Voting into the Void

But now, I’m left with a basket of undesirables – but I have to chose. So here’s the part where I weigh my shitty, shitty options.

Advertisements
Thoughts on making my vote count when I know it won’t count…

If you’re reading this you probably already know that I live in Washington State. As such, because of the electoral college system, my exercise in democracy this November matters very little in the Presidential race. Save some natural disaster Hillary Clinton will secure our state’s electoral college votes. So, why bother voting in this race at all? (Note that I’m not talking about avoiding the down ballot contests here).

This is actually a question worth consideration. What are the good reasons to vote, and do they outweigh the reasons to not vote? First, I want to tackle the latter. The sole reason I can imagine possessing for not voting would be for an extreme aversion to all of the candidates on the ballot. However, even the marginal candidates have something to offer, so this line of thinking quickly dissipates.

But are there good reasons to vote? Well, if I don’t vote I’m essentially abdicating my responsibility to my fellow citizens. I would become a “free rider” that would reap the benefits of an institution that I had no part in holding up. Maybe it is the guilt I still carry as a result of an upbringing heavily colored by the Midwestern Protestant work ethic, but to me an abstention from voting seems almost unethical.

So now to my choices at hand. I have six choices on my ballot here in Washington, and not one of which am I excited about. For the first time in my life I registered as a Democrat in order to cast my vote in the Democratic caucus for Senator Bernie Sanders. This was a candidate that I firmly believed in and could actually get excited about. But now, I’m left with a basket of undesirables – but I have to chose. So here’s the part where I weigh my shitty, shitty options.

Donald Trump:

Pros: Seems to understand that our trade deals have left American workers competing against countries that don’t play by the same rules and can undercut labor and environmental costs so severely that our economy keeps moving toward a Walmart economy. Also may have a halfway decent student loan proposal.

Cons: The man is a walking excrement hydrant that brags about sexually assaulting women. He is a racist, a sexist, and is drumming up xenophobic mania among his supporters in a way that must be labeled as fascist, or at least neo-fascist. He has bribed public officials, ran a sham “university”, and will soon be subject of a trial in which he is accused of raping a 13 year old girl. He doesn’t understand why we can’t use our nuclear weapons. Despite decades of evidence to the contrary, he still believes that trickle down economics is a viable model for the country. He mistakenly believes we (he) can negotiate down the national debt. I could go on, but you likely already know the rest. I wouldn’t let this man manage an Arby’s, and it would be incredibly irresponsible for any thinking person to willfully elect a weak, thin-skinned, megalomaniac such as this to our highest office. There is zero chance I vote for Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton:

Pros: Wants to keep our government intact. Thinks things like the EPA and Department of Education are worth keeping around. Wants to fix the ACA by implementing a public option. Wants to put in place training for displaced coal workers. Understands climate change is real and is a threat. Isn’t likely to roll back the civil rights gains made in the last decade. Might be willing to listen to progressives.

She has a good chance of getting elected, which means that the type of reforms I’d like to see take place have a slightly better chance of being enacted.

Cons: Her position on the Dakota pipeline is a complete joke. She will continue to implement neo-liberal policies as she has for decades. I don’t believe she will fight for real progress towards mitigating climate change.I don’t believe she understands the Black Lives Matter movement, nor does she see the problems the movement is so clearly articulating. She unequivocally supports Israel and will look the other way when it commits war crimes because she refuses to take a moral stand against countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia because of the “enemy of my enemy” policy we seem all too eager to cling to. She was endorsed by Henry Kissinger, a man who will never (though he should) stand trial for his own war crimes.

I also believe that she helped cover up her husband’s first rape accuser (though most if not all of the others don’t seem credible). I still don’t understand why she has stuck by such a sleazeball.

Voting for Hillary is essentially voting for 4 more years of the Obama administration, though I have a feeling it will be a much more hawkish one. It would also send the message to Donald Trump and his supporters that a large majority of Americans reject his brand of deplorable demagoguery. But would anyone notice my one vote?

Gary Johnson

Pros: He’s neither a Democrat nor a Republican is what you might expect me to say but that’s a statement with no weight behind it. There’s nothing inherently wrong with identifying with either of those two parties as plenty of capable and responsible politicians do.

I will say that his desire to see the US as less of a work police is enticing. We could use a dramatic cut back in our military spending (while still being responsible for the defense of our country) and its influence around the world which often fuels the flames of terrorism that it is supposed to extinguish.

Also, I generally hate the GOP. Today’s Republican party is absolutely a reflection of people like Trump and Ted Cruz. And by voting for Johnson, I could help get their party to the 5% needed to qualify for federal matching funds. Meaning that a vote for Johnson might mean even fewer votes for the GOP candidate in 2020. That’s a long-game spoiler but given the options…

Cons: He’s a libertarian (I can’t wait till some jackass tells me he isn’t a “real” libertarian because a he thinks driver’s licenses are a good idea) which means a host of awful things if put into practice. And as John Oliver recently showed, his fixation with reducing the size of government leaves all sorts of practical implications up in the air (such as his wanting to close the Dept. of Commerce but not realizing that includes the patent office). He doesn’t seem to understand the government he rails against. And can’t convince even 10% of voters that he’s the right guy for the job.

Jill Stein

Pros: She would fight hard for a stronger minimum wage. She would fight hard for climate policy. She would fight hard for a number of causes that I do believe in. And like voting for Gary Johnson, my one vote would get the Green Party closer to the 5% needed to help them in future elections.

Cons: Her foreign policy is kind of a disaster. Her stance on Syria is extremely troubling. She doesn’t seem to have concrete plans for her proposals. Also, we live in America where there is a Senate and House of Representatives where she would have exactly ZERO members of her own party to support her. Democrats might be on her side, but do we really think she could get her plans through Congress somehow, even if by some miracle she was elected?

The Green Party has had some minor success in getting down ballot candidates elected. But that’s where their focus needs to be at this point. They need a coalition and strong Congressional support in order to help a green POTUS enact the type of legislation they desire.

Yes, there are a couple of other alternatives, but none of which have even the slightest chance of making it to 2% of the popular vote. And yes, I already understand the duopoly and how our lawmakers and media have rigged the system against outside voices. I get all of that. But my one vote only has so much opportunity to do anything, to mean anything in a country of 300+ million.

And this post isn’t to tell you who to vote for. That’s up to you (but really please don’t vote for that fucking asshole Trump). Maybe you live in a swing state and your vote might really help decide if we do or don’t end up with an orange toddler for a president. You have your own choice to make, as do I. These aren’t the options I had hoped for, but they’re the options I have. And I feel that not voting just isn’t a choice that I can willfully make.
Cheers.

Of course we won’t forget

Starting late last night I saw a lot of people changing their Facebook profile pictures to some sort of 9/11 commemorative logo, and lots of the “Never Forget” images have started appearing. I have to wonder why anyone needs this reminder.
You never see people of the WW2 generation carrying signs asking us to never forget D-Day. Our history books have not erased Lexington and Concord, Wounded Knee, the Iranian hostage crisis, or Waco from their pages, nor has time allowed them to slip from our collective memories even as the generations that lived through these events have long since passed. You don’t need to carry a sign saying “Never forget D-Day!!!!” because….

IT WAS FUCKING D-DAY. Holy shit, it was a terrible, terrible tragedy that altered the course of world history, geography, and touched hundreds of millions of lives. Just like 9/11. It was one of those events where people will always remember where they were. We don’t need t-shirts or commemorative plates or coffee mugs made in China to recall what happened that day. Thirteen years later and you can’t go a full week without someone invoking 9/11 on the news or in popular culture.

So, maybe instead of “don’t forget” we go with “don’t abuse”.

Don’t abuse the memory of that day in order to show me how “patriotic” you are. Waving a bigger flag and yelling ‘MERICA!!! at the top of your lungs doesn’t make you more patriotic. (There’s also not *one* way to show your patriotism).

Don’t abuse the memory of that day by invoking 9/11 as a way to end a conversation.

Don’t abuse the memory of that day by using what happened as political fodder. You are not a better politician or contributor to the national dialogue because you show concern for the victims of 9/11 and their families. Everyone does. That you do so with a bullhorn just makes you look like an asshole.

Don’t abuse the memory of that day to sell your message/merchandise/self/network or for a promotion.

Don’t abuse the memory of that day to try to sell the public on an unnecessary and unjustifiable war.

Don’t abuse the memory of that day for an applause line or to get facebook likes. It makes you a grade-A asshole.

Don’t abuse the memory of that day by removing it from its historical and global context.

It is impossible for anyone that lived through that day to forget about 9/11. It’s one of those events that we will never outlive and will never disappear from our collective lexicon. There are ways to honor the memory without trying to be the loudest asshole in the room, shoving your fake patriotism in everyone’s face. You might start with placing the day’s events in their proper historical context, or by drowning out those idiots following Alex Jones that still claim it was a false flag attack or the New World Order or other similar bullshit. Just please save me your holier-than-thou faux patriotic nonsense. It belittles what occurred and relegates what should be a greater conversation into the bargain bin of slogans, catch phrases and knee-jerk reactions.

Cheers.

Not much of a choice

We like to pretend like there is a real choice in politics, but there isn’t. Because of decades of gerrymandering safe districts, the two-parties have infected national politics with the old stereotypes of entrenched ward bosses with near lifetime appointments in both houses of Congress.

Our Presidential choices aren’t much better either. In the primary races, candidates pathetically pander to a small fraction of their party’s base that is ideologically driven and has the loudest bullhorn, no matter how much of the party they truly represent. After a candidate is chosen, they then spend the next few months and hundreds of millions of dollars pandering to just 4-6 million “undecided/swing” voters. These people largely vote with their pocketbooks in mind and are far less independent than they would have you believe.

There are, of course, the “3rd” party candidates that run too. Occasionally they are successful but usually at city-council and state legislative levels. People will tell you that you’re throwing your vote away when you vote for them, and that the mere fact that they dare to challenge the status quo of the 2 party duopoly makes them a potential “spoiler”, which is like labeling someone as being a leper.

It isn’t any wonder that people are generally fed up with politics today.

I heard this one today: “Romney and Obama are both stranded in the middle of the ocean. Who gets saved? America.”

But is it really just an either-or, two sides to the same coin choice? Looking at my options, I really don’t think so. I stand firm that I’m a limited-government type of guy, but not in a rigid Ron Paulite type of way. I’d much rather the government left me alone to make my own choices and didn’t tax me to pay for land wars in Asia to feed the coffers of plutocrats. But when asked to vote Republican, 9.9 times out of 10 I have to say no.

You can chose to blame some of what I’m about to say as one-off crazies or individual lunacy that doesn’t reflect the party as a whole. But I call bullshit. While I’m all for smaller, more efficient government, voting for a Republican on the federal level means that I support the following:

Trickle-down economics – this is of course the theory that if the already wealthy just had a bit more money and were burdened with taxes less, that they would just hire all of the unemployed people out there and the economy would have room to grow. We know this doesn’t work having tried it on more than once occasion in the last century. Currently we’re in a demand-slump. Meaning that it is weak consumer demand that is slowing down the economic recovery. The rich spend less of their income, while the middle and lower class tends to spend more of it. Until those people are spending more, we won’t see continued growth. And if wages continue to be stagnant, we’re going to be living in a Walmart economy for decades.

Science denial – Only 6% of scientists associate with the GOP. Why? Maybe because a plurality believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old and that we came about from the literal garden and a magical talking snake that told us knowledge was a bad thing. Or that they deny the very well established science on global climate change.

Crazy – The GOP has enacted or tried to enact laws that force a women to have a vaginal probe stuck in her if she’s considering an abortion. One of their reps thought that women couldn’t get pregnant if she was “legitimately raped”. A one time front-runner for POTUS claimed that the HPV vaccine made people retarded. A majority of republicans believe that the current President of the US was either born outside of the US or is a Muslim.

Imperialism – Many want to go to war with Iran preemptively, ignoring a decade of a similar failed policy in the US. Paul Ryan calls for an annual increase in military spending – indefinitely (with seemingly no way to pay for it).

Destroying the Environment – Republicans have even included it in some of their official platforms that the dissolution of the EPA is one of their priorities, as well as repealing the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. A vast majority don’t accept the overwhelming evidence that humans are the primary cause of global climate change.

 

I could go on, but I won’t. I could also point out stupid shit democrats do like react to everything bad that happens with a ban, such as the large soda ban that has taken place in New York. Their constant lip service to responsible spending while never (on their own) tackling the long-term problems we will face when it comes to entitlement spending and the growing national debt. Yes, I know exactly how we got to the mess we’re in now, but dealing with it is a whole other issue.

So, when given the choice between someone that understands science and someone that thinks rape babies don’t happen, or given the choice between someone that understands that unions have been a positive impact on the middle class for the last century versus someone that still believes in the myth of trickle-down economics, I generally, reluctantly, raise a blue flag.

 

 

*I’m drafting a post on alternative choices, as well as a sort of meta-post on where I personally stand on the important issues of the day. As always, constructive comments and suggestions more than welcome. Cheers.

The government which governs best…

Just yesterday I was listening to NPR and they were talking about how President Obama had recommended combining several government agencies into one, thereby reducing government waste, bureaucracy, costs to taxpayers, and government workforce. The agencies involved are all related to the Commerce Department and are all business related. The Commerce Department itself would cease to exist, but this plan actually provides for a practical solution as to what would happen to the department and it’s functions after the re-alignment of agencies, something that libertarian and conservative ideologues like Ron Paul and Rick Perry have yet to provide.

This should be an almost no-brainer, depending upon all of the particulars of course. I’m a huge advocate for these types of moves, and if successful I’d like to see more of it. For instance, we could combine the EPA and Department of Agriculture with the Department of the Interior. We could merge the Departments of Transportation and Energy, and I’m sure there are other agencies out there that we could combine to be more efficient, intrude upon our liberty less, and function as a valuable service for citizens and business owners. (I’d also do away with Homeland Security altogether but that’s another post…)

Maybe this has always been on the President’s agenda, since he did talk about this in his last State of the Union address. Maybe it’s a new idea born of general concern for the behemoth of beaurocracy that our government has become. Or maybe he’s just doing it because it’s good politics in an election year.

Personally, I don’t give a shit why he’s doing it. Just do it. Really, it’s a great idea.

Of course, our Republican friends might not agree. No doubt they’ll use this as another political football, even though we all know if it was a Republican President proposing this, it would have received nearly unanimous approval. I’m eager to see where this actually ends up going, and maybe Washington State could take a page out of this book. I’m looking at you, Departments of Ecology and Department of Natural Resources.

 

 

 

Time to make progress

 
via Treehugger

This is a picture of a dead bird. This bird died because it ate all of that plastic you see there. Plastic that you and I threw away, and ended up in the ocean, or washed up on the shore. This bird doesn’t know any better, because evolution in our feathered friends hasn’t had time to adjust to the industrial revolution. Evolution has also failed to equip this bird with the ability to digest any of this plastic, so it just sits inside the bird, and the bird will either starve or hemorrhage or choke to death.

 

These are the stomach contents from a dead sea turtle. Again, a ton of fucking plastic. Chances are, the turtle found the plastic here:

This is a small part of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a swirling mass of floating plastic and other garbage that is twice the size of Texas in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. This is where my trash ends up. This is where your trash ends up. We’ve made this garbage patch.

This is another dead fucking bird. It died due to the oil that spilled in the Gulf of Mexico last year from the BP spill. That oil was being pumped for you and for me. We were going to use it to get to work, heat our homes, make our blue jeans, and to create a bunch of plastic, the same type of plastic the bird and the turtle died from.

This is one of the ways in which we source the oil that killed the bird and produced the plastic that created the trash that killed the other bird and that fucking turtle whose stomach contents are pictured above. We just fucking take it from other people. We make up all kinds of excuses for war and our international relationships and dealings, but it so much of it comes down to securing our unlimited access to oil and the profis that oil will afford a select few.

 

This is natural gas, and it is what some people are proposing we use to help get us off of oil. This is a picture of someone lighting their god damned drinking water on fire, because of the practice of hydraulic fracking for natural gas. Fracking allows natural gas to leak into the wells and aquifers that people use for drinking water, agriculture, and farming. Then the water is pretty much ruined forever. Though this is a pretty kick ass party trick. If you’re throwing a ” I can’t drink my fucking water any more” party, that is.

Meanwhile, while we’re burning all these fossil fuels, we’re making the Earth warmer. “Isn’t that a good thing?’ a total idiot might ask? No, it isn’t. One of the effects it is having is on the forests in British Colombia. “Who cares, because it’s only Canada?” you might ask? Well, that’s also something a complete idiot would ask. All those trees in the picture above aren’t supposed to be that color. They are brown and red because they are infested with bark beetles. Those bark beetles are experiencing warmer, shorter winters thanks to global warming, and that means that their offspring aren’t dying off during due to frigid temperatures, and their population is exploding. These trees are part of a system that forms an enormous carbon sink. But because they are dying, that carbon can’t be stored there. Which creates more warming. And more warming will cause more severe weather. So you’ll probably want to turn up the heater a bit more in the winter depending on where you live. And you’ll want to turn up the A/C a bit more in the summer. And that’ll require a bit more energy, which will end up using more oil.

Please, please do at least one thing today to change this. And then do it again tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that…

One thing you might even do is write to your representative. Let them know that the EPA needs to be able to regulate greenhouse gases, including CO2. While you’re at it, let them know that you don’t want mercury, sulfur dioxide, and other particulates in the air you breathe.

Just do something, stick with it, and make progress. We need it.

“…progress,
man’s distinctive mark alone,
Not God’s, and not the beast’s;
God is, they are,
Man partly is,
and wholly hopes to be”                     ~ Robert Browning Hamilton
 
 
Cheers.

The steeper bill to pay

The bill that House Republicans are proposing that will set the budget through the end of the fiscal year (Sept ’11) “loads up every piece of the far-right social agenda in one bill, from restricting a woman’s right to choose to preventing government from protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink.” – quote from as Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo. in Huff Post today. While I find many of the proposals distasteful, it is the ones concerning the environment that I would like to draw your attention to. As some of you reading this know, I’m currently in school, pursuing a degree in Environmental Policy and Planning. These issues are important to me, and often I’m shocked that there is so little regard paid to them.

I found a list of the environmental riders on the budget bill at the Sietch Blog. You can read them here, and there is a pdf version here. My thanks to the writers there for posting this. I’ll list just a couple of the ones that I found particularly appalling:

Section 1746: Taking Away EPA’s Authority to Enforce the Clean Air Act – states that zero funds may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce or promulgate any regulation related to the emissions of greenhouse gases due to concerns regarding climate change. This far reaching legislation prevents EPA from regulating carbon pollution and protecting Americans from the impacts of climate change. This section stops EPA from requiring new power plants, oil refineries, and other major new sources of carbon pollution to begin reducing their carbon emissions. It also prevents EPA from setting minimum federal standards for power plants and oil refineries, and severely interferes with EPA’s permitting process for new or expanded facilities. In addition, this section prevents the public from learning how much carbon pollution is actually being emitted by the largest polluters. This legislation ties EPA’s hands and allows carbon pollution to continue or even increase unabated – endangering public health, food and water supplies, wildlife habitat, species, forests and coastlines throughout our nation.

Section 1747: Blocking EPA Efforts to Clarify the Scope of the Clean Water Act – halts the EPA’s ongoing effort to make clear which waters remain protected by the Clean Water Act in the wake of confusing court decisions and subsequent Bush administration policy. This provision leaves millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of streams without clear Clean Water Act protection. These streams provide at least part of the drinking water for 117 million Americans. It jeopardizes EPA’s ability to enforce the law against oil spills and waste dumping in these waters.

 Section 4008: Limiting Enforcement of the Cement Kiln Air Toxics Standard – EPA is prohibited from using any funds to implement or enforce a health standard to control mercury and other pollutants from cement plants. Cement plants are the third leading source of man-made mercury emissions and have evaded controls prescribed under the Clean Air Act for over 13 years. EPA finalized these life-saving standards in September 2010 with a compliance deadline of September 2014. These overdue standards will save 2,500 lives, prevent 1,000 heart attacks, and reduce 130,000 missed days of school and work each year, according to EPA estimates. EPA also projects that this rule would save $18 billion in health costs just from reductions of fine particulate matter. Defunding implementation of this critical reduction of mercury, lead, particulate matter and other hazardous pollutants will not remove any regulatory obligations. In fact, this amendment deprives states and cement manufacturers from getting technical assistance and support in developing compliance plans. Barring EPA from providing critical guidance for this protective health standard puts the public at risk and leaves industry without critical compliance input.

 Section 4015: Blocking EPA from Regulating Emissions from Stationary Sources – issues a “stop-work” order to the EPA for any regulation of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, or perfluorocarbons from stationary sources for any reason, including their impacts on ozone, climate change, or any other public health threat. The broad impacts of this amendment, therefore, include blocking work underway to address dangerous carbon dioxide pollution; a de facto construction ban on power plants and factories; interference with the

Renewable Fuel Standard; preventing EPA from implementing a three-year study of biomass greenhouse gas emissions; interference with the EPA’s acid rain program; preventing enforcement of rules covering emissions of HFCs and perfluorocarbons from refrigeration and other equipment.

This stop-work order would accomplish nothing other than to ensure that more dangerous pollution is dumped into the air and that U.S. companies fall behind in the global competition for clean energy markets.

The rest of the list is just as disgusting. Everything from defunding NOAA to gutting funding for important studies and our involvement in the IPCC. Many of these measures will not only create conditions of unparalleled environmental destruction, but cost thousands of jobs, and directly (and indirectly) impact the health of tens of thousands (or more), and the potential to contaminate the drinking water of hundreds of millions.

 

This is all being done in the name of controlling the deficit. But I doubt that the motivation behind such actions is really just fiscal responsibility. For whatever reason, it has become the party line of the Republicans that any government proposals that are aimed at benefiting the environment are somehow inherently evil. While I don’t doubt that this meme was started in the interests of businesses not wanting to spend a few extra bucks complying with environmental standards that protect the air we breathe and the water we drink, I believe this new round of cuts is born out of something else entirely. It’s almost as if the new partly line is simply “fuck the liberals, let’s pass reactionary legislation that will drum up hysteria and unite our base”. They’re even bringing back styrofoam into the congressional lunchroom. Yeah, styrofoam, that substance that has been banned in several cities and is toxic throughout its entire millennial life span. Oh, and there is that state rep in Montana that is introducing legislation that would declare global warming beneficial to the welfare and and business climate of his state. The Republicans are basically taking their ideological positions to the extreme, in an effort to gut government of any type of power to protect its citizens from the dangers that industry can impose upon us.

Unfortunately, Republicans are living in the delusion of “now”. All of their proposed cuts to environmental spending are looking at the short-term deficit impact. None of these cuts address the long-term economic impact (hint: it isn’t good) nor do they address the long-term health-effects, or the long-term environmental impacts (which will impact the other two). Republicans love talking about how we can’t pass the deficit bill on to our children and grandchildren, but when we craft policies that demonstrate a total disregard for the environment, we leave them with a much steeper bill to pay.

Some like to claim that the green/lib crowd is trying to scare people with doomsday-type scenarios about climate change and other environmental issues. But the facts remain:

We are running out of fresh water

We are affecting global climate change, and the Earth is getting hotter

We are running out of arable land

We are dumping hazardous chemicals into the land, air and water that are screwing with our health and depleting the amazing amount of biodiversity found on this wonderful planet of ours.

These facts should be of grave concern to everyone, regardless of political persuasion. But they aren’t. Because in the culture of capitalism we currently find ourselves in, there are those that value the future balance sheets of our children’s bank accounts more than we do their health and livelihoods.

That’s all for now. Cheers.

There were 19 victims in Arizona

 

I really don’t have much time to post lately, and I have thoughts of closing the blog down for good as I really don’t see myself being able to make time to commit to posting. More on that some other time perhaps.

I wanted to post today just a thought or two on the Arizona shooting that took place on Saturday. I’m sure by now you’ve heard the whole story, so I’ll spare going into any details here.

My only thoughts are this: 19 people’s lives were directly and permanently altered on Saturday. The shooter brought lots of ammo with him. While his main target certainly seemed to be Congresswoman Giffords, there were 19 others that were shot, 6 of which died.

Federal judge John Roll, 63, left behind 3 sons, a wife, and 5 grandchildren.

30-year-old Gabe Zimmerman, a Gifford’s staffer who was engaged and had a wedding date set for 2012.

Phyllis Schneck, 79 leaves behind 3 children, 7 grandchildren, and 1 great-grandchild.

Dorwan Stoddard 76 – this is from Huff Post: “When the shooting started Saturday, he dove to the ground, covering his wife Mavy, who was shot in the leg three times. The couple had been grade school sweethearts growing up in Tucson. After their respective spouses died, they independently moved back to retire, became reacquainted and fell in love all over again. Mavy Stoddard talked to her husband, who was shot in the head, for 10 minutes while he breathed heavily. Then he stopped breathing. He had two sons from his first marriage, and Mavy has three daughters.

Dorothy Morris, 76 whose husband was shot in the rampage, but is in the hospital also left behind a few daughters (I’ve seen 2 and 3, so don’t know for sure).

And then, what to me is the most tragic result of this mad man’s terror, Christina Taylor Green, only 9 years old. Apparently she had just been elected to Student Council and had an interest in politics, which is why she was at that Safeway to meet Congresswoman Giffords. She apparently wanted to have a career where she would be of service to others (I think I wanted to be a pilot at that age….). She enjoyed athletics. She leaves behind an 11-year-old brother. She leaves behind parents, and grandparents.

It isn’t too hard to read about the people the elderly victims leave behind. It’s generally expected that parents and grandparents outlive their offspring. It is tragic and sad, yes. And I certainly don’t want to value one life above another here.

But she was only 9 years old.

She was only 9 years old.

I understand the outrage pouring out over this incident. I just don’t understand how the conversation was so quickly turned into a left vs. right ideological battle. Within hours of the massacre people were trying to figure out who was to blame. We heard from pundits about other pundits and about that half-term quitter governor from Alaska, but we didn’t hear about Christina, and her story (other than the little I’ve shared here). We didn’t hear about her aunts and uncles and friends from school and 9 year old team mates that now have to deal with the fact that their loved one isn’t coming back.

It isn’t that I don’t agree with some of the political statements being made out there. Some of them, I do. And I do so adamantly. But their bodies weren’t even cold and all we could hear about was some redneck’s map and what Rush Limbaugh had to say and what books were on the shooter’s MySpace book list.

I remember when Kayla Rolland was shot. It was in my community. My mother worked with a close friend of the family (or Aunt of Kayla’s or something….) and I remember it vividly. Shock. Terror. Unimaginable sadness. A 6-year-old shot another 6-year-old. And I remember that very day, people carrying signs in favor of the 2nd amendment on some busy cross streets in my hometown of Saginaw, MI. Yes, we have freedom of speech in this country. I respect that. But just because you have the right to do/say something, doesn’t always mean it’s the right thing to do.

I also remember my teachers waiting a week or so before we started talking about the greater themes that revolved around the shooting like gun rights, poverty, drugs, homelessness and other broader social issues that contributed to the tragedy.

Already the 6 victims that were killed and the others that were wounded are being forgot. They’re being pushed down in the headlines in favor of partisan rhetoric, blame games, conversations on society’s role in all this and yadda yadda yadda. It’s not that I don’t think some of those points are important or valid. I do. My fear is that this intense personal tragedy will just get churned into fodder for the left vs. right meme machine. In 5 years most of us will probably remember that Congresswoman Giffords was shot, and that there were others shot that day too (I bet we’ll forget how many). Some of us will remember Christina, but I bet it will be the minority. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself if you knew who Kayla Rolland was reading that first sentence, without having to click on the link. It was one of the most tragic killings this country has ever seen, and I don’t know that anyone outside of Flint (and Mid-Michigan) still thinks about it.

Can we try holding off on the politicizing for just a few days? Maybe direct our efforts toward compassion for the victims and their families, even for just a few days? Is the “noble discussion” about whose fault it is and what role everyone plays in it that urgent that it can’t wait a few days? Maybe if we shine the spotlight on the victims for a bit longer, we won’t forget quite so soon this time.

I’ll leave it to others to cry outrage!

Right now, all I can come up with is tragedy!

  

Cheers.