It should be obvious to everyone that there is much more to the American political system than just what's written in the Constitution, which is merely a framework for basic ideals. It’s not just the populace or the president, the legislative or the judicial branches, the founding documents or 200 years of legal precedent, that define our government, but a combined whole which is greater than any of those parts. So when I say the two-party system is entrenched, I wasn't referring to the Constitution, but to the tangled mass of rules, regulations, and expectations that control our voting process. In fact, anyone who was registered in a third or independent party, like I was, and who tried to vote in the primaries this year, as I did, would have found out just how entrenched the two-party system is. In many states, independents are not able to participate in primaries. Obviously there is something wrong with that, but the way to address it is to engage on that level of government to create an empowered third party, not chop the head off the left by starting at the top. Third party candidates who run for president do little to build or secure a long-term base of support, but rather give the impression that they are impulsive or invisible entities who make their decision on a whim and don't represent an identifiable body of the American people. This is why many Americans think Greens or other third-party candidates are marginalized and self-serving, because their candidates and supporters don't show much presence in other levels of government and then emerge only for a national election. If you want to change that perception, then get out and get organizing. Or run for office yourself.

However, there are representatives in the Democratic party who have been elected and who have sustained an effort to advance progressive causes over years of service. Two great examples are in fact Dennis Kucinich and Carol Mosley Braun, both of whom were not "unelectable", which they well demonstrated by being elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively. The real reason that Kucinich and Mosley Braun dropped out of the race, or struggled to gain support, was more about financial problems than electability concerns. They simply couldn't raise enough money. If you want to change that, then donate to the campaigns you support, and vote for elected officials who support campaign finance reform. But understand that political change, not just in this country or period, but always, happens slowly and only because an informed populace persistently pursues it.

There was another candidate in this campaign, however, who did raise a lot of money, built what seemed like a solid grassroots organization, and garnered a lot of "free media" with his progressive message and innovative methods. Anybody remember him? Yeah, that's right, Howard Dean. Now, here's a candidate all us "leftist" should have loved. And boy did we. Loved him so much in fact that we put a bumper sticker on our cars or a button on our chests, and then sat on our asses at home while the really politically engaged people voted. Dean led in Iowa for month and lost. Kerry caught a big upswing after winning Iowa that boosted him in New Hampshire and the rest of the primaries. That's how primaries work. Dean basically got sold out by his brave new supporters, the optimistic young people who were "gonna change the country." The morning after the Iowa caucuses, Dean precinct captain, a bemused George Davey said, "I think if we could blame [Dean's loss] on anyone, blame it on the 18- to 25-year-olds, because they were nonexistent." Davey had hoped for 25 to 50 18-25 year-olds to show up at the caucus. Guess how many put the Game Boy down long enough to come? Just 1. So while it's one thing to plaster our bumpers or our blogs with our windy political aspirations, it does come down to o
ne
s
imple thing: voting.

However, if you think your vote should somehow be your sacrosanct expression of your individual view, then you don't understand what a democracy is. A democracy is not about unique or extreme views, it is meant to create the law of the majority, which is the mean, the lowest common denominator that we can all agree to. Now, you may think this is not the best of all possible worlds. Great. Neither do I. So support and rally for another political system, like Anarcho-syndicalism. But understand that "supporting" doesn't mean spouting off to your friends, alone, at home. It means a life time of organizing, struggling, and very possibly getting whupped down by the people in power, only in the end to make a little progress. Again, that's the reality of political change. Martin Luther King didn't sit at home or in his congregation saying, if "I had my way...". He went out to the people and shared his vision, got arrested, beaten, maligned by the FBI, and finally murdered. But he opened a flood gate of change. That takes real courage, and I wish to god more of us had it. But it also means, in a democracy, convincing others of the clarity and righteousness of your position. You don't do that just by voting. Voting is the minimum, but it is also a requisite. We have to understand that when we vote, our "view" of how this country should be gets thrown in with the barmaids and the CEOs, the bigots and the white-haired old ladies. The checks and balances inherent in this system (and they are hard wired into the Constitution) are designed to prevent extremists, and that includes us, from telling everyone else what to do. And that I can actually live with. Besides, don't forget that those checks and balances do just that. Remember Clinton proposed universal health care and it got shot down in the house. If, by some anomaly, a third party candidate did somehow get elected to the Presidency, it would be naive to assume that everyone in the house and senate would merely fall at their feet and grant them their wishes.

The problem, as I tried to point out yesterday, is that too many of us on the left are naive and narcissistic enough to believe that our individualist views should be respected absolutely, and to me that is merely absolutism. Reactionary insistence that only your view is the justifiable one is fascism, whether on the right or the left. And too often, the really committed leftists fall into squabbling that allows an absolutist power structure to emerge, whether from the opposition or from within their own ranks. I gave some examples yesterday about how self-righteous leftists turn against each other and lose what momentum they had by hair-splitting and one-upping each other. Another good example is the Russian Communist Party's International Congresses, where the Leninists and the Trotskyites tore into each other with such fury and frequency, and guess who eventually came out on top, Stalin. I was not by any means suggesting that that we were "restricting our democratic freedom" when we make a mature, rational choice to find commonalities where differences would mean disaster, to join forces where our enemies would like nothing more than to divide us, and to balance our own views and needs with a feasible agenda that benefits the greater good. That's what political engagement is, the contract we make with society to curtail some of our individual aims when they come into conflict with what we know and understand would be better for us all. That is, in fact, what democratic, in the sense of collective, freedom really is.

And so, leftists, here we stand once again, poised at a moment where we can choose to stand together with our collective energies, or allow dogma and mis-information to divide us. That’s what is making me so angry about Nader's campaign. Anyone who is actually familiar with Senator Kerry's voting record and viewpoints would see that he represents not only many of the progressive ideals we hold dear, but a
lso ha
s the
skills and appeal it takes to get elected in this country. I urge you once again to review, or view for the first time, his stand on gay marriage: he supports giving states the right to create civil unions; or his environmental policies: he's against drilling in ANWAR (but that's just a token for anyone who says it, because it’s really just a symbolic "pristine" paradise with an equally symbolic amount of crude. The more important decisions come up over the course of Kerry's 30 years in political life, when he has supported increasing gas taxes, against practically EVERYBODY's wishes, developing alternative energy sources like ethanol, and going after polluters.) He's for abortion rights, against the death penalty, against renewing the patriot act and against cutting veteran's benefits. Budgets and health care proposals are always fudged in campaigns, I don't see how it could be any other way when projecting so far ahead, but the ethic is there to back the rhetoric. If you have any doubts, go to his senate home page and look at his voting record (which not all senators make so readily available on their sites.) It's kerry.senate.gov and his record is under a menu called legislation. Before anyone denounces a candidate based on what they think they know, they should be familiar with their public record. That’s our most basic responsibility as voters.

As for the (supposed lack of) differences between George Bush and John Kerry, I will once again extend an invitation to meet you in the alley. Also, I think, (as another blogger points out in a most excellent rant ) that's a tired argument left over from 2000 when Gore, who was a centrist center Democrat, and Bush, who was playing himself off at the time as a centrist, moderate, "compassionate" conservative, did seem to have a lot of similarities. But this time around it's very different. I don't need to remind anyone what George Bush's “compassion” looks like. Let's just say that when Nixon's prosecuting attorney (John Dean, whose new book is "Worse than Watergate") says Bush is the worst, most secretive, undemocratic president we've ever had, then it seems practically irrational to compare Bush to any other president before him, Democrat or Republican. He's violated the best tenants of both parties by curtailing civil liberties, running huge deficits, etc. You know the drill. But if you know the drill, everything he's done, how can anyone with a straight face say that Al Gore would have been just the same, or that a Kerry administration would have the gall to do what the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Perle monster machine has cooked up?

I don't think people will still be saying that Bush was just like Gore would have been thirty years from now either. And it’s not just because of things like the Patriot Act, or banning partial birth abortions, or even a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage. All those things can be undone. But some decisions will ripple on for years to come. For example, remember that Presidents have the power to make LIFETIME appointments to our highest courts, which are the real lawmakers in this country, not the politicians. If you don't understand the power of judicial appointments, then you're missing a whole dimension of influence that determines policy for decades to come, if not permanently. The Supreme Court, which is precariously divided as it is, is not the only bench in Bush's sights, but also the circuit courts that control major portions of the country and determine which cases make it to the Supreme Court and which don’t. Bush's court appointments, as you all well know, have been some of the most conservative in decades. Given another fours years, he may make appointments that we'll never recover from that will set judicial precedent and direct policy in dangerous directions. Can you imagine saying
that abou
t Gore?

n
The Bush administration is like nothing before or hopefully after it. But, hmmmm, there are some people who *do* seem the same this time around, in fact, it's Kerry and Nader. They've been friends for over thirty years and recently met to work out a strategy for defeating Bush (although Nader still refuses to drop out and give his endorsement to the more viable candidate.)

I'm not alone in feeling that Nader’s decision to run this fall is not in the best interests of our country. As a case in point, people on the right are practically cheering him on . If Nader actually wanted to build progressive support, then he wouldn't be making such a bull-headed move (or breaking with the Green Party, his best chance for long-term organizing.) And to say he didn't hurt Gore in 2000 is also not true. I mean, (oh god I never thought I'd say this,) even Pat Buchanan had the decency not to run in states where the race was close. But Nader plowed ahead. Since he's declared his intention to run, progressive icons no less than Michael Moore, (who supported him in 2000), Howard Dean, and the editors of The Nation have all begged him not to do it, and have encouraged liberals not to vote this term for third-party candidates. Now is the time for liberals to unite our energies despite minor differences, or else by our short-sightedness we will hand Bush a second term. Even Howard Dean has said "Those who truly want America's leaders to stand up to the corporate special interests and build a better country for working people should recognize that, in 2004, a vote for Ralph Nader is, plain and simple, a vote to re-elect George W. Bush. I hope that Ralph Nader will withdraw his candidacy in the best interests of the country we hope to become."

If a third party is what we want, then we need to dig in and do it, but not by starting from the top down, and certainly not at a time when our democracy is in danger. Nader is obviously one of the most crucial proponents for progressive change in this country, and he's been an influence on me ever since I was a little girl, when he'd already been hard at work for thirty years. Nader is a great leader, and he should continue to lead us. But he should lead us to a victory, not another embarrassing rout. It's not coercion to say that voting for anyone other than Kerry will be a decision all Americans could come to regret, it's a fact. As far as I'm concerned there is only one party now, and there is only one logical choice for citizens who value their rights and the ideals we believe in: vote Democrat in November.

And if you don't believe me, ask The Nation:
or Howard Dean

In fact, there may end up only being one party if George Bush gets re-elected this fall. We all know what he's done in four years, imagine how much worse it will be if he has another term. Well, to all those petulant, deluded, self-righteous, juvenile so-called "leftists" out there, take a look at this:



I can only say that right now I am furious. In fact, livid. I'm practically shaking. Those small percentage points shaved off by Nader's absolutely pointless campaign will guarantee us another four years of Bush and his murderous backers. Yeah, that's really progress. I never vented in 2000, well, maybe a little, because theoretically I believed we should have a third party. But guess what people, there WILL NEVER BE A THIRD PARTY! This is not a parliamentary system and it never has been. It has always been built on entrenched binaries. Any quixotic attempts to break off and form a third party will only split the vote and ensure victory to the other side. (see clinton vs. bush/perot, and the different results on pollingreport.com if nader would just drop out of the frickin' race-- suprise surprise, kerry wins.)

so, yeah, kerry is a politician-- he takes special interest money, he's a big fat gagillionaire, and like clinton, he would do all kinds of dastardly things, beyond a doubt. but look at the alternative, which isn't nader, but a garunteed victory to george bush. anyone who says that kerry would be just as bad as bush can hash that out with me in a one-on-one "conversation". in a back alley. because that's just stupid.

don't forget that the nazis were elected by the german people, in part because the left was so fragmented by its own pointless, self-serving divisions. same thing in the spanish civil war, franco won because the anarchists and the communists undermined each other. the real reason the left never holds together, as far as i can see, is that most leftists are immature idiots who would cut off their own noses and end up spiting all of us.

wow, what a relief it is for me to finally vent what i've always felt. it's nader's fault, and it will be nader's fault again. i feel almost zen about it. thanks, "progressives", for four more years of mein prezident.

instead of doing thing i really really should be doing i worked on these obsolete artifacts all day. they are for a show in baltimore this saturday so i have to pack them up and mail them right away if i want them to make it. the full definitions of these actual english words are in the entry below. my favorite artifact is "liripoop" cause it looks like a turd!

My April resolutions:

1) Don't be a fool!

2) All strip, all day.

3) Smoke, but be happier. I figure my mongo stress is worse for me than smoking. So I will boldly puff away, while smiling.

4) Replan my entire life, including the past, which could use some revision.

5) Attempt to not burn bridges, merely drape traffic-stopping attention-diverting banners off of them.

6) Make E-strip banners

7) Rather than limiting what I eat, I'm going to limit what I shit out. Good-for-me foods will stay in my system and continue to provide nutrients while making my belly bulge in a frightening way. Twinkies will pass through my system whole and unchanged.

8) Watch more sports. Instead of exercising I will raise my heart rate by getting really into sports and leaping up and hollering at the TV. This (doesn't) work for millions of NFL, NBA, PGA, NAFTA, wait, USTA fans.

9) Land dream job.

10) Quit dream job.

and finally...

11)Think of pointless journal topics that get my name to the top of the list fast!

met'o-po-man"cy, n. [Gr. metophan, forehead, and manteia, divination.] foretuntelling based on a study of the human features.

lir'i-poop, n. [OFr. liripipion; LL. liripipium, perh. altered from cleriephippium, lit., caparison of a cleric.]
1. a liripipe.
2. a degree of learning worthy the wearer of a liripipe; acuteness; smartness; a smart trick.
3. a silly person.

a'lar, a. [alaris, from ala, wing.]
1. possessing wings or alae.
2. of or relating to a wing or ala.
3. shaped like or resembling wings.
4. in botany, located in the forks of a plant or a stem; axillary.
5. in anatomy, of or pertaining to the armpit; axillary.

bar'ghest, bar'guest (-gest), n., [perh. from ON. bjarg, berg, mountain, and gastr or AS. geist, stranger; akin to G. berg geist, mountain demon.] an imaginary goblin or spirit, generally in the shape of a dog, supposed to mean death or bad fortune to the person to whom it appears.

ca-nes'cent, a. [L. canescens (-entis), ppr. of canescere, to become white or hoary; canus, white or hoary.] growing white or hoary.

haec-ce'i-ty (hek-) , n. [LL. haecceitas, thisness, from L. haec, f. of hic, this.] literally, the quality of being this; thisness; the relation of individuality conceived as a positive attribute or essence.

fa-cin'o-rous, a. atrociously wicked.

pi'ment, n. wine flavored with a mixture of spice or honey.

tit'tup, n. [prob. echoic of hoof beats.] an action portraying gaiety or liveliness; the act of prancing or capering; a frisk; a caper.
tit'tup, v.i.; tittuped or tittupped (-tupt), pt., pp., tuttuping or tittupping, ppr. to behave in a frolicsome manner; to caper.

kerf, n. [ME. kerf, kyrf; AS. cyrf, a cutting, from coerfan, to cut.]
1. a cutting or cut; especially, a cut or notch made by an ax, a saw, or other instrument; the notch or slit made in wood by cutting.
2. a strip, piece, or quantity cut off.

wel'kin, n. [ME. welken, welkne, from AS. wolcnu, pl. of wolcen, a cloud.] the curved vault of the sky, or the upper air: now chiefly in to make the welkin ring, to make a very loud sound.
wel'kin, a. sky blue.

so today i accepted a job but felt kinda pressured into it. they were all like, you want the twenty hour lab tech position right, and i was all like, sure, i guess, and then they were like, so of course you want to teach a nine week class on dreamweaver fireworks and flash starting in april and i was like uhhhhh... but i felt like i couldn't say no and that it was part of the position. i guess i should be relieved because now i will have a way to pay the bills once school and my assistantship is over, but now i'm looking at planning a nine week class, finishing this semester (including two independent studies i haven't done squat for, a pain-in-the-ass class where the proff totally hates me, and oh yeah, an incomplete from last semester still...) all while working 20 hours at my current job. really i just want to say fuck it all and paint all day, or watch buffy, or just be generally fucking independent and not have to sell my soul to pay the bills. i guess that's juz life in this capitalist purgatory... anyone know any rich old men i can whore myself out to? oh wait, i guess that's work too. as my dad always said, if you marry for money you earn it!

along those lines, here is something my mom once told me and i told it to matthew today and he said it was really smart and i agree:

only boring people get bored.

but there's the rub, brothers and sisters. i'm perfectly capable of entertaining myself with all manner of projects and prospects, but instead i waste my life energy working for someone else. i know it doesn't help any of us to say this, and that were all basically in the same fix, and actually better off than most of the people on this god fersakin planet but... wah!

in order to nurture my inner moppet i went to hyatt's today and bought $50 worth of art supplies, including stuff to do a plaster cast of matthew's face in honor of his birthday. so to end on an up note, hyatt's rocks, the people there are awesome and it's way cheaper than michael's, those corporate shill hounds. and matthew rocks! we bought tree frogs today and it's his birthday so now i will put aside my petty foibles for now and say happy happy wacky matty!! let's party (not)!

Kotensky settlement figurine, 23,000-21,000 BC

Last night I dreamed I was this woman. I only vaguely remember it. I realized that the reason I have trouble remembering my dreams these days is that I snooze too long. You gotta wake right up cause if you doze off again then it gets all muddled or you forget it entirely. I used to be really into lucid dreaming and I could remember dreams as if they were happening right in front of me, but these days I don't recall so much, just sensations and fragments. maybe because its so freakin' cold all the time I never want to get out of bed, so I hit that snooze button like 4 or 5 times before i finally get up.

anyways, I do remember that in my dream I was this paleolithic woman. my skin was even kind of stone textured, and i had these massive pendulous boobs, the "overlarge breasts and belly" that the Hermitage museum uses to describe this icon. I felt like she looks like she feels: nurturing, sensual, modest, peaceful, loving. it was pretty cool.

the weird thing is that my mother looks almost exactly like this figurine. would she be a goddess if we still wanted our women to look like her?

Considering how accurate paleolithic artists were in portraying animals, is it possible that their women did look like her?

Chauvet Cave Images, 30,000 B.C.

"Women Rivet Heaters and Passers on"
By an unknown photographer, Puget Sound Navy Yard, Washington, May 29, 1919



Okay so maybe it's a minority view amongst us these days, but I love this friggin' country. if you want to love this god fer sakin' country too, take a look at this awesome site (again from the national archives) called picturing the century: .
it's got all kinds of pictures of immigrants, teenage soldiers, suffragettes, and civil rights marchers. oh, plus a too funny picuture of the six living first ladies. aw shit, here it is too:

"First Ladies Nancy Reagan, Ladybird Johnson, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rosalyn Carter, Betty Ford, and Barbara Bush sit together at the National Garden Gala, 'A Tribute to America's First Ladies.'"
By Barbara Kinney, Washington, DC, May 11, 1994



doesn't it look like hillary clinton is making a pass at ladybird!?

so, with evil biddies like these and their patriotic patriarchs running the country, how, you may ask, can i still love it?

because the "rivet heaters and passers on" are my first ladies! look at how tough these broads are! could you be that tough?

yeah the rich and powerful have always tried to steal our freedom and our money from us and work us to death, but they don't know how strong we are. this nation is run by the wealthy, but its built by the poor; the ambitious immigrants, rebellious slaves, hungry share croppers, striking factory workers and yeah, even the teenage soldiers who don't know any better but weep when their buddies get killed. the hidden history of these people, who are really, to use a historian's $10 word, indomitable, is what makes me "proud to be an american". they seemed to understand that freedom must be fought for. even if the myth of liberty is a farce, people make it true by believing it and living it. just ask your grandparents...

(this post is really an addendum to "everything makes me cry". maybe it should be subtitled "my creeping conservatism"...)

here is the new painting I just finished this weekend. there are some funny spots from the digital camera and a level adjust, but it's still pretty much what it looks like.

this painting is like a dream for me. i can almost feel how cold the air would be on my skin as i look out over the tiny world with clouds in my hair. i think next i will paint myself as a planet floating in outerspace. i feel so little and insignificant in real life, so this painting is a way to "work it out" i guess. it's cool that you can make an image of something you can only see in your head. its way more exciting than trying to explain in words what a dream is like, how totally different we can imagine ourselves in the world.

oh, the teeny little brown splotch in the corral behind the barn is a horse the size of a flea. for scale. :)

well it's saint patricks day and we've been drunk since about 4 o'clock for me, maybe earlier for the others. but i love the new green green green colors of the site (and the awesome maps.) i mean we're all a little green on the inside aren't we?

the parade was pretty crazy. there were a gagillion people, including drunken high school kids. i wanna go downtown tomorrow and see the aftermath, broken glass and green glitter everywhere.

my new question i'm asking is why don't we bring out the pagan in the european myths, the hard core priestesses and shamans? "westerners" seem to have modeled themselves after roma and greece, instead of their own tribal pasts. in that honor, here is an image of celtic goddess of fertility shelia-na gig, she's way B.C.: