Finding Your Gender Roots (in War)

Voting Hillary and Gender:
Differences Matter

I cry and whine a lot that it’s okay to do what I think so many people want to confess as a preference: to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because, on top of all the qualities, she is a woman. And as I’ve written before, women think and thus act differently than men, even under fairly common circumstances. Thus, what President Woman will do in practice may not be fully possible to predict, but will clearly be more consistent with the way women think than not.

I was thinking of this last evening. I watched the new episode of Finding Your Roots on a PBS station. The guests having their histories dissected were Neil Patrick Harris, Gloria Steinem, and Sandra Cisneros. It is worth watching for one reason and one reason alone. Watch how the two women speak towards the end of war and the nobility of having soldiers in one’s family.

Gloria, in particular, said, prefacing her comment with an unneeded comment to quell the audience, that she doesn’t see nobility in glorifying war at all. Pointing to the books on the supposed “Greatest Generation” of military fighters from WW2, she basically said, “I think the greatest generation will be that which never goes to war.” Not hesitation, really. War sucks and has no value.

Then there was Sandra Cisneros, reflecting on military exploitation and intimidation in Mexico during the early years of the 1900s as I recall. Speaking generally of that country’s army tactics, she said in essence that she sees nothing noble either. They tortured and blackmailed men to leave their families to die in needless vain. Her ancestors fled the country to work in backbreaking agricultural settings rather than be killed for political ignorance. Of that she had admiration.

To be fair for those who feel I would reverse discrimination otherwise: Neil Patrick Harris, the only man on the show as a guest, had more fun with possibly having a witch who was stupidly murdered in his lineage. He was funny and very gay.

The differences between how these women contemplate the place of war is stark. Many men likely squirmed. Most importantly, though, to me their words and convictions say an enormous amount about how smart women see the world they live in and come from.

If you have issues with considering gender as a single, formative consideration in the pending election, watch this show. Then think that through again.

Can's We Make America Engaged Again?

If he does otherwise, I don’t detect it. Which means it's likely others don’t see or appreciate it either. Which is the heart of America’s political involvement problem.

Bernie Sanders may be stirring the fires of dissent, but he is NOT proposing a practical answer to the problem of having a government that is responsive to democratic, public demands and expectations. Sanders simply comes up short on the practical aspects of socialism -- and sir, details of this nature matter.

Can't We Make America Engaged Again?

He can (and is) fighting to overcome injustices, demand and try hard to even forcibly instill economic inequality, and begin government programs affirmatively redirect resources to those most in need, but none of these steps really focus on the mechanics of empowering people collectively and within interest niches to make the system better.

As such, I cannot see the Bernie can or even appreciates the dirty work of change.

I understand that politics is complicated. This is why candidates like the tRUMP can thrive: telling people details gets ugly and boring. True, right now the populous fears being too informed. Whether from GOP ignorance-based initiatives or Bernie’s anger-based efforts, the public isn’t demanding specifics about the mechanics of how most candidates are going to turn people into allies for justice for all; they just want their issues solved so they can feel good again about their wants and needs … that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of my happiness” kind of thinking.

Hard to blame them (us) for this. Even so, the heart of socialistic predilections is faith in the process of collective wisdom; the pragmatism of uniting and working together -- the “wisdom of the crowd” as others have said. Doing this is a harsh and demanding job. I don’t see much of this in Sander’s direct language nor in the subtle messages he proffers when he gets passionate about his vision. There are indicators of empowerment on his web pages under issues, but they are indirect and non-specific and show little awareness of how to use them in practice.

Fault Hillary for being too insider, but not because you can’t more readily see what she brings to the table -- including anger. I don’t like the system we have either. As a life-long social justice advocate, I’ve often fought against it. Still, I know we cannot replace it just with simple idealisms that don’t work as tools of change. I confess that I don’t know the social justice movement’s players as well anymore, but I do believe many don’t see Bernie as a standard bearer of possibilities, even if they support him.

This is a gap of logic and practice, and one I cannot overlook. For me, tell me more about how you are going to make our motto about life, liberty, and the pursuit of empowerment, please. And Bernie, details count.

Privacy Is Dead, Long Live Our Rights of Participation

It might be a good time to contemplate, as the FBI, Apple and Google fire up their weapons of mass wrong-headed defense, why it is that privacy is not included in the Constitution. You know that, right? It is a Supreme Court construction and extension designed primarily to enable individuals to always have the ability to get rich off of their ideas -- the latter part of that life, liberty, and pursuit-of-happiness thing. Perhaps the Founding Fathers wanted it this way and left it ambiguous for a reason? Worth considering, this!

From this thinking, consider: All of the parties in the current Apple break-in dispute might well be wrong. Might all of them better expend their time and resources worrying less about getting into a single phone -- assuming no deception on the FBI’s intent -- and looking more at the future that is now taking the place of the assumptions of the past.

The era of privacy is long since dead. What we need is a new, unified, globally agreed upon path towards developing a platform of rights and privileges associated with social participation. It isn’t what we hide or can hide that is important. What is as undeniably as true now as it was with the creation of the concept of privacy is the value our culture hold for what we share, why we share it, how we respect the sharing by and with others, and what guarantees come from playing the sharing game fairly. Unfortunately, that got lost. Rights of Participation would readily bring such an awareness back.

Though somewhat of a different topic, I want to make a point using the healthcare debacle we’re struggling through. America expends an enormous amount of time and resources NOT providing healthcare but arguing about what a system should look like to protect business and profit motivations that give access to some and deny others who want a share. Were this not the case -- were we most interested in just providing care -- so many problems would go away. We might even find that our attention turns rapidly to building a system that meets the needs of better treatments, affordable meds, preventative practices, etc. Instead, as a culture of mutual interests, we debate the old, made-up construct of insurance and ungodly profits.  

Think about this same thing in regards to the perspective of privacy. The debate heading our way fronted by the titans of corporate and legal self-interests will center on protecting tidbits of our right to security, not the larger issues of the things we do together to make life work for conveniently. Keep this up and we just get trapped once again in the nitpicking that characterizes our poor, behind-the-times health debate.

What would be a better, more inclusive focus would be our general acceptance that we live in a social game. Like it or not, we need to acquiesce to the fact that we have to trust (and expect trust in return) from others, and that in the long run that works best for us all when we profit from have collective rules and expectations of togetherness. If it is possible to construct selfish rules, it is possible to construct cooperative ones that benefit many interests.

In saying this, I know that there is always a danger in using social control to extreme. The collective can abuse its power just as are some individuals. Right Bernie? Funny how this seldom comes up.

Anyway, we can deal with this too. We simply have to learn to work together and build (using open-source, participatory steps) a Rights of Participation user kind of agreement of sorts -- a set of expectations that, over time, the masses of humanity come to accept as our bible of righteous togetherness. If we don’t, legal or corporate contenders are going to do it for us and then get the imprimatur of SCOTUS, sealing this approach just as it did with the privacy construct.

This is exactly what the US government (and particularly an Obama administration and it’s female successor) ought to be doing to lay a foundation for a collaborative and empowering cyber defense and empowerment strategy. What we learn from the new software technologies and the Internet of Everything should be the foundation for making all things better, not more selfish. Taking a bite out of Apple serve no purpose in this regard.

When the Supreme Court justices of the past decided that privacy was a mysterious concept buried within the Constitutional, they made decisions that formed around that perception. This is the heart of a living document. But that doesn’t mean such decisions are always correct or can live forever. It is time for an upgrade that values the fact that we all profit from participating together.

Presidential Scali-abilities -- A Final Test of Judgement

Our chief executive’s job is to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court; Congress’s role, apparently: to do a jiggery-pokery around the need while the adults play. In memoriam, Politico.com offered a quote of one of Scali’s judicial findings that seems ... oh so nice… “If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity,” he added. “Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world.”

To most reasonable people, that Congress is so useless is a big serving of applesauce. Still, it is the mess this nation has made for itself and a situation the good justice seemed to like. As such, I believe it is incumbent of the presidential contenders to give him a taste of his logic and put their ideas to judgement. Doing so will demonstrate which can handle the sophisticated world and which are stuck in the stupidity of RealityTV over Realpolitik. If nothing else, making such cases has got to be worth a few laughs.

Justice Scalia once said in another ruling, “The Court’s argument also overlooks the rudimentary principle that a specific provision governs a general one.” Exactly what is being offered in this suggestion. The presidential contenders, except perhaps Hillary, are short in the space of turning their visions and promises into anything that can survive the whipsaw of partisanship. Having them identify which persons they would offer as a replacement and then place themselves below the blade of devisiveness would be an excellent way to test their political Scali-abilities -- their ability to handle the rough, tumble, and funny that comes with making choices before the populous and their own ultimate judge of humanity. They have to take their general ideas to specifics.

Scalia, were he not preoccupied in purgatory, would likely hate this idea. Surely there is no 1886-based precedent for such a contest of modernity. Then again, he did like a good argument; and I can’t think of any more fitting tribute than to make him stand in judgement before Christ at the same time She was looking down on the parade of foolishness he helped start.

Facts alone are not sufficient to get in the way of a good penalty for the dead or the dying -- at least not without a laugh or two to ride along.

Mouth-to-Mouth President Sanders

Psychologists call them Cluster B “fixers.” They are people who, for healthy and unhealthy reasons, have a need, a drive to jump instinctively into crises. Sometimes such folks do so because of deep personal needs or unhealthy psychopathic motivations; other times they do so because they fear that theirs is the leadership and direction needed immediately.

Couldn’t help think about this when I watched the news videos of Senator Sanders running off stage to help the nearby person who collapsed near him as he was speaking. Instinctively, he ran over and joined the immediate crowd to … what? … ensure that his leadership skills were available? Actually do the medical intervention? Or, as the late-night comics joked, to scream the guy back to life so he can vote?

A small, seemingly silly issue, perhaps, but merged with the ways in which candidate Sanders wants nations that deeply hate each other to just bring their arguments and fights together -- similar to his insistence that revolutionary changes be the defibrillator for shocking the financial sector into awareness -- and one begins to wonder: Does Senator Sanders need Cluster F#cks to be the president? Is our culture on life support and in desperate need of emergency intervention provided by a dynamic and reactionary leader?

Under normal circumstances, it’s safe to say that most thinking people wouldn’t want a national leader to run wantonly into a situation -- crisis, severe, or otherwise -- without some semblance of contemplation. Doing so opens the reactor (and thus our country as a whole) to all types of unexpected and unanticipated realities. Such tactics can even signal to ne'er do wells a vulnerable avenue of manipulation. They need only create or exaggerate a crisis and the president might well swoop in with rapid, emotive, and super-hero responsiveness while the real play goes on elsewhere.

We miss it when a person seems in need. It’s thus easy for us to see a wannabe President Sanders as being heroic, going so far as to offer mouth-to-mouth resuscitation the person in need rather than worry at all about what’s happening around him (or her). Yet we must not forget, this same need to be at the front to grab attention and be “the fixer” is exactly what motivates crazy, unleashed, possibly unhinged megalomaniacs with their own delusions of leadership, right Dr. Trump?

This country is coming face to face with a decision about what kind of person the future needs. More so than ever, the choices are edged with degrees of worry, concern, even critical urgency. Cluster f#cks can be expected. A measure of success has got to be what the final result is, not just who wildly runs into the fire first.  

Do hope the guy who passed out is well. Haven’t heard much about that in the limelight of Sander’s jump into this need for recovery. Nor has there been word as to whether the Secret Service were neglected as they had their own heart attacks.