Sentimental drivel that kicks you in the pants.
I'm sorry if this is adding to a slew of election-related posts on your friendslists. Whenever you get irked by people linking or saying the same thing, though, you should just think of me, with my 480-person friendslist, which I refuse to filter. Then you should laugh and laugh and laugh. Schadenfreude makes any irritating friendslist problem go away, right?
The above is to say that yes, I voted. There was no line, but since I am a feckless academic I was able to go at 9:30, when most sensible people have to be at work. Two districts within my ward vote at the same place, and there was a ten person line for the other ward; normally when I go to vote, the place is deserted, and the poll workers give me free food and hugs for showing up. I missed the hugs, but I did get a sticker.
---
When I walked out of my polling place, a woman was filming the street signs at the corner. "This is where we voted," she said, and panned down so that her two daughters could flash peace signs and grin at the camera.
No politician will save the world. No politician will be perfect. I did not have free rein to choose my candidate; as I said to Kuddles, "I know I'm going to be oppressed somehow, it's just a question of how nice the oppression's going to be." That's something I accept when I go into the booth. I know people who choose not to vote for that reason, and I understand that.
But if you've met me, you know that I do not like to be silent, or silenced. And I have to say, too, that there's something beautiful and worthwhile about the politician, however fallible, who kindled that woman's desire to commemorate doing her civic duty.
I don't believe in asking God for things, since I don't think God cares, much as I think God didn't endorse the hateful things that have been done in God's name. I do give thanks whenever I pray, for a certain basic human sweetness that becomes particularly visible in times of trial or promise. That sweetness will be there even if Obama loses this election. And as Obama said, "we have a lot of work to do"; this is always true, win or lose. My people -- such that I can say that -- survived Bowers v. Hardwick. We have all survived many things, and we have kept surviving. I have faith that it will still happen tomorrow, and that it will be a struggle to go beyond survival, no matter who is in office.
I recently watched an interview on WHYY with Dan Gottlieb. In the course of the interview, Gottlieb said that he was against hope. That is, he was against over-investment in some imagined tomorrow, the constant reiteration that "when [x] happens, then things will be okay." [x] can be losing thirty pounds, finding someone who loves you, earning enough money, having the right person in office. Let's try to do the work today, as much as we can with what we have, with no hand-wringing and no empty promises. C'mon, I'll give you a boost.
---
This explanation of why we still use the electoral college is cadged from an explanation that Pro gave me, since she is way more knowledgable than I:
Madison, in the Federalist papers number 39, really harps on the necessity of a mixture of state-based and population-based power in order to (essentially) address the diversity of America's population.
It's difficult to govern populations that are diverse along so many axes; on the one hand, it's easy to follow things as you've always done, but on the other, there's a sense that everyone will disagree about what is "natural" or "right."
With the electoral college, minority groups can actually have the same power as majority groups; that is, for example, a non-racist minority can outvote a racist majority, should it become necessary, while still contributing to the federal system of government. The electoral college addresses the relationship of the individual to the state, and the state to the nation.
Pro, please correct me if I've misstated.
---
Second edit: forthwritten's post here helped me think about this, and I really like Tangle perspective, as per usual.
The above is to say that yes, I voted. There was no line, but since I am a feckless academic I was able to go at 9:30, when most sensible people have to be at work. Two districts within my ward vote at the same place, and there was a ten person line for the other ward; normally when I go to vote, the place is deserted, and the poll workers give me free food and hugs for showing up. I missed the hugs, but I did get a sticker.
---
When I walked out of my polling place, a woman was filming the street signs at the corner. "This is where we voted," she said, and panned down so that her two daughters could flash peace signs and grin at the camera.
No politician will save the world. No politician will be perfect. I did not have free rein to choose my candidate; as I said to Kuddles, "I know I'm going to be oppressed somehow, it's just a question of how nice the oppression's going to be." That's something I accept when I go into the booth. I know people who choose not to vote for that reason, and I understand that.
But if you've met me, you know that I do not like to be silent, or silenced. And I have to say, too, that there's something beautiful and worthwhile about the politician, however fallible, who kindled that woman's desire to commemorate doing her civic duty.
I don't believe in asking God for things, since I don't think God cares, much as I think God didn't endorse the hateful things that have been done in God's name. I do give thanks whenever I pray, for a certain basic human sweetness that becomes particularly visible in times of trial or promise. That sweetness will be there even if Obama loses this election. And as Obama said, "we have a lot of work to do"; this is always true, win or lose. My people -- such that I can say that -- survived Bowers v. Hardwick. We have all survived many things, and we have kept surviving. I have faith that it will still happen tomorrow, and that it will be a struggle to go beyond survival, no matter who is in office.
I recently watched an interview on WHYY with Dan Gottlieb. In the course of the interview, Gottlieb said that he was against hope. That is, he was against over-investment in some imagined tomorrow, the constant reiteration that "when [x] happens, then things will be okay." [x] can be losing thirty pounds, finding someone who loves you, earning enough money, having the right person in office. Let's try to do the work today, as much as we can with what we have, with no hand-wringing and no empty promises. C'mon, I'll give you a boost.
---
This explanation of why we still use the electoral college is cadged from an explanation that Pro gave me, since she is way more knowledgable than I:
Madison, in the Federalist papers number 39, really harps on the necessity of a mixture of state-based and population-based power in order to (essentially) address the diversity of America's population.
It's difficult to govern populations that are diverse along so many axes; on the one hand, it's easy to follow things as you've always done, but on the other, there's a sense that everyone will disagree about what is "natural" or "right."
With the electoral college, minority groups can actually have the same power as majority groups; that is, for example, a non-racist minority can outvote a racist majority, should it become necessary, while still contributing to the federal system of government. The electoral college addresses the relationship of the individual to the state, and the state to the nation.
Pro, please correct me if I've misstated.
---
Second edit: forthwritten's post here helped me think about this, and I really like Tangle perspective, as per usual.