Asphalt allies, Vol. 1

Our country is set up under and around a massive asphalt grid. It seems to act like its own microcosm, with its own language and customs, or even like a rogue regime, with its own special legal status, where your vehicle is an extension of your person, where the ground is public but we all scoot around in our own private me-bubbles. Most of us deal with it on a daily basis, whether on foot, on bike, on board, or in car. This should allow for wicked empathy between people: it's one of the only things you may have in common with the public people milling about around you. And yet we not only let cultural mores of dominance and submission leak in through the panels, we seem to revel in them, amplify them, take them to their utmost extremes. Drivers hate walkers. Bikers loath cars. Pedestrians take the right-of-way they've traded for their protection and efficiency and wield it like a kite shield of invulnerability. Everyone's the victim, and everybody ELSE is to blame. Why don't we all just choose to give it up?

Of course, it really isn't that easy. I'm as guilty as the next guy when it comes to asphalt incompetency. I've forgotten to check for bikes when I'm driving. I've failed to stop at stop signs when I'm biking. I neglect to look both ways enough times and end up having to spring across the street instead of walking. And yet I get just as frustrated as my victims when someone around me does the same. 

I could add to the problem. I could, for instance, complain about the woman who cut me off not once, but twice, and then faked a left turn, scraping me off on a stoplight as I was driving home from class. I could find all sorts of things to bitch and moan about. But instead, I'm going to talk about something that made me happy. Instead, I'm starting the Asphalt Allies series!

I'm going to talk about bumper stickers!!! I am still slightly conflicted about this matter. I can see how it can be douchey and presumptuous. I can understand how they can be construed as covert symbols of dominance and aggression. Yet seeing as I have five stickers on my bumper, I clearly am veering towards the "approval" camp. I've got halfway decent reasons, too. For one, I think that any form of self-expression should be exercised. If it's socially acceptable to walk around wearing messages proclaiming love for your favorite band, political candidate, or social cause on your body, then it should be acceptable to slap those same expressions on your bumper. (Some would argue that such clothing isn't actually socially acceptable, and to them I offer a challenge to argue the point with me.)

Secondly, I think it takes at least some courage to stick your beliefs clearly and prominently on your most expensive possession and parade it around town. I don't think that bumper-sticker-related vandalism happens too often, but I definitely think a car is more of a target for a random act of criminality if it has bumper stickers. And, of course, the more extreme the bumper sticker, the more extreme the reaction. Don't see a lot of KKK bumper stickers, do you? (That might be the Midwesterner in me making assumptions, though...)

More than anything, though, I think that in the long run, the balance of emotions produced by bumper stickers seems to fall squarely in the "positive" realm. It is a very utilitarian equation, the one that ends in bumper stickers=good. Now, this could come from the fact that I'm currently living in a town that is very friendly to my beliefs and ideals. It could also be that people who feel the same way as I do about issues are more prone to putting bumper stickers on their cars, and they are more likely to put more than one on as well. However, it seems to me that the ire raised by bumper stickers one does not agree with is outweighed by the sense of camaraderie generated by stickers one does agree with. On most issues, regardless of the opinion one has, one will, on average, end a cruise around town feeling like ze is in the majority...or at least that there are people like hir out there, that ze is not alone.

Now, one might think that for someone with an unpopular position on a very polarized issue, this may not be the case. However, I think the positivity effect comes into play here. No doubt being exposed to an equal number of bumper stickers that are for or against one's beliefs will have an overall positive effect, as explained above. Even something like a 1::2 ratio of for::against bumper stickers will probably end up in one's favor. On top of this, though, I think that the less popular an opinion is, the greater the feelings of camaraderie when one sees one's view being expressed favorably. Conversely, the minority may end up using hir oppression as a source of power, turning the emotions invoked when seeing hir opponent's viewpoints being expressed into a validation of hir's own views. As John Stuart Mill would express as he argues for entirely unfettered freedom of expression, it is when we hear our opponents views being spoken aloud that we realize just how foolish they are, and how right are our own. 

So what does this mean, folks? If you have a passion, express it! Go buy a sticker and display it proudly! It will only make the world a happier place. Regardless of who you direct the camaraderie at, it will spray out at all who view it and give it more than a passing thought. Don't just be a boring, mindless drone. Express yourself! DO IT! Crawl out on that limb to show your fellow man what you're made of! Go out there and wear your heart on your sleeve! Just don't wear your nuts on your trailer hitch. Nobody wants to see that.

Blagojevich: Slimy, corrupt...racist?

He isn't any more so than most of the politicians involved in this whole scandal. Well...at least when it comes to that last count.

I think it's fair to say at this point in time that if Blagojevich (let's just call him Rod) somehow miraculously ends up innocent, he certainly won't be invited to sit on any ethics committees...or high society get-togethers. The man curses like a sailor, but you have to admire his candor! Still, one of the most troubling concerns in this whole scandal is that of (occasionally overt) racism.

When I first heard of Rod's refusal to step down and insistence upon completing his job as governor, I truly hoped that he wouldn't drag anyone else down with him, especially if it would be by appointing Obama's replacement before being exonerated. Instead, as we all know, Roland Burris is Rod's appointee. Now, this is all well and good, relatively speaking--except, of course, for the fact that Burris accepted. Does he not watch the news? Rod is being charged with conspiring to accept money from whoever he ultimately appoints, and now Burris is indignant that he not be seated as Senator before this scandal lifts? The man even went so far as to attempt to enter Congress to fill "his" seat, even after being told he would be given no consideration for the job, claiming, "My name is Roland Burris, the junior Senator from the State of Illinois. I was advised that my credentials were not in order."

So we've got one seemingly corrupt governor and one clueless potential junior Senator. Big deal. Democratic leaders were quick to point out the red flag that should jump up into everyone's mind in this situation and deal with it swiftly: every major Democratic player has said they would refuse his appointment. And up until a few days ago, it seemed like this decision would hold, and we would all have to wait for Blagojevich to step down--or perhaps be dragged away--from the lime light before the issue could be resolved.

Now it appears everyone's giving in, throwing up the white flag of surrender to expedite this process. Why, oh why didn't Burris respectfully decline, even if until the scandal had lifted?

His reasons are his own. What I'm most shocked by is that racism hasn't been brought to light in all of this. I understand the logic behind wanting to appoint a black man to fill an empty black man's seat, but when did race become an insurmountable issue in politics? Did we not just elect a black man to be our president? And whatever happened to electing the best man for the job? This wouldn't be such a big concern if it weren't for the fact that Danny Davis, a black man, was the first to be tapped by Rod. (Fortunately for Mr. Davis' career aspirations, he declined, though apparently not for scandal-related reasons.) Even further, that Jesse Jackson's name popped up in the criminal investigation as another potential appointee. What was Rod thinking? Does his Rolodex have a special section under A, for African American? Or would it be B, for Black? In any case, we can all take comfort that it'll be at least a few months before he gets to O for Oprah.

"I would ask you not to hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointor," he says. Ooof, that's a pretty racially charged L-word.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to see the obvious issues here. Blagojevich's selection of Burris, which came despite the urgings of Democrats in Illinois and Washington that he not appoint anyone to the seat while he remains under investigation, appeared intended to garner support from African Americans and improve his own political situation, while also making it difficult for Democrats in the nation's capital to oppose the appointment."

I don't doubt Burris' ability to perform the job adequately. But if the man was in his right mind, he would have seen this coming from a mile away and taken some maneuver or another to keep himself in the running while leaving his good name untarnished. I can't imagine what it would be like to take a job with all your coworkers questioning whether or not you paid to get there, not to mention whether or not you were there solely because of your race. Affirmative action, anyone?

The New American Politics: Ruling from the Middle

As I've suggested previously, this project has been a long time coming. It's not for no reason that I've finally gotten the inspiration to begin it. There were many factors involved: I'm going back to school to get my Associate's before enrolling at CSU, I'm going to be living with my parents and so am going to be trying as hard as I can to make friends and to keep myself busy when I get bored, I feel like I've got a solid core of friends...it seems like now is the time for change in my own life.

But there's one factor that stands out further than any: the presidential election. For years, I've been of a political viewpoint that was not shared by the man in charge. For years, all I could do was stare in agonized horror as our country steadily became more and more hated because of a man elected through a (clearly broken) system. The whole world did what they could to stop him, but alas. I was ashamed.

And I honestly feel that these feelings are not just strictly related to anyone's political affiliation. It's just the utter disregard for any opposing argument. It's the abuse. It's the dirty dealings and the under-the-table transactions. A Democrat as entrenched in the underbelly of the oil business and with as many sketchy associates as Bush did would make me feel the same way. Especially if he decided to wage a premature, open-ended, unwinnable war on top of all that.

This is all why I am so happy we've elected Barack Hussein Obama as our president. I fully believe in his desire to "reach across the aisle," as he so often put it, in an attempt to decrease the partisanship that keeps our government from functioning with any level of efficiency. I think it's an extreme gesture of bi-ness. I think the idea that almost half of Americans, during any given year, are not having their voices truly heard simply because they don't affiliate with the party in charge should be absolutely sickening to anyone who thinks about it. Do we honestly believe that half this nation is so different from us that their opinions don't matter until the year is divisible by four?

It seems a lot of people feel this way; I know I used to. I used to bash Republicans, praise Clinton, and argue lividly against the death penalty for fun. I was a textbook Liberal, through and through. I'm still pretty left-leaning, but time has taught me a lot of things since before I could vote. I realize that "the right" is not the enemy. They deserve their rights just as much as the rest of us. And they also deserve to have their voices heard.

Now, it is true that the balance has shifted this election, and my opinions are now in the majority, both of the populace and of the people wielding power. It's easy to talk about unifying people from such a position. But now, more than ever, I feel I need to make my voice heard. Now that we have a president whose mantra is "Yes, we can," who is pledging to at least try to unite the parties, we need to hold him to his word. We can't let the standards we hold our figures of authority to be compromised. He will enter the White House with a lot of damage to fix, but with perhaps more power than even Bush and Cheney were able to amass as they caused the damage.

So can we all pledge to work together? I know there are some issues on which certain people and groups simply will not budge, but I believe there are fewer of those than there are issues we agree on, or are at least capable of discussing and compromising and sacrificing for. All of you out there who I would consider peers, all you late-teens and 20-somethings, the coming four years could easily be our time to shine.

In my pre-election time at Grinnell College (in the Iowan city of the same name) there were signs all over the campus stating simply: "Our parents had the sixties. This is our time. Vote November 4th." I think it's pretty damn true! It's time we as one people, as one American cultural experience, tried our damndest to band together and make humanity better than it's ever been before. We can do it. We have the power.

The way I've decided to use my power is what you see before you. I'm spreading the word of bi-ness, Benny Appleseed style, in the hopes that the climate and conditions are just perfect to nurture great forests of knowledge. New knowledge. Old knowledge. Hard knowledge and happy knowledge. You and me and humanity knowledge.

But do you know what would make it all much more effective? If all of you were to contribute what you can. Simply participate. Leave your thoughts, donate your time, and maybe we'll soon find ourselves in a world that is more more tolerant of the middle ground.