Stump Lane
in the dirt since history began

Here are some “truths” about our democracy. Well… here are some sentiments about our democracy that are seemingly widely held, or at least, often expressed:

1. Citizens are responsible for keeping themselves accurately informed of the issues and candidates.
2. Citizens are ethically obligated to participate in the electoral process.
3. If one doesn’t participate in the electoral process, one has no justification for complaining about the results.

But here is what Your Montag wrote yesterday:

[Allow me, Dear Reader to use the weasel-words "some say" here, so I don’t have to hunt down a quote to back it up…]

Some even say that it is unethical to participate in such an undemocratic arrangement, thus legitimizing it as a ‘free and fair’ election. [Stump Lane Archives: Clean Elections]

This time around lets examine the possibility of replacing “some say,” with “I might say.” (“I” meaning “Your Montag.”)

Rather than blindly accepting those three “truths” mentioned above, let’s take another look:

1. Citizens are responsible for keeping themselves accurately informed of the issues and candidates. — Yes.
   If one is going to vote, or otherwise participate in governing, then one should heed this sort of ‘buyer beware’ rule. And while it’s worth mentioning that one needn’t achieve full or complete understanding of the issues of the day in order to formulate an opinion, it is also probably worth mentioning that it’s a good idea to actually investigate and think about a particular issue before one participates in activism— whether that activism takes the form of voting, or signing a petition, or sending a message to those in power. You know, to make one’s activism meaningful.
2. Citizens are ethically obligated to participate in the electoral process. — No.
   In fact, when a responsible citizen comes to the realization that the electoral process is not truly representative of the best interests of the populous, it may actually become unethical to participate in, and help legitimize, such a process.
3. If one doesn’t participate in the electoral process, one has no justification for complaining about the results. — Again, no.
   The act of living in and accepting the benefits of our society— governed as it is by the institutions set forth in the Constitution —implies each individual’s right, nay responsibility, to monitor, steer, and, yes, even complain about our leaders, whether an individual participates in the electoral rites or not.

The two major parties in the United States have taken hold of the process. They have the power. They make the rules. They write the campaign finance rules and decide who is allowed to participate in presidential debates, for instance. They will never make a rule or decision that might run counter to the preservation of their power.

The “truths” discussed here— at least numbers two and three —seem that they might not amount to a truth at all, but rather a simulacrum of democracy: nurtured and perpetuated by those in power, and instilled in their subjects. Their subjects are our friends and family who, with good intentions, urge us to participate; but only within the narrow boundaries set out by those already in power. They are the friends and family (and I’ll admit I was among them not all that long ago, myself) who urge us to participate, but warn us against voting the ‘third way.’

How can one effect change, if forced to operate within such tight and strictly regimented constraints? If one is not allowed to effect change— or attempt to —can that situation be rightfully considered true democracy?*

* In this case, “representative democracy,” responsive to the needs and desires of The People; envisioned and passed-on by forefathers and Civics teachers throughout US history.

[It's not about liberalism/progressivism specifically, but let's add this one on to the Series of Indeterminate Length in which Your Montag lays out my political philosophy and opens it up to criticism by commenters that don't exist as yet.]

1. I’m Deranged — David Bowie
2. Roads — Portishead
3. It Takes Time to Build — Beastie Boys
4. The Gloaming (Softly Open Our Mouths in the Cold.) — Radiohead
5. A New Career in a New Town — David Bowie
6. Higher — The Cardigans
7. Moondance — Van Morrison
8. Romeo and Juliet — Dire Straits
9. Ultraworld Probe Seven Into the Fourth Dimension — The Orb
10. Monkey Gone to Heaven — Frank Black
11. Fluorescences — Stereolab

Bonus #12: Here to Go (Go Mix Version) — Devo

Not scored because Your Montag is apparently incapable objectivity.

I’ve alluded to it in this space before: if you believe that we are so deeply divided along party lines, that our leaders can’t possibly work together successfully, you might take a look at how effectively the two-and-only-two party political system is protected by those in power who were put there by the two political parties.

Case in point.

First Your Montag should acknowledge two — what may seem at first — contradictory views I hold:

1. The financing of elections is flawed.
2. Maine’s Clean Election law is flawed.

Indeed, money buys way too much influence with our leaders. However, Clean Elections — Version x.0 beta, isn’t the answer.

Lawmakers are looking to upgrade the Clean Elections system in Maine. Here is the lead paragraph of an article on the debate:

Maine taxpayers gave gubernatorial candidates more than $3 million for campaigns last year. Just imagine what the cost might have been if more than four candidates had qualified for money from the state’s Clean Election Fund. [Portland Press Herald: Election funding may get stricter]

And imagine what the cost might have been if the incumbent candidate, Democrat John Baldacci hadn’t gamed the system by letting donors— (I believe the Democratic Governors Association played a large role here, if I remember correctly) —outside his campaign spend the advertising dollars, thus limiting the matching funds paid out to his Clean Elections opponents. The result of this being that he, the Dem candidate, had plenty of television ads and message proliferation; and the Republican candidate— who was a Clean Election beneficiary but also got help from the Republican Governors Association, (if I remember correctly) —likewise enjoyed decent television ad time and message proliferation; while the other Clean Elections candidates, (a Green and an Independent,) languished with relatively minuscule television budgets and suffered in the name/message proliferation department.

See how that works?

So, yes. The Clean Elections law needs to be overhauled. No, it isn’t because it costs taxpayers $3 million every fourth year in Gubernatorial campaigns. (What’s that amount to in a $6.7 billion/year state budget, really?) What of the changes being discussed now? Your Montag will be surprised if they don’t do exactly what opponents of the proposed changes are paraphrased as saying in the article:

…tougher rules would disenfranchise independent candidates, who lack a party apparatus to help them qualify, and give political parties a stranglehold on the electoral system.

See how that works?

And here’s a little side-bar for you, the grassroots Dems who told me, “A vote for LaMarche (the Green candidate) is a vote for Woodcock (the Republican candidate.)” Or to make this post a little more relatable to the non-Mainers, “A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.” Or to make this post a little more relatable to non-liberals, “A vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton.”

The answer to all three of these statements is the same: “No it isn’t.”

[Rage continued below the fold.] (more…)

Don’t Stand in the Soup, Jovial Bob Stein

In the formative years of Your Montag’s, er… “subtle” sense of humor, Jovial Bob Stein was there with advice like this, on dating:

Asking someone for a date isn’t really that hard — if you know the correct and polite way to go about it. I’m surprised that the method you have been using [tripping a girl as she walks by and saying, "How about it?"] hasn’t worked. But since it hasn’t, here is a list of ways to ask for a date that should bring better results:

1. “Hey — like, know what I mean?”
2. “You don’t know me, but would you like to go to Venezuela with me on Saturday?”
3. “I’m willing to give you a break and let you buy me dinner Friday night.”
4. “I’ve tried 16 other people and none of them would go with me to the school dance on Friday. How about you?”
5. “I don’t believe you’re as dull as everyone says you are. How about a date?”
6. “I’ll stop poking you with this stick if you’ll go out with me.”
7. “If you’re not busy on Friday, maybe you’d like to come help me clean the spit valve on my trombone.”

(more…)

Montag, (yes,) over at I Miss Fafblog, Spot! reports:

Many US residents are beginning to notice the proliferation of Star Wars themed mailboxes. The boxes, decorated as the heroic and memorable R2-D2, commemorate the tri-decadial celebration of the first Rebel victory against the oppressive Galactic Empire.

Reaction to the droided-out boxes has been mixed, though.

Through a series of robotic chirps, beeps and whistles, semi-famous droid R5-D4 told I Miss Fafblog, Spot! “It’s troubling that the United States Postal Service, with this campaign, is willing to perpetuate the unrealistic physical ideals that young droids come to feel they must live up to.” D4 went on to say that the emphasis placed on round-headedness is harmful, and discriminatory against conically-headed astromechs.

D4 is herself a conically-headed droid, a spokesman for R2-D2 said. “R5-D4 is a cone head with a bad motivator. She’s not even an R2 unit! Everybody knows the 5th gen Astros were lemons!” Said Month Kurot, Noscur of the public relations firm Newo, which represents D2. “I don’t think the real issue here is how droids are portrayed in the media. More likely some sort of personal vendetta on Ms. D4′s part. Mr. D2 is quite comfortable with his portrayal in the media. There is no victim here.”

In the past, when asked about D4, R2-D2 has chirped, “She always conducts herself very professionally. Very pleasant to work with. I have the utmost respect [for her.]“

This is the 700th post at Stump Lane.

Of course “all options are on the table!” If they weren’t on the table, they wouldn’t be “options,” by definition.

That nuclear missile in the corner? It will still be there whether you say you would use it or not.

So, constantly reminding everyone that “all options are on the table,” is an act of… well… [see title of post.]

Bait Bucket

(more…)

…To Prison!

Here’s a quick post that will take no time/effort on Your Montag’s part, which is good. (See previous post.)

It seems people are now calling for the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales because of abuses of administrative subpoenas or “national security letters” under the PATRIOT act, and what appear to be politically motivated firings of federal prosecutors. (Feh! Political hackery! Now that’s outrageous!)

From newer to older, here’s what we’ve written about our illustrious Attorney General, who Your Montag feels should not only be run out of town, but prosecuted:

• Anybody Else Have a Problem With the Head of the Department of Justice and Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the Federal Government, the Attorney General, Shilling In Defense of Potentially Unlawful Activities Undertaken by the Federal Government?
• News from May 9, 2005: When Big G said, “Congress intended a very high bar here in order to be prosecuted for engaging in torture.”
• To the shit listers, Now’s your chance to partially make up for what you did. And by that I mean ‘your chance to investigate and prosecute’; not merely ‘call for resignation’; though that’s a start. Baby steps, right?
• Dear Senator, Why didn’t you just listen to me in the first place? Nimrods.
• Do my dirtywork, Scapegoat! Big G gets a passing mention in this post about how a culture of torture was fostered at the highest levels of Our government.

And if that isn’t enough, there is more to be found. If you were to search this site for keyword “Gonzales,” here is what you would find.

Out in meatspace, time is kicking Your Montag’s ass with extreme prejudice. It is a cycle I only hope to break out of in the next 14 years or so. In the short term, it’s going to be especially punishing over the next two weeks. The daily grind is now taking up approximately 26 hours of my time a day. I’ll post when I can, but things will likely be sketchy here for the next few days.

Here’s what’s on my mind that I may or may not ever have time to develop:

• The idea of a Giuliani presidency scares the bejeepers out of me. (And yes, I think it’s possible that things could possibly get worse, presidency wise, than they are now. Like, if someone smarter, with greater authoritarian tendencies, takes up the reigns of this new unprecedented presidential power. You know: police-state-stuff.)
• I wrote about a third of a post, Against Sexism in Our Political Discourse, which I couldn’t manage to finish in time for ‘Blog Against Sexism Day’ last Thursday.
• I still have a problem with standardized testing as the almost exclusive means of evaluating edumacation. Things seem to get worser and worser in this department, as it looks like our local schools’ “literacy” curriculum is going to end up creating a “Writing Standard” based mainly on mastery of the fucking soulless Five Paragraph Essay formula. (I hope to one day write a five paragraph essay on Why the Five Paragraph Essay Formula is SHIT.)
• I think there is something up with congressional districts, whereby they are set up in such a way that if Republicans were to win all the ones they should, they could garner a vast majority of the seats in Congress, without all the mess and bother of having to win the popular vote. Assuming electoral politics is worth participating in and preserving, this doesn’t seem right. (At least I’d hoped to look into that one day.)
• Badiou, Alain. Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil. — Best. Book. EVAR. But I need to do some more reading and report back to Fehlleistungen— if not you too, Dear Reader —On the Development of Transfinite Set Theory, or at least on whatever feeble sense my feeble mind can make of it, if any, with a little reading. (I somehow doubt this subject will be as accessible as the brilliant essay on Ethics. (Not a five paragraph essay, by the way.))
• Got a letter from the GOP the other day, opened it and read it, it said they were suckas. Well it was an email, and the subject line was, “Master and Commander.” (Guess who.) Anyway, there was a point in there I wanted to ridicule address.
• I miss Spalding Gray. I understand his wife is putting together a show of readings of some of his unreleased work, and that there is a documentary film about him in the works.
• There is more, but I’m not going to go into anymore of it here. This whiny ‘I don’t have time to post’ post has already taken too much time. (Which I don’t have.)

Dear Reader, if you are reading this— and by definition, you are —and you get around to writing about any of the above before I do, holler. We’ll post a link to your website, or if you don’t have a blog, we’ll consider posting it here if you like.

Your Montag will also be neglecting my posting duties over to I Miss Fafblog, Spot! but still, I will do what I can. Honest.

The Setting Sun, Osamu Dazai

(more…)

Let’s not pretend that War is anything other than what it is: The ultimate weapon is not one that destroys the infrastructure without killing any people. The ultimate weapon is one that kills all the people while leaving the infrastructure in working order.