voting machine.
*The voting machine prints you a Voting Verification Number (VVN) receipt. The VVN matches the number that was on your paper ballot.
*Absentee ballots would also have a VVN. This would come with a CR code (linking to the online Excel spreadsheet) and could be turn off along a fold from the rest of the ballot.
*The voting machine sends your voting data to an online Excel spreadsheet.
*This spreadsheet is visible to the public when polls close.
*Voters can verify the Excel data by searching their VVN online and seeing if there are any discrepancies.
*News agencies can get electoral data instantaneously.
*People can correct discrepancies by texting or calling the County Board of Elections with their VVN. They may also make an in-person complaint.
*The Board of Elections can then review the paper ballots corresponding to the VVNs, especially if the number of complaints exceeds the margin between the winner and other candidates.
*Sure, there is some voter fraud, but it’s minimal and it’s not the reason that mostly Republican state legislatures are pushing voter ID laws. Pennsylvania did it because its Republican state legislature wanted to swing the vote in favor of Romney in 2012. That has since been struck down because people who cannot get voter IDs are often minorities or they are economically disadvantaged. These people generally vote for Democratic candidates.
*In 2015, Alabama closed numerous DMV offices in mostly majority-black counties to favor Republican candidates. That has since been turned around. It’s very clear they don’t want these African-American voters to verify their identity at the polls. Just because the Civil Rights Act was passed in the 1960s doesn’t mean there aren’t still problems.
*Voting registration should be automatic and should pull data from the DMV once a citizen becomes 18.
*People would be registered as independent. They can change their party affiliation by filling out a form either online or on paper. They can register for a party or they can remain an independent but be given the option to vote in one party’s primary elections.
*People should not have to renew their voting registration. Voting is a right, not a Netflix subscription. We need to do everything we can to prevent people’s right to vote whether it’s in a primary or in a general election.
Long Voting Lines
*Election data by precinct is now available so that Boards of Election can find the precincts that vote a certain way and force the residents thereof to go to one polling place. This can manipulate the results because voters who might have strongly supported Candidate A might be discouraged by the long lines or have to be turned away because they were 300th in line and the polls already closed. Meanwhile, Candidate B could have won even when popular support was with Candidate A.
*Why we don’t have independent redistricting commissions in this day and age is beyond me. Then again, the people who have the power to improve their reelection chances will do anything they can not to lose that power. Anywhere citizens can start an initiative to have independent redistricting
Tuesday Talks will be an ongoing series of discussions among the contributors to Greater Scheme. We will discuss of variety of issues, mainly political, but we will discuss other topics as we see fit.
JOHN: All right, let’s talk about electoral reform. There are a number of factors that determine how the current electoral system in the United States operates, and Patrick and I will discuss those factors and address potential solutions with the hope of promoting and protecting democratic values. Patrick, would you like to start with some issues you’re seeing with the current system?
PATRICK: Absolutely! Thank you for discussing this vitally important topic with me. I think one of the biggest problems with our current electoral system is that it is a pretty firmly entrenched two-party system. It results in similar candidates, lack of meaningful choice, and allows parties to put forward increasingly unpopular candidates – this has culminated this year in the major parties presenting the two most disfavored candidates in any contemporary American presidential election.
Outdated voting machines and a complicated registration process are also cause for concern.
JOHN: What I find interesting about this argument is that the two-party system is nothing new. The current two-party system dates back to the 1850s when the Republican Party was formed. And we’ve had some solid presidents and statesmen come our way since then. Abraham Lincoln was part of that system as was Teddy Roosevelt and FDR. I think the problem with the current two-party system is its relationship with campaign finance. The Koch Brothers, of course, don’t fund Libertarian candidates because they don’t win. They spend most of their campaign funds on Republican candidates. As a result, the Republicans get most of the money. The Democrats have their fair share of corporations and special interests that fund them. Don’t get me wrong.
People’s discontent toward government has grown because the politics is getting more polarized. That wouldn’t have happened if Newt Gingrich didn’t have 24-7 news as his soapbox so that he could speak out against Bill Clinton and his policies. Polarization wouldn’t have happened if Fox News didn’t become the conservative network, if MSNBC didn’t become the liberal network, if CNN didn’t become the establishment Democrat network. People get to customize their news, and the news customizes itself to boost its ratings. That’s a very tricky problem that doesn’t have a clear governmental solution. Requiring certain news to be more neutral or punishing news corporations for not being truthful is very dangerous if we want to preserve the First Amendment. How does one define neutrality? How does one define truth? The truth is that it is somewhere in between, and we need to change as a culture, think critically, and move toward a society that is open to cognitive dissonance.
And sure there is bipartisan corruption, but I think instead of the parties being opponents, they have become even more like enemies. And it’s trickled down to regular people.
PATRICK: I agree! It is very interesting how two parties that in the grand scheme of things aren’t that different ideologically, have become almost childish in their relations with the other party, often refusing to compromise and saying pretty awful things about members on the other side.
Americans have been quick to follow the example they set, and we seem to enjoy demonizing our neighbors who belong to the other party.
JOHN: I think a big thing we’ve seen is that lately the Republicans have been the ones that are better at sticking to their guns than Democrats. The Democrats will generally support something in name only, but often won’t get to do much about it. And of course, who will support a party who tries to emulate the center-right in the name of ending gridlock when that gridlock never actually ends?! The Republican Party currently thrives on gridlock because ideologically it supports their ends. The government can’t grow if new laws aren’t passed. And it’s very hard politically to repeal laws once they have come into effect. So, they stick to gridlock because they are trying to prove that government doesn’t work and that we should have less of it. It’s a fairly brilliant strategy because, along with gerrymandering, the Republicans continue to control both houses of Congress. It’s an awful strategy because disapproval of Congress is even worse than that of cockroaches, and people have begun disliking the two parties even more.
And yet, approval of individual candidates is stronger. People like their House Rep or Senator because they bring funds into their home states. It’s sort of like rooting for the Bears if you’re from Chicago but disapproving of the NFL for all the concussions. The Bears are part of a system of constant concussions that the NFL won’t acknowledge. Politically, the system is more corrupt, because individual politicians try to do the right thing, but the system is stacked against them (money, egos, etc.)
PATRICK: I think new restrictions of pork barrel spending are going to gradually reduce the popularity of individual lawmakers and Congress over all while making gridlock even worse, but your Chicago Bears analogy is apt. Some people will support whoever represents their hometown. Without pork we’ll see less quid pro quo compromise. And I think we are already starting to see that.
JOHN: That’s an excellent point. I believe Lincoln was the one who realized that pork was necessary to get anything done. And it’s easier to advocate for more spending in your state if you’re a longtime incumbent.
And there’s an argument that we need term limits, but then there’s the issue of having constantly inexperienced people coming into the system and then leaving without making much of an impact. I think a big issue with these Congressional terms is that they are too short. Two years is not enough time to get anything done in the House of Representatives. You cajole people into giving you campaign funds to get elected, and then a year later you’re already campaigning again. There’s no time to actually do your job. I realize that the Founders wanted that turnover for the sake of common people having a say more often, but it doesn’t take into account the rising costs of campaigns. If we wanted to fix that, four-year or even six-year terms would be better. We want our leaders to focus long term, not on the current election cycle.
PATRICK: I think you’re on to something. If you listen to former congressmen talk about the fundraising aspect of their job they all absolutely detested how much time they spent doing it. A lot of them came in wanting to make a difference, only to find themselves spending huge chunks of time on the phone asking for money from people they really didn’t know.
JOHN: But I wanted to jump back to that polarization conversation. The polarization and gridlock in Congress makes people leave their respective political parties and become independents. Often, the people left behind are even less sane, the groupthink gets groupier, and the gridlock gets worse. And now you have all these independents who don’t have a say in who gets to be the Democratic or Republican nominee. If independents actually got to vote in these primaries, I think Bernie Sanders would have squeaked by and John Kasich might have actually had a fighting chance.
PATRICK: Maybe. The primaries aren’t very democratic. They put independent-minded populists like Bernie Sanders at a disadvantage. Trump falls in that category too. In Louisiana, he got more votes than Ted Cruz, but fewer delegates!! The deck was stacked against him, but amazingly he still won.
JOHN: I think a big thing with that GOP primary was that all these billionaires could buy their own presidential candidates. The dumbest thing for the GOP to do was allow 17 candidates to run. At least in hindsight. They had no idea Trump could actually come into the scene and win. If they had known what was going to happen, the GOP could’ve sat down with potential candidates and try to talk them out of running for president by offering them support for a different position instead. I don’t know if their efforts in that case would have been fruitful, but having that many candidates fractured the voice of whatever sanity was left in the party.
And sure, Trump had the cards stacked against him in a way. The GOP traditionally picks the tried-and-true establishment candidate. But all Trump had to do was win the plurality of the votes in many states and take all of those states’ delegates! 60% of the voters in a state could have voted against him and yet he is 100% the Republican nominee today.
PATRICK: That’s a good point. The “moderate” Republican vote was pulled every which-way during the primary.
JOHN: Maybe preferential voting could have helped, but that might just encourage more people to run. I’m a special ed teacher, and I don’t think people need that risk of candidate ADHD in their lives.
PATRICK: I hear that argument invoked sometimes when I bring up how terrible the two-party system is, which plagues not only the presidency, but Congress as well. Perhaps its effect on Congress is even more damaging. Congress is not representative of the electorate.
JOHN: Of course it’s not. Only a third of registered voters even bother to show up for midterm elections.
PATRICK: When they do, they are often presented with just 1-2 choices for a given office. And those choices are often not a great match for the voter.
JOHN: I know some countries mandate voting with the penalty of a fine so that the leaders are representative of the electorate. I believe Australia is one of these countries. I’m concerned that many politically inactive would just vote randomly and not take the process seriously. What do you think?
PATRICK: I agree. I don’t think voting should ever be mandatory. Not only do you risk random voting but I think not voting makes a statement too. I support a really right not to vote, ha ha ha. I do favor a parliamentary/proportional representation system for our Congress. But participation in that process shouldn’t be compulsory.
JOHN: If we really want to increase turnout, I think it would be smarter to stop making voting access worse. Often, polling places are put in an area that poor people can’t access because they can’t drive to the location. We also really need to hammer home the fact that people can send an absentee ballot. But the sad thing is that a lot of people don’t vote because they don’t think the candidates are any different or because their vote doesn’t count. Well, maybe if we got these people together (which is often the majority of voters!) and we said to them, “Take a look around you. These people stayed home just like you because they thought their vote wouldn’t count. If all of you voted, your vote would count. Big time.” (Image 1).
PATRICK: A proportional representation system would increase the differences in the views and backgrounds of candidates. I think it would do a lot to stifle the view that all politicians are the same. A belief that a vote doesn’t matter isn’t helped by undemocratic primaries. A lot of people feel that way because of the Electoral College too. But I see the utility in the electoral college (making sure a candidate is popular across a wide geographic range).
JOHN: I mean, the number of swing states seems to have gotten smaller historically. So, in theory, it would be easier for presidential candidates to only have to campaign in those states. But then they pander to those states only, and campaigns still get more expensive.
I know voting equipment was an issue for you. What are some issues you’re seeing there, and what should we do to address them?
PATRICK: For starters, some polling locations are still equipped with machines from the 1970s. At least some of these machines will lose its record of all the votes cast if its battery depletes. This is unacceptable. If there is one thing most people would agree is worth investing in, it would probably be safeguarding our democracy by ensuring our votes are counted.
JOHN: It’s important to keep our equipment updated. Nothing lasts forever. I’m not sure I’ve heard of the equipment being as old as the 1970s. I don’t think they had touchscreen machines and Scantron machines back then. I have heard of equipment that hasn’t been updated in 10 years, which makes sense, because there was a huge exodus from punch cards toward electronic equipment. And then we just stopped bothering to keep them up.
PATRICK: Ah, yes. There is no real need for them. But they are great at keeping poor people of color away from the polls. “Voter fraud” the reason given for their existence by their proponents, almost never happens. Almost no cases of double voting whatsoever.
More and more, you will hear about this activity known as vaping, the act of inhaling vapor from e-cigarettes. Since 2014, young Americans were more likely to vape than they were to smoke. There is a great deal of debate over whether vaping should be subjected to the same laws that cigarette smoking is, i.e., whether it should be banned in public spaces such as restaurants, bars, etc. Before making a decision on policy, people should learn about the health effects of e-cigs compared to those of traditional cigarettes.
Regular cigarettes contain 600 ingredients, which turns into 7,000 chemicals when burned. 69 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer (like arsenic, lead, and formaldehyde), and many more are poisonous (ammonia, carbon monoxide, etc.) The tar in cigarettes blackens the lungs in just one puff. Much like smoking meats to preserve them, cigarette smoke dries out the air passages in the lungs, making it harder for them to open up and let air through. Don’t think you’re safe from secondhand smoke either. Non-smokers who live with a smoker increase their risk of lung cancer by 20 to 30%. Secondhand smoke has an even higher percentage of carcinogens and toxins than that which is inhaled by the smoker. This is nasty, nasty stuff.
Unlike regular cigarettes, e-cigarettes (or e-cigs) contain a fluid that generally consists of a fairly simple mixture of nicotine, propylene glycol, and glycerine — none of which are carcinogens — as well as flavorings, which may or may not be carcinogenic. However, carcinogens like formaldehyde and lead do find their way into e-cigs, albeit in trace amounts much lower than those found in traditional cigarettes. One study says that e-cigs are 95% safer than traditional cigarettes. However, some studies say that the long-term health effects are inconclusive. Research has focused on whether e-cigs help people quit tobacco cigarettes, with varying results.
However, e-cigs present a new problem that traditional cigarettes don’t — the risk of exploding. 80% of e-cig explosions occur during battery charging, 12% occurring while in the possession of the user. Batteries were most likely to explode when people used incorrect chargers, charged the battery while it was still connected to the atomizer, or overcharged the battery. This page suggests eight tips to avoid e-cig explosions.
Either way, more research should be conducted on the health impacts of e-cigs compared to those of cigarettes. A scientific consensus states that smoking tobacco cigarettes increases the risk of cancer. We have yet to know the true impact of e-cigs. Health experts say that there is no safe level of any carcinogen. However, there are numerous foods that contain carcinogens that continue to remain legal. French fries, sugary sodas, and salty snacks are horrible for your long-term health. People need to understand that the best way to reduce long-term health care costs are preventative measures.
What I am curious to know is the exact chemical composition of tobacco smoke compared to that of vapor. Does vapor really have a lower percentage of carcinogens? And how much does convection reduce the risk of cancer compared to that of combustion? Until people become truly aware of the chemical composition of vapor, we will not have much to say about the bigger picture regarding the health effects of vaping.
By PATRICK WOOD
Hillary Clinton is a nightmare for American leftists.
How many Sanders supporters and peaceniks happily hopped, skipped, and jumped over to the Clinton campaign when it become apparent Bernie Sanders was not going to win the Democratic nomination? Surely not as many as had serious reservations, flat-out refused to support Clinton, or only made the switch because of the grotesque spectre of a Trump presidency.
This is partly because Clinton doesn’t have nor does she deserve the same reputation for honesty and political integrity that Sanders does. Clinton’s statement that she “never received nor sent any material that was marked classified” on her private e-mail server while she was Secretary of State was not true and her recounting of landing under sniper fire in Bosnia was either a sign of a very faulty memory or a straight-up fib.
Mostly, however, it’s because Clinton has embraced policy positions that most progressives in 2016 do not support. Clinton has rejected the idea of pursuing single-payer healthcare, instead she wants to work to improve the ObamaCare system. Clinton has refused to encourage a ban on fracking or an end to the Drug War. Wall Street banks like Citi Group and Goldman Sachs liter her list of top contributors over her political career. Her foreign policy views have been labeled “hawkish” and include a threat to go to war with Iran if it breaches the nuclear agreement and a promise to immediately attempt to remove the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad from power.
Clinton’s choice of Tim Kaine as her running mate will do little to herd in fleeing progressives. Kaine is a boring centrist, with a lackluster record on reproductive rights and staunchly pro-Israel foreign policy views. To his credit, Kaine is surprisingly progressive on gun control for a Virginia senator, and that is perhaps the one issue where this ticket presents any hope for progressive change.
The progressive vote is going to be divided in many ways this November, but most progressive voters will fall into one of four categories: voting for Clinton, writing-in Bernie Sanders, voting for Jill Stein, or staying home because they are disillusioned with the two major party candidates.
Jill Stein, who barely cracked 0.3% of the vote last election, is poised to have a much, much bigger year. In her, progressives see an opportunity to vote for an agenda they agree with that doesn’t exist with Hillary, and they don’t have to forgo voting for a female candidate for President of the United States.
Of course, this presents the same old bitter debate over third party candidates. Many, like George Takei, are encouraging former Sanders supporters and progressives to “vote blue no matter who,” deeply concerned about what a Trump presidency would mean for the United States. These are the voices that especially in this election view a vote for Jill Stein or another third party candidate as a wasted vote, or worse yet “a vote for Trump.”
IT’S A TRAP.
The Democratic Party has produced one of the most disfavored nominees in the party’s history. If all of America’s progressives fall in line to support Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party has no incentive to cease running hawkish centrists with honesty problems, corporate backing, and mediocre records on the environment and fighting poverty. Unless the Democratic Party begins losing a little support on the left, they will feel free to continue this drift to the right. Already they have come up with a ticket other countries would likely view as more conservative. American progressives deserve a better choice, one that aligns with their views and values. That is why I offer a battlecry intended to counter “Vote Blue No Matter Who”, with all due respect to the magnificent George Takei, and that is “Have A Spine, Vote for Stein.”
Sounds crazy, right?
But consider the kind of pornography that’s available on the internet. Much of it contains brutal and degrading sexual violence against women, sometimes in the form of theatrically created rape, assault, or molestation scenes. This is behavior that is societally impermissible. Now think about how easy it is for children and teenagers to access pornography on the home computer.
Roughly zero percent of “romantic encounters” in pornography resemble anything that would actually happen in real life, and a minor who views porn might come away with some very wrongheaded ideas about women, sex, and love.
This isn’t about censorship. All graphically explicit material on the internet will be accessible to those who opt in. While opting in might seem embarrassing, especially with the default set to “opt out,” the embarrassing effect is ameliorated by the millions of other people who will opt in. By referring to the materials at issue as “explicit and potentially disturbing material,” it will at least be plausible that those who are opting in aren’t doing it just for pornography. Shocking and controversial art, film, and other explicit media can be nicely wrapped up into the same package.
This “opt-in” approach is currently being used in Britain and has inspired Republican State Senator Todd Weiler to push for something similar in the state of Utah. As someone who identifies as “left-wing” politically, I can’t remember ever being so supportive of proposed legislation from a Republican official. While some minors will of course be successful in finding other ways to access porn, this idea will protect our children using the home computer or tablet while preserving the right of adults to view sexually explicit content on the internet. It’s a rare opportunity to get something for nothing.
By PATRICK WOOD
By accommodating those who feel that they were born into the wrong sex and wish to live life as the opposite sex, we do trans individuals a world of good. Using preferred pronouns and treating trans individuals with warmth and understanding helps them feel comfortable, gives them courage to take steps regarding transition which they feel are appropriate, and likely dramatically decreases the elevated risk of depression, suicide, and other social ills that trans people experience.
The worst possible course of action, which happened in North Carolina, is an approach that treats people as stuck with their sex at birth. The law requires people to use the bathroom that corresponds to the sex on their birth certificate even if they have had sex reassignment surgery or otherwise appear to others as their self-identified gender, i.e, “You have a beard but you were born female? Legally you should be using the ladies’ room.”
As a society, we have at last largely accepted the fact that some people are born homosexual and that it’s okay. Our willingness to take that step followed our recognition that some people simply can’t or shouldn’t have to conform to behavioral norms for sexual orientation.
It seems prudent to extend this recognition to the trans community, but just how far is this line to be extended? In addition to those who identify with the sex opposite that of their birth, there are some individuals who openly identify with both genders or neither.
Perhaps you have seen the video of this individual who was born a human female but identifies as a cat.
She is a clear example of someone who should not be afforded the same kind of accommodation as other members of the trans community. This girl (I am calling her a girl because I don’t feel it is beneficial to her to call her a cat) may suffer from a specific mental illness. This may just be extreme narcissism and an attempt to attract attention. However, this may also be the serious and rare disorder known as species dysphoria.
In my view, some self-proclaimed “gender queer” individuals are in a similar position. While some people are born with both male and female parts, identifying as both male and female or neither may otherwise be a call for attention, or it may be a way for naturally androgynous people to cope with a negative body image.
The majority of gender queer individuals, however, illustrate to me a larger problem — identifying as “gender queer” may simply reflect the stigma from not fitting into society’s perceptions of “male” or “female.”
Just as it is not beneficial to call someone with species dysphoria a cat, it may be a wrong-headed approach to accommodate someone’s pronoun request when that request is to be referred to as “xe” or “they” instead of “him” or “her.” The better approach is a long-term systematic strategy in which we collectively promulgate a view that accepts that males can have feminine qualities and do feminine things, and vice versa. Eliminating gender roles and gender expectations helps allow people to feel comfortable presenting themselves as male or female regardless of their interests or favorite activities, their social behavior, their appearance, or their sexual orientation. We can create a society in which “male” and “female” encompasses everyone and requires no one to change their behavior to fit into those categories.