I Got the Election Blues

It really steams my clams that I won't be old enough to vote in the '08 election. I'm sure it will go down in history as not only one of the closest, but simply one of the most important.

Here's my observation. I refuse to submit to a political party preference. I just don't believe in them. Like organized religion (which is also not for me), it seems very counterproductive and rather non-helpful, considering there is so much difference between each individual person in the world. What separates the most liberal Republican in the USA from the most conservative Democrat therein?

I think I've found the answer. Would we all agree that a liberal Republican is still somewhat conservative, and a conservative Democrat still somewhat liberal?

Of course not. The "political continuum" now has so many different regions, it's possible for there to be a pro-choice Catholic for the acceptance of gay marriage. Personally, I'm a mostly pro-life (I hate those absolute terms to describe abortion, but for lack of better ones, they'll do for now) nondenominational Pagan for the acceptance of gay marriage. That doesn't exactly find me a nice, cozy home in the black-and-white world of Democrat-liberal/Republican-conservative America.

But it'll be a long while before I trust the GOP again.

After eight disastrous years with whacko zealot Dubya in the Oval Office, and with memories of two scathingly, monstrously negative gubernatorial campaigns by Republican Dino Rossi freshly squeezed into my brain like the bitterest orange juice in the world, how can I? What's really changed? Okay, the party of "good ol' boys" now includes one with expensive clothes and no "Y" chromosome. Okay, the Dems have spread malicious lies, too. But from what I can tell, almost all of those have been predominantly retaliatory.

As a "nondenominational Pagan," one of my core religious beliefs is that nature will, without human assistance, offer consequences for any action. Heinous crimes bring about dire results for the perpetrator in one life or another, and good deeds will be rewarded-- again, in one life or another. Retaliation goes against this basic principle. So you'd think that would turn me off the left wing, right?

Wrong.

From what I can tell, every evil consequence brought on by our country's disastrous "leadership" the last two terms has been directed at the perpetrators, but have actually more significantly affected those who said, "I told you so." All around the world, people are crying foul on the United States; Old Glory is starting to look more and more like Old Disgrace. "President" Bush has done everything in his power to justify every decision he has made. That wouldn't be such a horrifically misguided move, if only the decisions he made had some kind of moral value to them. But no. Where in the Universal Moral Code does it state that it's okay to set out to find a notorious, heinous, vicious criminal... then let him go, to pursue someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the criminal act that got the USA howling for vengeance?!

Dino Rossi, Washington State's current GOP candidate for governor, is spreading by far the most disgusting slander in my knowledge about Democratic incumbent Christine Gregoire. Four years ago, they came head-to-head in the closest election in WA state history, and now Rossi's come back to see if he can win this time, with a more vicious attack plan and a campaign platform less solid than water on Mercury.

Furthermore, when you hear things about the Republican candidate for vice-president abusing power, that doesn't exactly inspire trust. Bush Sr. was at least a passable president. So I know that good leadership from the right is possible. But America needs time to heal-- and neither the nation nor my state can do it under "grand ol'" faux leadership.

Therefore, I implore all registered voters to make the intelligent choices. Bandage America with Barack Obama, and let our state be an example under the proven, tested-true leadership of Chris Gregoire.

The election is just ten days away.

Bothered, Bewildered, and... Ya Know, All the Rest

This week, in my clamoring quest to hold my annual Halloween film festival at a more considerable loss for time and resources than in previous years, I stumbled upon "Suspiria," Dario Argento's 1977 surreal classic about an evil European dance academy.

Here's my problem with it.

Of all the films, TV series, books, et cetera to ever "brutilize" (brutalize/utilize in one word) the idea of witchcraft, it has by far used the most ridiculous, sensational view I have ever seen. Even Oliver Stone's 1991 biography "The Doors" (with its blood-drinking, Bacchus-invoking exaggeration of real-life witch Patricia Kennealy) did it better. Heck, even "Harry Potter" had the idea closer to right!

"Suspiria" posits, in no uncertain degrees, the idea that witches are all crazy, evil, destructive women who can manipulate time and events, but only to produce harmful effects for others. According to ideas explicitly stated in one of the most boring dialogue scenes ever filmed, a witch's only goal is to increase her own personal fortune.

Actually, that whole idea sounds like the opposite of witches. Witchcraft has always been a substantial source of paranoia, hatred, closed-mindedness, and very bad entertainment, and I believe the root is a single passage in the King James Bible: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." What people don't realize or don't want to realize is that the phrase is a dreadfully bad translation of "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." That's poisoner-- not witch. Yes, there is a difference. A poisoner is someone who deliberately turns people's minds off hearing good things and, by so doing, doing good things.

A witch, on the other hand, is a person-- man or woman-- who subscribes to a belief in the essence and supremacy of nature. Witches (known by many names-- Pagans, Wiccans, etc.) may have many goals in life, but real witches are not the ones who harm others, let alone make it a life's pursuit. As a matter of fact, witches practice a kind of Magick (spell it with a "k" or it becomes one big joke) that cannot be seen, heard, smelled, touched, or maybe even felt. Magick never, ever involves beams of energy or bolts of lightning. Magick, more often than not, involves prayer, meaning, feeling, and a powerful desire to do something good-- and that last one is not an option, but a requirement.

If you want a really thorough view on Wicca (Magick and real, non-sensationalized witchcraft), I can personally recommend a fantastic author on the subject: Silver Ravenwolf, whose books have helped countless people learn the truth about a subject so often ridiculed. Her writing helped me at a time in my life when there were few who could, when I was struggling to find my own faith. The Craft wasn't for me, exactly as it is, but it was a key factor in making the decision.

Now we come to what is perhaps the bigger issue: why was I so easily offended (yes, I'll admit it) by something out of a movie? If I can hear Archie Bunker's racist, sexist, homophobic, and outlandish comments on "All in the Family" and still shake them off, why has this stuck in my mind for so long?

The answer is: because it's about time people started learning the truth. I cannot stand intolerance in any of its forms, and one of the longest-festering bigotries in human history has always been the animosity between people of differing religious backgrounds.

My belief is that if a religion preaches love and acceptance (and I mean real, unconditional love and acceptance), it is valid, and I refuse to mock anyone for following their beliefs. It's time to stop this kind of hatred now, because, as I live and breathe, it is the one that is most likely to destroy everybody.

And the Rich Get Sicker

Some people are so caught up in an overpowering, false sense of patriotism (i.e., "America: Love it or leave it," which is actually so much worse than "America: Love it and heal it") that they haven't noticed: we have passed the apex of our civilization.

Think about it before you refute it. Let's face the facts. First and foremost, evolution is dead. The world's population is too big for us to evolve any more. Then there are the many slow changes that have tried to drive all those nails into our coffins: the value of the dollar is falling faster than Romeo fell for Juliet (ah, those teenaged fools...), our wars of the current toddler century have cost us many allies, and then there's the fact that modern America is polarized, torn into too many factions to keep track.

And despite all of this, our elected officials and candidates to replace them insist on driving the wedge even further into the crack! Even Obama, my personal choice for President (inability to vote in this election notwithstanding), is and will continue to be beholden to divisive partisan tactics just to get him what he wants: a seat in the Oval Office. Of course, McCain and Palin have, as a rule, been far more prolific agitators, but the point and the insult still remain.

Here in Washington State, I doubt the violent partisan confrontation could be any worse. Our incumbent governor, Christine Gregoire (who won the '04 election by 100-some odd votes, though many claim the result is fraudulent), is locked in an epic death battle with sleazy challenger Dino Rossi, who, among other failings, refuses to admit he's a Republican (yes, we know what GOP means... but do you, Dino?) He claims she allowed 1300 convicted sex offenders to escape (a false claim) and she claims all sorts of crazy things about him, some of which are true and some of which aren't. I don't like Gregoire very much, but I would prefer her to Rossi, a man so devoid of all morals and ethics that he can't even move the muscles in his face when he shouts.

But from here to Hawaii, from Florida to California and from Maine to Alaska, every politician refuses to give our current financial debacle a comment other than, "It's Bush's fault" or "We need change."

Of course it's Bush's fault! Of course we need change!

Change is generally proposed by either wacko bystanders like me or obscure, third-party candidates who haven't a prayer of winning their races. These changes range from corporate guard-dogging on the one extreme to the institution of socialism on the other.

Socialism is a good idea, in theory. I cringe to think that my income will one day be controlled by men who toss money denominations that small down the toilet. But the sad fact is, socialism and communism have never worked because humans cannot be trusted to run the program. Technically, most humans in charge of anything can't be trusted to tie their own shoes, but who would bother to do it for them?

Corporate guard-dogging falls under the category of "too little too late." Back when we excepted this madly unfettered system of capitalism, the side effects of which can only be corporate greed and economic recession, we should have implemented safeguards against those fat cats' destructive philosophies.

That being said, I really have no alternative to offer to salvage our wounded economy. All I can say is that, if the founding fathers or John Reed could see us now, they'd be pointing, laughing, and saying, "I told ya so!"

And This is America

Before you begin to read this blog, you should probably read up on your current events of Washington State. Go as far back as May and you should find what you need.

When the Everett School District fired a teacher because she was violating rules (pretty standard grounds for dismissal, I'd say), it managed to ignite one of the most whiplash-inducing back-and-forths in recent history. The big bone of contention was an "underground newspaper" that she was using district facilities (and her students) to publish.

I don't really know about this newspaper. I don't know what it was about or what significance (well, if any) that it held. All I really had was an assumption-- since the paper was forbidden by the district, it must have had some kind of political slant. I still haven't been able to verify that. From there, the story evolved into a tangled web of district investigations, allegations against both involved parties, and some surveillance scandal. In the end, both parties ended up on shaky moral ground, and it was enough to force the Superintendent of the district to step aside, raising ire from many of the select group of individuals who actually knew precisely what was going on.

Well, I hope they knew what was going on; the alternative is blind opinion (shudder!)

This is what I can comfortably say about the issue without becoming an unknowing, fast-speaking hypocrite. First and foremost, the word "underground" should never have been used in the media's coverage of the scandal, and I'll tell you why.

I want you to think Orwell... big-time Orwell. Generally, a word like underground invokes a world and a nation where freedom is nonexistent. The last time it was used with any degree of effectiveness in American history was to describe the Underground Railroad, that system of transporting slaves to freedom that gives me a little spirit boost anytime I think about it. At the same time, though, it gives me a chill to think of it as well, because that also evokes the need for such a secret operation. That, in turn, evokes the painful and aggravating reality of prejudice.

Again, I don't know what this underground newspaper was about. But I do know that such a description makes my blood run cold. Maybe-- and I'm not saying definitely-- this teacher and her students (all of the above volunteers, I might add) were just trying to say something that needed to be said, but the format of the public education system just couldn't allow it. This is just an example of how idiotic our education system has turned out to be.

Every district I know of in this country has some set of regulations that forbids teachers from discussing politics with their students, except in a cold and, quite frankly, worthless divorced context. The reason for this is that administrators fear that the teachers will influence their students' political views.

That resounding whap was the sound of a heavy glove falling brusquely upon the faces of minors all over the country. I can understand this fear from K-8, but high school students should be prepared for the real world. That real world includes people who will talk downright absolutely about politics, and everyone needs to be ready to hear people's political philosophies, because they can be brought up at a moment's notice-- the minutemen of controversial discussion. No one worries about what will happen when a high school graduate or dropout hears someone talk about who they think should be President. I know far more gullible, sheep-like adults than I do teenagers. Most teens I know, in fact, have formed their own opinions on most issues based on-- gasp!-- informed research and sheer intelligence!

I would also like to add that everyone is generally influenced from a very early age by their parents, for good and bad. Just as manners and knowledge can be shared between parent and child, so can things like political ideology and religion. I'm not saying children should be influenced with either of these-- in fact, they shouldn't, but stopping it simply can't be done. And because of it, many children will grow up without any kind of moral spine that they can explain without resorting to calling up their parents. Teachers do it far less and far less damagingly.

The bottom line is, respect is necessary. The teens of today are the leaders of tomorrow, and we will grow up to remember the disrespect and mistrust and general babying with which we were treated by the leaders of today. And tomorrow, they will call upon us to fix the problems that they saddled us with in the first place.

Maybe, when that day comes, we should just tell them we can't solve their problems because it would be wrong to influence their mashed-potato-ish minds.

The Perfect White House

I am now more thoroughly convinced than ever that John McCain is not the man we should have in charge of our country.

Let's look back over his long bid for the Oval Office. To do so, we should probably begin way back with his tour of duty in Vietnam. The thing is, McCain is a hero. As a military officer, he served pretty flipping commendably... albeit in one of the most wrong wars in history (and there are no right wars), and his service to our country is a great debt that, it would seem, could never be repaid.

He has, however, in the process of extending his grip to that cushy Pennsylvania Avenue address, surrendered all the principles that should have made him a great man... and did, for quite some time.

This week, I learned that the smear tactics he is using to derail the Obama campaign are of the same tint as the kind that cost him the Republican Party nomination in 2000-- basically, downplay yourself and mark your candidate like a dog marks a dead tree. This kind of despicable maneuvering (yes, I know we're dealing with the world of politics) has been used by both sides in this particular war, but (a) that doesn't make it right; and (b), it has been used by McCain exponentially more than it has been used by Obama, even though McCain recently tried to tell his supporters that they needed to be far less hostile toward those on the left.

I have said previously that the chief disqualifying factor for his campaign is that lipstick-smeared sow with the hockey family: Mrs. Sarah Palin, governor of the Little State Where Ethics Weren't There (for her gubernatorial stay, anyway). Most of the ruthless epithets, baseless doubts, and vicious rumors used to derail the Obama campaign came from her poorly painted mouth. And since Alaska just said publicly that she had, in fact, abused her power, do we really want to give her more power to abuse? Even if she never makes it to the actual Presidency itself, the Vice President of the United States inarguably has more powers than the Governor of Alaska-- most importantly of all, the potential tiebreaking vote in Congress. If she has this power, America will go from a highly disrespected, debt-addled nation to a highly disrespected, debt-saturated nation where no one is free to read, speak, or even think as they please.

Obama is the man for the presidency because he has morals, and so does his running mate. No, he hasn't offered any solutions for the financial meltdown-- but then, the smartest people I know (people to whom I would gladly hand over the world on a silver platter with maybe one iota of doubt, total) don't even pretend to understand the $700 billion bailout plan. This is called being human.

And Obama's campaign is not based on hatred, mistrust, suspicion, or any of those other so-called "values" that mega-conservatives have been using for years as their alleged "moral compass." Lizzie Borden had a better moral compass!

And if McCain and Palin are elected, those forty whacks will fall on us. They will fall hardest on those of us who were not able to vote in this crucial election (maybe the most crucial in our nation's history) because of something as trivial as age (for many of us, a matter of months, weeks, or even days!)

I call on everybody (although I probably only have three readers at this point) to vote for Barack H. Obama. The "H" stands for "Hooray! A competent elected official!"

Music is Dead, Capital "D"

In 1969, The Who released an album where all of the songs were about a blind, deaf, and dumb boy who became a hero. The album, Tommy, redefined rock music. It expanded the diversity of Western culture (which had not actually been expanded since the 1860s). And it allowed people a way to alter their mindset positively without taking harmful chemical substances.

In 2008, songs are about a handful of things. Some sensitive girl with a guitar wants the guy she can never have. Some sensitive guy with a guitar will be with his girl someday. Some unjustly rich rapper will be having some illegal fun tonight. Some trampy starlet will not be wearing enough clothes tonight.

What went wrong?!

Music back then was about everything from hippieism to physical handicaps to religion (Jesus Christ Superstar, anyone?) Even warbly-voiced rockers had talent-- just look at Ted Neeley, Roger Daltrey, and John Kay! I am probably the youngest person alive to say we need a return to the "good ol' days."

I am not in favor of the stifling censorship of yesteryear. Don't kid yourself about that. Censorship (to a degree) is wrong. The truth deserves to be heard with a wide-open ear. But you have to admit: entertainment, even beyond the world of music, meant something back in those days. Are we not talking about the age of movies like The Godfather and Planet of the Apes, both of which changed the outlook of Hollywood? Was it not the era of Woodstock? In fact, the years between 1967 and 1973 saw perhaps the most diverse sprinkling of daring, risky films: the elaborate, expensive classic-musical Camelot in 1967; the highly cerebral 2001: A Space Odyssey and Apes in 1968; the irreverent war dramedy MASH in 1970; 1971's Fiddler on the Roof, the first truly successful movie musical since 1965's The Sound of Music; The Godfather in 1972; and the wealth of 1973 on the silver screen, from American Graffiti and The Sting to Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell.

Movies today can be very entertaining, but if someone says a movie nowadays is changing the way people think, it usually means it's a pretentious piece of insert choice expletive here.

Here's my solution.

Instead of vapid movie musicals like High School Musical 3, release updates of classics like South Pacific (now would be the time, since its Broadway return has recently done so well), and then try something new: Make a musical film version of The Who's other rock opera, Quadrophenia. Leave the western alone; that genre has been dead for years, so don't touch it unless you can rustle up talent the likes of John Wayne and Paul Newman (ain't-a gonna happen). Focus television away from moronic saccharine contests like American Idol and towards more intelligent fare like The Big Bang Theory and Heroes (although Greatest American Dog is more suitable for human viewing than AI), and the cinema will soon follow the example.

Kids.

Why God Gave Gays Guns

I once heard a saying that went something like this: "Every minority must have its time under the gun."

Excuse me?

In order to claim any sort of validity, every minority must first be shunned, repressed, oppressed, and downtrodden?

I want to believe it isn't so, but then I look at the world we live in. Suddenly, I realize, the above statement is not the way things should be; it is the way things have to be.

Of course, there will always be that certain group of people that refuses to treat one minority or another as real people. But this is the time when the light is shown most directly on the following letters: G (Gay) L (Lesbian) B (Bisexual) T (Transgender) Q (Questioning) A (straight-Ally) I (Intersex; what, in the older world, would have been called the politically incorrect term "hermaphrodite").

People want to believe that America is behind in its treatment of GLBTQAI people, but in actuality, we are relatively far ahead. In some countries, there is no law protecting these people from murder. Yes, it really bites that the idea of gay marriage is frowned upon in this country, but at least there are legal safeguards (ineffective though they sometimes are) against hate crime.

Furthermore, an oncoming host of national crises seem to have prevented American politicians from giving this civil-rights debacle (on the international stage as well) the attention it deserves. Today, we are so worried about our financial crisis and the war in Iraq that it is just no longer a priority.

But basic human rights here and across the globe should be a priority. First, we need to encourage the growth of humanitarian sentiment in countries where people can be lynched for kissing someone of the same sex. We need to take a look at our country's biggest practitioner of unfair, homophobic discrimination: the Armed Forces. We need to divorce puritanical religious beliefs from the just outlook of our long-forgotten constitution and realize that the federal government has no legitimate right to tell people how they cannot conduct their private, romantic lives.

We need to look to Massachusetts and California not as overly radical, but as examples of where to take the next step. I don't want my kids growing up in a world where Uncle Sam tells Uncle Jeff and Uncle Johnny that they're disgusting perverts just because they want to get married. M-a-r-r-i-e-d.

The day will come. I've said that so many times about so many things because I have to believe it. But could we make it get here a little faster?

All's Hollow (Now, Anyway)

Remember the premise of The Nightmare Before Christmas? How Jack was able to bring Christmas to the citizens of Halloween, but at the cost of the actual holidays themselves?

Well, it's taken right from the playbook of one of the oldest groups in history: the Religious Zealots.

I am not one of the people who believe that religion has no place in the modern world; nor do I believe that religion is evil. I do follow a religion (though it is not an organized religion). I only ask that I am not singled out for conversion to any religion. If I wish to learn about a faith, I will learn about it for myself.

But people don't really seem to mind stifling religious freedom, and, frankly, they never have. In fact, the Puritans (that name should be a hint) were some of history's biggest hypocrites: they fled their home countries because they were not allowed to freely practice their religion, but they also insisted that it was the only true religion. Every time there was even a hint that another faith was encroaching on their turf, they resorted to stifling, nightmarish totalitarianism. Sadly, their example has often been followed.

Many faiths are puritannical without being called Puritanism. These are the paths of belief that dictate how everyone in the world should live, hate all outsiders, and believe the way to an eternity of peace in the hereafter is to get as many more believers as they can.

I cannot believe anything like that! People are free, and need the freedom to follow their own beliefs!

As we approach the Halloween holiday, let us not forget that it is not merely a time to dress up and get free candy. Halloween is the celebration of the autumn harvest, and, to many, it is one of the holiest days in the year because it is a day to reflect on those who have lived and died before. It is fun, I will admit, to throw a film festival where such films as The Exorcist, The Omen, and, yes, Halloween, are shown.

Just don't allow the movies, the corn labyrinths, and the trick-or-treating to become the only point to the whole event. It is not Satanic, and it is not without meaning.