Mini Rant - I don't like that law so I won't follow it

I love people who explain that a law is unjust because they're not complying to it and that they're not complying to it because it's unjust. Was just listening to a call-in show where someone said that he had 10 cars that were in violation with the emissions standards based on his not having gotten them checked recently and that he hadn't done so because he didn't have time and the emissions standards law is not reasonable. I thought Conservatives were supposed to be the ones that believe in authority? I guess that links us back to the Bundys huh? So, let me get this straight, it's not o.k. to not follow the instructions of the police or not to follow the laws of your city, state, or country... unless you don't agree with them... well, o.k., it's still not o.k. to not follow the instructions of the police or not follow the laws of your city, state, or country... unless... um... I guess unless you're Conservative? I would say "unless you're white" but I don't want to assume this guy was white (though the racist in me is assuming that, "you betcha") and I'm pretty sure that Conservatives would still have a problem with a white Liberal not obeying the law when they feel it's unjust.

Politics in the Age of Trump Part 1

It's fascinating to me to see people's reactions in the last year from a variety of groups.  I'll start by summarizing what I've seen.

Liberals:  I've seen liberals fall into a couple different camps:

• Pragmatic + There but for the grace of God go I: "I don't understand those that voted for Trump and feel we should try to understand them so that we can work better at winning leadership of the country in the future."  This group is disgusted by Trump and extremely concerned with where this country is going.  Fixated on trying to resolve this by bringing at least some of those that voted for Trump into some semblance of what they find to be sane, they see the path forward is to reconnect the country, at least some.

• There not even by the grace of God go I: "I can't tolerate those that voted for Trump and am uninterested in engaging."  This group is so disgusted with what they perceive Trump to represent that they feel it is unreasonable to engage in the conversation.  Indeed, they see Trump as multiple forms of evil, some of which may be negotiated with, but some completely intolerable.  The path forward is to engage with the part of the country that they find to be sane.  Maybe in 2 and 4 years, this will be fresh in the minds of the majority of the country and Democrats will retake the House, Senate, and eventually the White House.

Conservatives: Conservatives tend to fall into a few different camps as well:

• Anti-Trump camp: O.k., let's break this down even further, shall we?
• Civilians (non-politicians/political leaders): "Holy @#$% what did my party just do?!?"  They tend to be horrified by what they've seen.  This group either sees most of the support for President Trump coming from the same "basket of deplorables" that Clinton referred to (racist, sexist, homophobic, religious intolerant groups) OR they feel that there is a way that a President should conduct him/her self and that President Trump's behavior simply isn't that.  For the latter, you can see this to be his utter lack of coordination within his administration, his disinterest in communication, and his off-the-cuff decision making.
• Politicians / party leaders: "Well, I have some concerns [but we're going to keep following his lead for the foreseeable future]."  Think people like Senator McCain.  They appear to be deeply concerned with what they've seen for either of the reasons that civilians are but are being significantly more careful about their actions so as not to anger the President.  They see that politics in this country has been turned somewhat on its head... o.k., it's not entirely turned on its head, it's just that what would have caused some panic for a normal President's supporters is not causing it for the last year for President Trump's supporters.  So, much the same as has happened in past administrations, on both sides, the politicians tend to keep with their party leadership and, while they may say they are concerned, don't ever say that they're particularly deeply concerned and certainly never act on that concern, including when questioning experts while in  hearings.
• Pro-Trump camp 1: "He's not your normal President, he's a normal-person.  You can't expect him to conform to your expectations of how a President should behave and to do so is showing partisan politics."  This group sees the Comey letter and says "he's just asking someone to drop something the way I would ask a colleague or friend... it's not obstruction, it's just one person to another person."  "There's no reason to be concerned when he invites deadly dictators to the White House because he's just trying to do what he does."  This group sees President Trump's not releasing his tax returns as something not to be concerned about because they trust him to not be swayed by his own financial and family ties.  They either don't see the comparison between President Trump's privacy regarding his taxes as being remotely hypocritical when compared to President Trump's obsession with President Obama's birth certificate or feel that everyone in Washington is hypocritical, so why judge.  They also don't necessarily believe everything President Trump says, but don't see it as a problem that the President is lying, there are bigger issues at stake after all.
• Pro-Trump camp 2: "Drain the Swamp!" O.k., liberals and the media have tended to take "drain the swamp" in the way they think of it: remove the Wall Street corruption.  From listening to people calling into various shows, I think this camp doesn't see Wall Street as the problem, but rather D.C. politicians.  Drain the swamp means that we should stop working with those that are in political leadership, from either party, and should bring in outsiders.  This is why the media was confused when they saw the cabinet being formed and why this group of supporters celebrated.  This is also why they feel that Speaker Leader Ryan was the one that made the folly with the American Health Care Act, not the President, because Ryan is not to be trusted as he is part of the establishment in D.C., part of the taint that must be drained.  They don't necessarily believe everything Trump says, but they also don't really mind that he's lying, just so long as he's breaking up the establishment and the normal way of doing things in D.C.
• Pro-Trump camp 3: "The world is lying and only President Trump is speaking it like it is"... I'm not sure if I can really go into more depth than that... This group is, simply put, blind.

More discussion of each camp to come...

That's it, I'm done, I just can't anymore.... o.k., maybe I can

I'm so tired of it all.

I'm tired of people on the Right feeling like they're the only ones that care about morals.  The Left has morals just as much as the Right does.  Our value systems and beliefs may be different, but both sides believe and rely just as heavily on their morals.

I'm tired of people on the Left saying that it all falls down to <x> whether that be racism, sexism, stupidity, backwardness, or whatever.  I'm tired of hearing that the reason that people didn't come out to vote for Clinton was because of sexism, or that both sides are the same... something that has been said in past elections by many many people without there being a woman on the ballot.  I'm tired of feeling like those who I should be allies with consider me to be part of the problem because I try to understand the other side rather than just assuming what we've come up with is the answer to why they voted the way they did, or the reason they didn't come out to vote.

I'm REALLY tired of hearing that the only reason to dislike Hilary is sexism and that the honest-to-God reasons that I dislike her (I voted for her but she was the lesser of two evils) are invalid and cannot possibly be real, never mind the reasons that the Right might have voted against her given their positions on things such as: taxes, being pro-choice, wars, trade, and while not a position, her being the face of the Big Bad Establishment.

I'm tired of feeling on the wrong side of everything.  Regardless of what side I'm talking to it seems, I'm on the wrong side of it.

I'm tired of realizing that so many people in this country are so angry and are, I hope, blinded by that anger and blinded by some of the rhetoric, that they vote, in my opinion, against they're better interests and against the interests of those they love.

I'm tired of it all.

I'm so tired that I want to just give up.  I can't do it anymore.  I'm not going to post anymore about anything political on Facebook.  I'm not going to comments on others' posts.  Given that a lot of the people I'm dealing with on Facebook are OPENAIR Circus folk and I can't handle how they must think of me based on what they've said and what I've said, I'm going to disengage from that community....

I can't leave the OPENAIR Circus though... o.k., so I'll teach and organize but I won't engage with people on a personal level.  I can do that.  I can teach and organize the other teachers without really talking to any of the adults ... or the other teachers beyond discussing the program and their classes.  I can generate the schedule, update the website, generate the registration forms, organize the performances, hold stilting workshops, I can do all of it and retreat from the friendships I've formed over the years....

All those friendships... the ones I've valued so much and have helped keep me going throughout it all... I can dismiss them... right?  I can turn away from those I like, those I love, those I respect... I can do that....

O.k., maybe not...

2016 MA Ballot Questions, for those who haven't voted yet

I know I'm cutting it close, but here's my recommendations for how to vote on the ballot questions for Massachusetts and the extra one for Somerville.  My recommendations are Q1-No, Q2-No, Q3-Yes, Q4-Yes, Q5(Somerville specific)-Yes

Let's go in order, shall we?

Q1 - Additional slot license - This question would authorize the formation of a second slot parlor where we currently limit gambling establishments to 3 casinos, 1 slot parlor, and pretty much every convenience store and grocery store.  But seriously, this is a highly specific request for a specific location to be allowed to form a slot parlor.  Let's put aside whether gambling is a positive/negative element for society.  The lone slot parlor that we already have is not running at capacity.  There's simply not sufficient demand for the current supply.  When that's the case, economics states that increasing supply is not a good idea.  To me, this one's easy: No

Q2 - Increase the cap on charter schools - So, this one's a bit more tricky ... until you look at it.  Even proponents of charter schools are saying this is a step too far.  This question opens up the floodgates on charter schools.  "But Peter, if you had kids in a failing district, you would demand a better option."  O.k., let's get a few things straightened up right now.

• First, I would not want my children to get a better education at the cost of my neighbors' kids.  I know, my first duty is to my own, but I am my brother's keeper, and therefore what impacts my neighbor very much impacts me.  And the method by which we pay for charter schools in Massachusetts has a negative impact on district budgets.  Yes, the state fully reimburses the district for the first year of a student who transfers, but the second year is only reimbursed for 5% and nothing thereafter, so if a student spends more than one year at a charter school, it very much impacts the district's funding.  Furthermore, the funding that the district provides is per student but the costs for a district are not per student.  Buildings still need to be maintained.  Teachers and administration staff cover many many students and their salaries do not decrease proportionally as students leave the district.  There's a reason that the charter school initiative is considered considered an unfunded mandate.
• Second, again, what effects my neighbor very much impacts me.  There are lots of studies that show that when you remove students who are highly motivated from the district's society, the remaining students lower their efforts because they don't have the highly motivated students there to impact the culture.  By removing the best students, you don't just decrease scores because the average shifts by moving the better scores out, but the remaining scores falter because of the culture shift.
• Third, worse yet, while charter schools aren't supposed to cherry pick their students, they most certainly are succeeding at doing so.  They'll tell you that it's because the students that aren't cherry picked are leaving of their own volition because they just don't fit in, but it's obvious and it's intentional.  Charter schools are supposed to take any students interested, but they have major drop off rates, which are expected and embraced by those running the schools.  It's one of the ways in which they get higher testing scores. 
• http://www.citizensforpublicschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CPS-report-online-draft-6-10-13_reduced_2.pdf 
• http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/10/are-charter-schools-cherry-picking-students/charters-can-do-whats-best-for-students-who-care
• Fourth, while charter schools appear to reduce the achievement gap while the students attend them, they don't necessarily reduce the achievement gaps thereafter.  
• http://kevanharris.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/wdobbie/files/texas_charters.pdf

Q3 - Banning sales from farms that use animal cruelty - Simply put, we should treat animals with more respect than we do.  Yes, it'll cost more.  Yes, this will have an impact on many families.  The "yes on 3" campaign has been down-playing this but it's important to me that we acknowledge it.  It is a legitimate concern.  But I still endorse yes on Q3 on the basis that we should care for the methods by which the things we purchase are created.  We try to tell companies not to make clothes using sweat labor.  We should clearly tell farms to use humane means to raise their animals.

Q4 - Legalize recreational marijuana for individuals at least 21 years old - O.k., so, I understand the no-on-4 position.  We don't have enough research on marijuana; we already have the allowance for use for medical purposes; we don't have the equivalent of a breathalyzer; Colorado has seen a rise in car accidents (though we can't prove that this is related to marijuana use because we don't have a way of detecting it like we do with alcohol).  I get all that.  The problem is, we're treating multiple drugs differently from each other.  There's no evidence that marijuana is any worse for adults than alcohol.  There's some evidence that it can have lasting effects on kids under 16 (frontal lobe issues), but the question at hand is for individuals 21 or older and only in private areas.  A yes vote creates regulatory bodies at state and local levels with the authorization to restrict, or even ban, marijuana-selling establishments.  A yes vote also creates revenue by bringing the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes into the light of day rather than being restricted to the black market.  I understand and respect the "no on Q4" perspective, I just don't agree that their arguments mean that we should continue our prohibition on alcohol... I mean... on marijuana.  No, seriously, if you feel that we shouldn't legalize marijuana because of the accidents, I understand that, but then we should never have legalized alcohol.  We gain similar benefits to the legalization of marijuana that we did to the legalization of alcohol: ability to regulate the product, tax the sale, and for there to be a stigma associated but not legal concerns when people seek assistance with their problems.  This was a hard one for me to decide on, but my suggestion remains: vote yes.

Q5 - Somerville only - Deviation from laws dealing debt and taxes to build high school - O.k., this one's another easy one.  First, let me point out that I am a home owner, so the increase in taxation directly impacts me.  Second, let me point out that I do not intend to have children of my own and my nieces will probably be out of high school, or close to it, before the new high school is ready, so the benefits don't impact me as closely as it would others in the city.  That said, we have to do something because the high school will be discredited otherwise.  The options are to rebuild-in-place or to build-new.  The option to rebuild-in-place would likely cost the same, if not more, than building-new.  Thus, the answer is simple: build-new will allow a better building in a more efficient manner (from a organizational view point) for the same cost or cheaper than the alternative.  Somerville: vote yes on 5.

Trump Won the Primaries

I've heard a lot of talk about how the only reason Trump is winning is because the media and his supporters are misogynists.  There is no doubt in my mind that there is a lot of sexim in this country and it informs a lot of how people react to Hillary Clinton (and other women in politics).  That said, there are two facts that come to mind that very cleanly explains the fact that this is not the only thing at play: 1) Trump one the Republican primary; 2) The Republican primary candidates were mostly men.

Let me explain a bit.  If the only reason Trump had support was misogyny, how did he go up against 10 other men (and 1 woman) and come out on top?  Was it that the other men weren't sexist?  I don't think so.  I mean, not that I have any presumptions about Republican Presidential candidates (as I exhaust my sarcasm allocation for the rest of September), but I suspect that several of them have sexist policy ideas.  Also, the one woman, Carly Fiorina, dropped out after 2 primaries and very early on in the process.  Furthermore, the argument that Trump is being competitive only because of the country's misogynistic ways is that Trump is benefiting because he's a man going up against a woman, in which case, the other 10 men would have been on equal footing with him.  But he beat those other candidates.  He beat them pretty easily too.  He got nearly 45% of the popular vote and nearly 70% of the delegates.  So... he's popular enough to become a Presidential nominee of a major party without the benefit of being up against a woman.

I'm not trying to say there isn't an impact of the misogynistic tendencies of the nation, but I would suggest there's much more to the Trump V Clinton situation than that.  To suggest that there isn't, that most of the reason that Trump is doing well has to do with the news stations treating him different from Clinton because of their genders and the populace treating them different for the same reason, to suggest this is to ignore vital issues before us.  Trump's supporters have baffled the news and the Left's pundits.  There is no single simple explanation.

Clinton's detractors are not only against her for sexist reasons either.  The more we suggest that everything is that simple and that all those who have ill-will toward Clinton only feel that way because they are sexist, the more we risk alienating even more of the populace.  If you think Marvel movies should have villains that are more compelling and stay longer than one movie, and someone tells you that the only reason anyone could dislike Marvel movies is because the movies are sexist, you might not listen to the argument.  If, on the other hand, someone tells you that Marvel movies are sexist and explains why, there's the chance of getting into a fruitful discussion, because they haven't told you that your points of view are wrong, especially considering your point of view has merit.

Voting for the Good Rather than the Lesser of Two Evils

Ok, so, your read of the post header "voting for the food rather than the lesser of two evils"... what did you think it meant?  I could have intended one of two meanings:

1) One of the two main parties' candidates is seen as good
2) Voting for a third party candidate

Answer... BOTH.  This post is two posts in one!

Alright, so, starting with the obvious.  I'm really quite happy that there are those out there, and I know quite a few, who are exceedingly pleased with Clinton for President.  I'm not.  This does not mean I'm sexist, stupid, unreasonable, die-hard-for-Bernie, single-minded, or in any other way wrong-headed.  I have real and rational reasons for not being in favor of Clinton just as those friends of mine that are in favor of her surely have reasons they were not in favor of Sanders.  There are political views and stands that are not based in sexism.  I will be voting for Clinton, who I find to be a less than desirable candidate because she is not as liberal as I'd like in just about every aspect you can imagine, but especially so in terms of foreign affairs.  So, for me, I am going to voting for the lesser of two evils.  Please don't suggest that I'm doing otherwise because, by simple deduction, you are suggesting that either my values are invalid or worse, that I am being lumped in, in your mind, with the deplorables that Clinton speaks of when she talks of a certain subset of those in favor of Trump... and I'm pretty sure, for all the hate you may have for me, you don't actually lump me in there.

Second option, voting for a third party candidate for President.  Are you kidding me with this?  Ok, those of you who are voting in a state that is excessively in one major party's favor or the other, you're fine to vote for a third-party candidate... but don't think for a moment that they'll get elected.  For those of you who are voting in a state that may, just maybe, pick either side... GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR... <clears throat> <takes breath> you're insane if you have a preference between Clinton and Trump and are voting third party.  That's all there is to it.  If your state could go either way and you're voting third party, that doesn't mean you want a third party candidate to be elected, that means you don't want the candidate that you favor between Trump and Clinton to be President... which is how I get to the "you're insane" bit.  Let me rephrase that a bit.  If you're voting for a third party candidate and you live in a state that is up for grabs (whether it's typically a swing state or not), you're actively opposing the candidate you prefer.  Here's why.  Third party candidates are great if you have representative elections like Europe does, or if the third party has a chance as it does in local, or even sometimes in state elections, but there is no chance, none, that a third party candidate will be elected President this year.  It is, simply put, not going to happen.  So, by voting for a third party candidate, you're not voting for the choice of two evils I mentioned above, and in so doing, not tipping the scales in that lesser evil's favor.

In Massachusetts, we have the luxury of being strongly in favor of Clinton and therefore can vote for a third party candidate to show support for a third party (not for the individuals running, because again, they're not going to win).  And there is some logic to doing so.  By voting for a third party candidate, you're influencing which parties are seen as viable for the local and state elections as well as who gets invited to the national stage (read Presidential debates), and that's important.  So, yes, in a solid state, vote for a third party candidate to help the third party that you're in favor of get some further traction, by all means... but that's limited to the solid states.

When Does A Man's Perspective Matter (by way of Clinton's Health Scandle)

This post is brought to you by the "Clinton Health Scandle of Really?!?!?"

I've been slowly coming to understand over the last year that I, as a man, can not have my own opinions on whether something has a particular aspect toward women, either degrading or otherwise. 

O.k., let's back up and set the stage a bit.

For the last few months, Trump has been suggesting that Clinton's health isn't where you would want a president's health to be, in particular suggesting her stamina is lacking.  This has been suggested by many to be a sexist comment, which I accept as being the case since I, as a man, can't pass judgement on what is/isn't being sexist toward a woman.  Last Friday, Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia and told to take some medication and get some rest.  The latter not being an option because she's campaigning to be president, she proceeded to go to a 9/11 remembrance event.  She got dehydrated, as one does when sick and working, and had to leave early.  She was seen being assisted to her car.  I would describe her movement as near-collapsing, again, to be expected if you're sick and being active.  There's no shame there.  The problem comes when you piece the bits together.  Two more bits that should be included in the mix: Clinton's campaign didn't say to anyone that she was sick (normal) and one of the big concerns people have about Clinton is how private (read secretive) she is.

Alright, so, let's pull this apart a little before going into the reactions.  Clinton didn't want to announce that she was sick because this would potentially be seen as weakness and play into what Trump has been saying for months.  On the other side, Clinton then was seen as hiding a pneumonia diagnosis, at best, or hiding that she's really not well at all, at worst, the latter being the theory being floated by Trump supporters (and some fanatically anti-Clinton likely-to-believe-conspiracy folk).  It's a tough call.  It's a sticky catch 22 and one that's not easily avoided.

On the other side, people have started saying "Clinton got sick and kept working, exactly what women do all the time" without explaining anything about the second statement.  I, being a childless man, didn't understand that what they meant was that women with children work while sick all the time in order to keep their sick time available for when their children (or husband) are sick and they need to be home taking care of them.  I, being a man that has often gone to work while sick if it was anything short of debilitating, found this to be a bit insulting as it suggests that women are the only ones that commonly work while sick.  I've seen colleagues come in to work while they have pneumonia plenty of times in the earlier part of my career.  It's only very recent in my 13 years at my current company that the majority of my colleagues feel o.k. with taking time off when they're sick (mind you, having a cold doesn't count as being sick).  Furthermore, I considered whether the statement was about positions that have been historically linked to women, but this didn't seem to align either, since there are various careers, such as restaurant kitchen staff, where taking time off when sick isn't something that's allowed.

Mind you, I understand now what was being commented on: not that women without children work while sick more than men without children, but instead that women who have a family tend to be expected to take care of family members when family members are sick and therefore save their sick time for those occurrences rather than taking the time to take care of themselves.  Further, women with families are expected to take care of those families even when sick instead of the father taking care of the family needs when the mother is sick.  This, of course, assumes a household with a woman and man, but I digress.

I also understand how this expectation not being something I understood to be the meaning of the posts makes me sexist because I didn't come up with it immediately so I'm not aware of the problems women face.  So, before we move on, keep in mind that I already know that I'm a sexist man and am accepting that.

So... here's my question... I, as a man, can't determine when women should be offended by something.  I get that.  Can I, as a man, determine when I'm offended by something I see as offensive to men?  If the line was "Clinton is hard working, exactly as all women are," would it be acceptable for me to find that offensive toward me as it suggests that I'm not hard working because I'm a man?  The reason I ask is that it's not necessarily obvious that I am permitted this judgement.  The judgement is based on the question of who determines whether women are harder working than men are in general.  Is it me, based on my experience and knowledge, or is it the person making the claim, based on whatever criteria they wish to use?  The statement "Clinton got sick and kept working, exactly what women do all the time" does not provide the understanding about why the latter statement is true and, if, like me, you didn't understand that it's really talking about "mothers" rather than "women", you're going to make the obvious interpretation of "this person thinks that women work while sick more than men do, generically."  Thus, you might consider this comment to be offensive to men if that has not been your experience.  So, who determines the basis for understanding the statement?

Let's take another example, "boys and girls" when referring to adults.  Again, I understand I shouldn't provide feedback on whether calling a woman a "girl" is diminutive, but can I voice my opinion that calling a man a "boy" is diminutive?  Where along the spectrum does my opinion cease to matter, my voice cease to be helpful, and my attempting to add to the dialogue start being considered not only not valid but outright harmful to the dialogue?

I'm not asking this in contempt, I'm asking it in contemplation and the hope that others will give thought to it as well as thought to how they react to the opinions of others and the writing statements that others may not understand without at least some level of explanation. 

And at the risk of overstepping my bounds as a white, heterosexual, male from the middle-class, I would point out that blanket statements are easy and fun but they often detract from the hoped-for outcome.  I say this with full knowledge and awareness that I have made them plenty of times in the past.  I have been informed politely in several of those cases that my statements painted with too broad a brush and I have since often found myself trying to articulate my points better, such as by saying "Republican leadership" or "Congressional Republicans" rather than "Republicans".  I feel, even as I write this, that I am overstepping my bounds because I should not suggest to other groups how they should argue their point or how they should advocate for their position... but I'm typing it anyway, regardless of how evil and privileged it indicates that I am to do so.  I have, in previous posts indicated that I am indeed evil by way of the values, behavior requirements, and even more generally my born-to attributes, others have indicated they believe to be evil, so why not play into it a bit.