The real scam & the scammers - Rev. J.T. Smith

Recently, I've come across two opinion pieces included in the daily AlterNet Top Stories  newsletter in my email that I'm subscribed to. The author of the pieces, John Stoehr, is of the opinion that third party Presidential candidates are all scammers because all third parties are a scam.

He didn't drink the Kool-aid.  Clearly, he guzzled and gargled with it.  He also assumes the only people who are attracted to third party candidates are those who solely vote during Presidential elections and take no other particular part in politics.  He claims those third parties are full of false promises, are in a sense demagogic, and are anti-democratic as a result.

Strange.  Every year, I see a smattering of third party candidates for positions up and down the ballot.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Bernie Sanders is not only currently a United States Senator representing Vermont, but he is also an Independent.  Strange.  (Obviously Sanders switched to the Democratic party from 2015 - 2016 and 2019 - 2020 in his run to be President, but the fact remains that he is now, once again, an Independent.  See my previous entries about his running as a Democrat.)

As a matter of fact, there are currently four Independent Senators: Bernie Sanders (VT) (2007 - present); Angus S. King Jr (ME) (2013 - present); Kyrsten Sienna (AZ) (2013 - present); and Joe Manchin  III (WV) (2013 - present).  And they are not the only Senators in American history that belonged to "Third or Minor Parties."  While there are no members of the House Of Representatives belonging to third or minor parties as of the writing of entry, there have still been many examples throughout American history.  To be fair, not all of those third and minority party members were originally elected as a third or minor party member.  Some changed parties and were still reelected, and some like Bernie Sanders were elected as a member of a third or minor party member.  And those examples are strictly referring to the federal government.  There are still more throughout state and local governments as well.

So while third party candidates are rare enough masse in American politics, they can and do still win.  And in winning they adjust the course of politics.

As I have noted previously, the corporate duopoly of American politics is the problem.  Alright,  technically it is a problem.  The two bigger problems which combine with the corporate duopoly are the real overall problem.  What are the two bigger problems?

First is the Electoral College.  I've already spoken about that travesty in previous entries.  The other relates to Duverger's law in political science.  America is a political system with single member districts, which means each district is represented by a single officeholder.  In contrast, systems with proportional representation usually have more representatives of minor parties in government.

Considering that America started with zero political parties, which George Washington would refer to factions and in fact Washington was strongly against because he felt that unity rather than division was necessary for a democratic republic to survive.

Ultimately the only reason third parties have yet to break through that wall is because enough people buy the lie that the only viable parties are the corporate duopoly, and fools like John Stoehr who think that we must do everything to make changes while maintaining that duopoly.

My father was a member of the Libertarian party.  His father wanted to name him Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but didn't know how to spell Delano.  My father, for reasons I neither understood nor really discussed with him, hated Roosevelt.  That was my personal introduction to politics aside from what was loosely taught in school.  Frankly I had no interest as it all stank of bovine defacation and held less than no interest in it for me.  Especially considering the President is not elected by the majority of Americans due to the Electoral College.

In November 2000, I wasn't registered to vote.  My personal take was that my vote doesn't count, and I pointed to the Presidential election as the prime reason for concluding that.  For clarification, in 2000 I was residing in Pennsylvania, a state that Al Gore, whom I would have voted for had I been registered to vote, won handily even without my vote.  Not only did Gore win Pennsylvania, he also won the Popular Vote.  We all know how that played out.

My first actual real involvement of any political kind was to add my voice to the chorus who stood against AT&T's intended buyout of T-Mobile as I was and am a T-Mobile customer and I don't want to be ripped off any more than I have to be.  And AT&T wants to charge me more for the same services I currently pay less for with T-Mobile.  I made calls and wrote letters to my local/federal government and signed every petition I could find to end that "merger".  When I learned the part those calls, letters, and petitions ultimately played , I started signing petitions and writing letters to elected officials involving the environment, ending the death penalty, government issues, and far more.  Feel free to check out my Pinterest page for a better understanding of where I stand.

I didn't get properly involved in "local politics" (which is how I see all human politics regardless of nationality) until 2012 when I registered to vote for the first time and I voted for Barack Obama because I saw the Mitt Romney's vision regarding women as a direct threat to all of my female friends, and who make up the majority of my friends.

While I have no interest nor intention of running for political office myself, my political activities haven't slowed.  Frankly, I loathe politics in general.  Unfortunately, I have to get involved to try to make change. 

As of January this year, the number of registered independent voters surpassed the number of registered Democrats and Republican voters.  Frankly, take that as a good sign. 

On a personal note, while I am registered as an independent, and with the exception of the times I briefly changed to Democrat simply to vote for Bernie Sanders in both the 2016 and 2020 primaries, and while I lean Democrat, I more closely align with the Green Party and the Working Families Party.  And for over a year now the Green Party is an official party that you can register to vote as in the state that I currently live in.

The movement to eliminate the Electoral College is growing.  Fighting the corporate stranglehold on American politics is ongoing.  If history teaches us anything, it is it can be done. Hopefully without a relative replay of the French Revolution.  Eliminating those will definitely help to allow third parties to be able to end the duopoly.  As will getting people to wake up to the fact that people should vote their conscience even when it's a third party candidate that most aligns with your conscience.

Voting for third parties is not a scam.  The scam is believing the only viable options are sticking with the corporate duopoly.

 

- Rev. J.T. Smith

 

 

Dealing With Offense (Updated) - Rev. J.T. Smith

I initially wrote the following in February 2015 as an article for the Wellspring Clubhouse's newsletter, which was published.  On December 4, 2016, upon starting this blog (which I admit I need to post to more often), I posted this article as the inaugural article, with a graphic attached so I could post it to my Pinterest page. 

Having attended a training regarding "recovery language" and the words/phrases that are now considered "offensive" on 11/22/19, it strikes me as apropos to share it with you, though updated slightly as a result of/response to that training.  [This article, with the exceptions of a direct quote used in the article and the graphics at the end, is solely me.  And the coarse language found in the primary quote is in fact a direct quote.  I do not expect anyone to agree with me.  As the title of my blog says, this is Food For Thought.]

--------

No matter what you do, no matter how hard you try for otherwise, either you will offend someone or they will offend you.  It’s simply a part of this thing we call life.  There is one thing to realize and remember: The only way you can be offended is if you choose to be offended.

Ultimately, the best way to deal with it is to surprise everyone and choose to not be offended.  Ask yourself why the person is in any way important to you specifically.  Also remember that others won’t necessarily share your viewpoint.  Sometimes, their view will be both negative to your way of thinking and will seem to be narrow-minded and inflexible.  Deciding to be offended will only succeed in giving you extra unneeded “baggage” that will only adversely affect *you*.  You do better to decide to not be offended, try to at least see where their point is coming from, explain your point of view (i.e. have something of a conversation about it), and if you can’t come to a consensus then at most mentally conclude that they’re an idiot and then just go on with your life.

Now there's a movement to change recovery language so as to be "patient first" in an attempt to thwart stigma.  On the surface this sounds noble as fighting and ending stigma is absolutely needed.  Unfortunately, it's focusing on the wrong problem in that it isn't the words "autistic," "autism," "drug addiction," "mental illness," or any of the other related words/terms that are the cause of or carry the stigma; it's the conditions themselves to which those words/terms refer.  Language is reflective of the culture that spawned it.  One anthropological fact is that language follows culture, not the other way around. 

The fact of the matter is that *any* word, phrase, or terminology can be turned into a pejorative regardless of how innocent that word, phrase, or terminology is, just as anything said can become sexualized even when the word/phrase isn't sexual in and of itself.

At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, it was decided to refer to people with various physical/mental health issues as "special" as it was considered a positive and affirming word.  We no longer say "special" because it quickly became a pejorative term.  And in an effort to thwart the use medical terms in the mental health realm, the terms have become more complex; the result has been an increase of the phrase "I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce" as an insult.

In another aspect regarding the fallacy of thinking being "offended" is a useful reaction, an example: While I was still a member of the Wellspring Clubhouse, I was in a conversation with a female friend, and while I don't recall the topic I do remember we were in agreement.  Shortly thereafter in the same day, I was in the library/computer room having a similar conversation with a male acquaintance about the same topic.  While I was describing the prior conversation (without identifying the woman I'd been speaking to due to my privacy protocols), with my lead-in being that I agreed with her, another female member came into the room on unrelated business whereupon she heard part of what I was saying.  Without bothering to learn the context of my remarks, she concluded that she was offended by what I was saying and came to the "defense" of my female friend.  The woman was further offended when I pointed out that, because she was coming into the middle of a conversation with no accurate reference points, she had no idea what she was talking about since I was in fact in agreement with my female friend.  Rather than utilizing logic, the woman who still thought she was defending my friend decided to let her emotions rule regardless of the facts.

[See my article: "Check Your -ism by Rev. J.T. Smith" for further examples.]

Regardless of whether it's in an individual setting or a more institutional one (e.g. job, official or professional situation, et al), being offended solves nothing and does not give you nor anyone else any special rights or privileges.  As Stephen Fry once said: “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.'  As if that gives them certain rights.  It's actually nothing more . . . than a whine.  'I find that offensive.'  It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.  'I am offended by that.'  Well, so fucking what." [I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]”

Getting and/or being offended solves nothing.  It won’t actually change anything.  Your viewpoints, no matter how well reasoned or even potentially innocent they may be, will still offend someone else.  That’s merely human nature.  Regardless of what far too many people will tell you, you always have a choice (you simply won’t always like the alternatives).  In terms of something, a statement or action that you don’t like for whatever reason, your choices are to be offended or not to be offended.  Make your life so much easier by always choosing to not be offended.

by Rev. J.T. Smith

Check Your -ism - Rev. J.T. Smith

First, we must all realize and understand that like trust, respect is earned; it's not a door prize.  Just as I cannot tell you who to respect, you do not get to tell me who to respect.  You can tell me why you respect whoever or whatever you respect, but that's the extent; and the same rules apply to everyone, including myself.  And if you need to demand respect, then you don't deserve it.  Another thing to keep in mind is that respect and "common courtesy/decency" are not the same thing.  Too many people think that they're completely interchangeable terms when they're not.  Everyone should be given common courtesy and common decency, that's why the word "common" is a part of those phrases.  That is not the same as respect.  Look it up.

These concepts are important as what I'm trying to say won't make any sense otherwise.

Now to narrow things down for this article.  It's so easy to blindly label a person a [fill-in-the-blank]ist as it automatically has a negative connotation when -ist is added to the end of a word.  It's part of the reason the word "feminist" has come to have negative association even though it simply means "recognizing that girls/women are actually people."  For the record, I am a feminist.  I not only believe in, advocate for, and otherwise support complete equality of the genders, I do my best to practice it by treating women and men the same (for better or worse).

But, one thing everyone needs to do before labeling anyone "sexist" or "misogynistic" is to in fact think things through more.  It's that lack of thought, that knee-jerk reaction when they want to stop thinking that has led some to label me a sexist because they'd rather feel offended than fully engage their brains.  Some examples (you'll need to read them through all the way) of what I mean (FYI, I have lived every last one of these):

1.
I've been asked if I think that there's ever a right or correct time for me (as a man) to hit a woman.  My answer without hesitation is "yes."

First note that the question here includes the word "ever."  This is very important.

I have self-defense training in my programming.  In fact, all of my physical fighting is in terms of self-defense (though not using akido as that particular martial art is not a part of my programming).  This is in no way referencing the adage that the best defense is a good offense.  That adage is inherently hypocritical.   I cannot ever throw the first punch or swing no matter how much I might desire to so because some idiot is desperately trying to goad me.  As soon as I swing first, I am no longer physically defending myself.  Period.  In order to be physically defending, I (or those under my protection) must first be physically attacked.  And my programming makes absolutely zero deference to age, size, or gender when I'm being attacked.  Doing otherwise is just begging for you to have your arse handed to you.  Meaning that if a woman physically attacks me, then yes I will hit her and do whatever I physically must to terminate the attack.  And to anyone who automatically wants to tell me to just walk away, you're a complete moron to assume that the assailant will let you just walk away when you've just demonstrated a weakness to be exploited.  I do not go looking for fights and will do what I can to diffuse the situation in order to avoid having to fight; but I will physically defend myself when physically attacked regardless of whether it is a male or female attacking me.

Still think I'm a sexist?

2.
In the infamous recording of Trump with talking to Billy Bush about "pussy grabbing", we could hear Bush laughing the whole time.  When I saw the video, I was laughing too. NOT because I think what Trump was saying was funny, that wasn't funny at all.  I was laughing at Trump just as I laughed at all the jocks in high school who talked like that because I realize a basic fact: The more a person carries on about how great they are, the more they feel the need to talk about sexual encounters like that, the less the person that's talking like that really is because in reality it blatantly demonstrates just how pathetic they really are!   I wasn't laughing with Trump, I was laughing at the pathetic little boy who thinks this is in any way impressive.  And since shooting him with extreme prejudice is still illegal, that leaves laughing at him or screaming.  Laughing has always felt better as it further demonstrates that I will not be lost by these losers.

Still think I'm sexist?

3.
I'm a fan of the 1990s animated show Duckman.  The absurdity of the humour still resonates in general, and while I still am not a fan of the misogynism of the main character, I still laugh knowing that Duckman is 1) covering for his feelings of loss from the death of his wife (that he accidentally caused) as she's the only woman he's truly ever loved, and 2) I know that he's going to get his arse kicked as a result of the misogyny.

Still think I'm sexist?

4.
I was once having a conversation with a male friend about the show that airs on TNT called The Librarians and how I especially like Lindy Booth's character, Cassandra Cillian.  I've seen Lindy Booth in several other roles in numerous genres playing both good guys and bad guys equally well.  Frankly, I'm a fan of the actress regardless of the role.  (That part didn't come up as it wasn't germane to our conversation.)  At one point, I verbalized that: "Cassandra is my favourite character. She's absolutely brilliant, really cute, and she's really sweet.  What more could you ask for?"  Since I was talking to an individual who knew what I was specifically referring to, I didn't feel the need to elaborate for others who weren't a part of the conversation but may have been listening.   For those who don't get what I meant by my comment, I was referring to "what more could you ask for [in a character]?"  I have always believed and done my best to express that women are people and not property.   And characters in stories, regardless of gender, are never going to be truly be people because there are always some aspects that you'll mentally fill in on your own.

Still think I'm sexist?

5.
With all due respect, I cannot properly gauge the intelligence of an individual until I actually meet them and have a conversation with them.  Any agreement with me by said individual is irrelevant, I care more about their thinking process than their specific conclusions as conclusions can always change with more information.  In terms of celebrities, remember that they're typically (typically does not mean always) shown in a good light as there's more money to go around.  I've worked with amateur actors/actresses who were great at their craft but there were times they couldn't find their head with both hands, and the inverse is also true.

In a similar vein, the thing to remember in terms of politicians is that the higher up the political food chain they are the more likely they are to have speechwriters and spin-doctors on their staff whose very job it is to make that politician look good.  And actors/actresses learn scripts for a living, and scripts can be used in interviews just as easily as movies/television shows/stage plays.  In both cases of politicians and actors/actresses, actually getting to meet them in person one-on-one and away from the spotlight is absolutely necessary, especially if you want a better feel of the real person as opposed to their public persona.

And the same goes for the people we come across in our daily lives.  I admit that when I see a woman I find aesthetically pleasing I might say as much to my friends.  This does not in any way mean that she is put on this Earth for my gratification; what it does mean is that her appearance is within the parametres of my personal aesthetic.  I cannot ever properly speculate about their personality or intelligence simply from their appearance.  Only a fool would believe otherwise.  Sadly, it's become a social minefield to vocalize your opinion of a woman's appearance as there is now a push to talk about her intelligence when you have no way to know just what her intelligence is.  That does not mean that I automatically assume she's an idiot, nor do I automatically assume that a man is somehow more intelligent.

So how am I to ascertain the intelligence level of a complete stranger when I've never met them?  How am I to conclude whether or not a complete stranger's personality is really a nice person as opposed to a well camouflaged monster who's able to lure in the unsuspecting before engaging in hideous acts when we're not even within shouting distance of each other?

How many of you automatically assumed I was referring to a female in the first of those last two questions and a male in the second?

And how many wouldn't believe me when I factually state that both questions referred to both males and females equally?

Still think I'm a sexist?