Why my vote doesn't really matter

The presidential campaign is fully underway.  The Republican field of candidates has shrunk due to the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary. Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann are through runing.   I don't know what percent of the American population that is but is but these are not heavily populated states by any stretch of the imagination.  Nor are they representative of the country overall. They are predominately white and quite rural, as opposed to many parts of the country.  I am baffled that there is not a national primary voting day.  It is ridiculous that such a small part of the populace has such overwhelming influence.  In New Jersey, the primary doesn't even happen until June and by then all contenders but one have been eliminated.  So much for democracy.

I am not even a Republican and in my state, you have to be a registered party member in order to vote in the state primary.  Nevertheless, the Republicans in New Jersey should be able to vote for Bachmann or Huntsman.  Some states, like New Hampshire, have open primaries where anyone can vote in any party primary thus allowing independents some say in the party politics.  Not New Jersey.   I know there is historical precedent for giving preference to Iowa and New Hampshire but it is just wrong.  It takes away value of one person meaning one vote.  By the time, I get to vote in a party primary, my vote is meaningless.  And if you are not registered as a Republican or Democrat in New Jersey, you are further disenfranchised from the primary election.

Of course, further disenfranchising American voters that the only really choices they have in the general election are candidates affiliated with the Democrats or the Republicans.  In some states, like New York or New Hampshire, third party candidates can get on the ballot in a general election much easier than in states like New Jersey where the rules are so arcane and complicated, it is almost impossible to get elected as a third party candidate.  I've used of my votes voting against the lesser of two evils, rather than enthusiastically supporting someone like I did Obama.

These are the things I've been thinking for years.  This is coming from some one who votes in every election, no matter how minor.  In fact, since I was 18 years old, I've only missed two local school board elections.  I take voting seriously and responsibly because I know what an important privilege and duty it is.   But, I still feel like my vote has so little worth.

I wonder if other voters feel the same way.  I think they do.  I think the Tea Party is as frustrated with the two party system as the Occupy Wall Street movement is.  I think the populace as a whole is quite unsatisfied.  I am not sure where this will lead but change needs to happen.

We, as a country, are in financial distress, an economic morass and a malaise not seen since right before Ronald Reagan was elected.  The best that can be said about Mitt Romney is that he is not as crazy as some of his fellow Republican candidates.  I am disappointed with Obama but he is not Jimmy Carter and has a decent chance of re-election unless there are more disasters or people get enthusiastic about Romney.  Still, the problem is systemic.  It's not just Republican versus Democrat.  I truly hoped Obama would rise above it all. Alas.

We Americans need to keep talking and agitating for change.  For many reasons, not the least of which that our votes should mean more than the cheap pandering and whoring for them that exists every election cycle that now seems to never, ever end.  

A Christmas card

Today, I got a Christmas card from an old friends addressed to my partner "and family."  There was no mention of my name anywhere.  I knew these friends, a childless lesbian couple near my age, long before I met my partner.  I was there when they first met.  They were friends and eventually business partners, and then bitter former business partners, with my ex-girlfriend.  We vacationed together and visited each other often.  How did we get here?

L and T, these friends, called me on my birthday a few years ago after a year or more of no contact.  They wanted to wish me a happy birthday and since I was in the middle of celebrating my birthday with my family, I cut short the phone call.  I thanked them and said I'd call them another time.  I never did.  I have had no contact with them ever since.  My partner, the sender-out of cards, sent them a card this year;  she does not remember if she sent a card last year.

The exclusion of my name once would have bothered me.  I would have felt guilt for never calling them back and sad they held that against me.  I don't.  As I've gotten older, for better or worse, I've become really good as moving on and leaving people I once cared for, a lot, behind.  I am amused L and T addressed the card to my partner and family.  I guess the really big kiss-off would have been addressing the card to my partner "and kids."  Is that a door ajar or politeness?  I think politeness.  T was always polite except when she was ranting or drunk.

I met T at a gay social group where I eventually met my ex-girlfriend and where T met L.  T and I were friends before all that.  She and I hung out more together more than I did with her and L or as couples.  She was sharp-witted, funny to the point of snarkiness, and smart.  She had a lot of gay guys who were friends.  She worked as a pharmaceutical representative, pushing prescription drugs on doctors.  As couples, my ex-girlfriend and I as well as L and T partied, had parties, met up on Cape Cod to hang out.  After my ex-girlfriend and I broke up, T and L remained friends with her as well as me.  When I started dating my partner,  L and T liked her and encouraged my relationship.  Meanwhile, T went into business with my-exgirlfriend and L returned to her previous profession.

L and T came to our baby shower.  We still saw them occasionally.  At some point, T's sister developed a serious drug problem and she and L took custody of T's sister's kids.  T's nephew had lots of behavioral problems that eventually resulted in T sending him to a boarding school where his behavioral problems were exacerbated. T eventually surrendered custody of him to state juvenile welfare authorities.  T's niece acted out in a different manner.  T's and my ex-girlfriend's company took off. In the midst of all, mine and my partner's kids were born.  We saw less of L and T but I talked to T regularly about her family, especially concerning legal issues.  I cared.

We always saw L and T for their yearly Christmas party which was always fabulous, initially because T, who was a good cook, cooked.  Eventually, T's parties were catered and were attended by her work colleagues including my ex-girlfriend.   My ex-girlfriend and I became friendly and she had a new girlfriend.  After a year passed without seeing T and L, we got together with them to find out my ex-girlfriend had left T's company under unfortunate circumstances.  T blamed my ex-girlfriend for almost embezzling and when I met with my ex-girlfriend one day, she blamed T saying she was crazy and her craziness resulted in a discrimination law suit.  I thought it best not to take sides.  My partner did not like my ex-girlfriend and sided with T, but my partner did not at least trash my ex-girlfriend when we socialized with T.

T had been out as a lesbian for years and her parties were always mixed with gay and straight people.    They were always zany, loud and flamboyant: the parties and the gay boys.  The last party we went to was when my kids, who are now 9, were well under 5.  Maybe they were 3.  As we walked up to T's new, fancy house in a fancy, well-to-do suburb, L came out of the house and cautioned us there were people at the party T was not out to and T did not want "anyone acting gay."  My partner and I looked at each other promising not to act gay, whatever that was, but it was clear we were together as a couple and that we had twins together.

When we entered the house, banished were the gay boys and dance music.  Christmas music played tastefully in the background in throughout every room in hidden speakers.  There were straight families with their children and only a few gay people, all looking un-gay.  No boys in tight shirts, no girls looking butch.  Everyone was attired in very conservative dress clothes.  Us included.   T reminded us of the no-gay rule when she airbrushed my cheek, explaining she was expanding her company and could loose important business deals if people knew she was gay. I am not sure how T explained L living with her; perhaps, she let people think L did not live there.  I never found out. (But I remember being shown "L's room" that had a bed in it as well as "T's room" which was a master bedroom suite.)  I am not sure where my partner was, but at some point, I was hanging out in a room with other parents and watching my daughter.  A man asked my about my daughter and my family and I referenced my partner.  The man was nonplussed but T heard us.  She called me into the hall and reminded me nicely of the no-gay rule.  I told her was not going to hide my relationship with my partner.  T looked annoyed but shrugged it off by, saying the man was probably ok with me being gay but she was uncertain how he would feel if she new he was gay.  T thought that because the man was Indian, somehow he would be anti-gay and would hold this against her and she needed him for her business ventures.  Oh, well.  My partner and I laughed about it afterwards and we both agreed the gay parties were more fun.

We did not have much contact, aside from yearly Christmas cards, from T and L for a few years.  That is, until she called me on my birthday a few years ago.

It is a fact we change throughout our lives.  Our relationships and friendships wax and wane.  That's fine.  I never meant to not call T.  I never really had a reason to call her.  We had grown apart.  Now, she has a Christmas card relationship to my partner and none to me.  And that's fine with me.  I am amused being addressed as part of of my partner's "and family."  I am glad to be part of my family.

Christmas creep

I have not written a lot lately.  The kids were busy with soccer.  We we busy visiting friends and going places.  I started working in a new city.  We did managed to attend to the weekly routines of the kids' music lessons, homework and church.

We attended our Unitarian Universalist congregation most weeks.  I think it's good for the kids to get a healthy dose of morality from people besides their parents.  I think it's good to be part of a congregation of people so our kids are exposed to a cross-section of society in a community accepting of their parents and their family.

There are all kinds of Unitarian Universalists (UUs).  Most, like most people, are fine, decent people.  Some UUs, like non-UUS, are mentally ill.  Some are weird.  Some are reformed criminals.  Some are downright creepy.  I don't think there are preponderance of these ilks in UU congregations more than others.

One of my pet peeves, is people taking pictures of my kids or me without my permission.  I work in law enforcement.  I don't want anyone knowing about my kids unless I know who they are and I know them well.  I refuse to allow the kids' school or my UU congregation to public pictures of my kids.  Then, there is the misuse of photos of kids by pedophiles.  I've seen to much of that over my career.  It is the other reason I don't want my kids pictures out there for potential exploitation.  Finally,  I feel like they are entitled to some privacy until they are old enough to decide for themselves how images of them should be used.

There is a man at my church who is single and childless and who participates to a small degree with children in congregation.  He was a "mystery pal' a few years ago to my son. ("Mystery pals" is a church-run program that matches adults with children for a month and encourages adult/child to get to know one another via letter writing.  Most "mystery palss" participants are other kids' parents or grandparents.)  This man likes to take pictures at congregational functions.  Lots of people do.  Today, we were decorating the tree when he began snapping pictures of the kids, including my kids.  I was incensed.  I was also tongue-tied and said nothing to stop him.  I grumbled to my partner who shrugged.  She is less concerned and less paranoid than me.

A minute later, I regained my inner mamma-bear and marched over to the man and told him I did not want him publishing pictures of my kids any where.  He was taken-aback and defensive.  He said he was going to send the pictures to the congregation for its website. I explained I worked in law enforcement and did not want any pictures of my kids on the website for safety reasons.  He stammered and offered to erase the pictures.  I told him I appreciated that.  He murmured that he understood and it was a shame someone had to be careful about taking pictures of kids these days.  I looked him in the eye and told him, "With good reason."  He backed away, promising the pictures were deleted and his intentions good.  He also made a point of coming over later, and  said, while showing us a picture of the church's tree, "This will be the only picture I send."

My gut instinct is on red-alert with this guy but he has not done anything inherently wrong.  His interaction with children has always been above board.  But he nags at me.  He sent my family a Christmas card addressed to "Boy-name" and family.  Except the name was not my son's.  It was the name of the another boy he was a "mystery pal"to.   He pointedly asked if we received his card and he said he sent cards the his former "mystery pal" friends, all boys, and their families. This conversation was after I had told him to erase the pictures.  I was creeped out.  He smiled and then suddenly frowned when he realized I was not smiling.

I know nowadays there is a lot of openness and lack of privacy.  It would not occur to me to just start taking pictures of other people's kids.  If other kids are in the pictures with my kids, it's because it is a group shot or activity and other parents are taking pictures too.  I think it should be against the law to take pictures of other people's kids without parental permission.  Then again, I think someone should not take my picture without my permission. The Supreme Court determined long ago if someone is in public, they have forfeited their privacy and a picture can be taken and used.

So, now I have to watch this man like a hawk.  But he knows I am onto him.   I hate that my paranoia is almost always confirmed.

"There's something happening here, what is ain't exactly clear..."

This lyric is from a Buffalo Springfield song from the 1960s.   It's the best way I can describe what I see happening an hour away from me in New York City.  On Wall Street.  Young people are protesting, as best I can tell, the outrageous, uncontrolled profits made in the finance industry, often at the expense of  regular people, in a time of an economic turn-down when many people have jobs, houses and more. Is this an American awakening?  Our fall frenzy?

I hope so.

Things have gone so wrong for so long.  The windbag tea-baggers have held us hostage politically for a few years now.  The economic oligarchs have run roughshod over teachers, firefighters and other civil service workers, stripping away bargaining rights along with wages and benefits.  The religious wingnuts, who deny global warming as well as evolution, are hijacking women's rights faster than they can pray the environmental upheavals are harbingers of the  Second Coming.   The health care system is imploding.  The infrastructure is collapsing, cracking, falling apart.  The middle class is marginalized.

I hope the protesters find a common cohesion.  There is so much wrong.  Some common, old fashioned common sense is needed. Our plain, common values must prevail.  We must reclaim our country from the robber barons, the religious zealots, the blathering bigots and those who care only, exclusively for profit over people, over country, over values.

Power to the people.  Right on!

P.S.

Check this out! (From the site www.addictinginfo.org)

Undersizing the government, piecemeal, person by person; agency by agency

The spirit of austerity in the United States hit home last week. We federal employees were already subjected to frozen wages for at least two years by order of the president. I will be subjected to furloughs because my agency is short of cash because there is not enough money coming in from Washington.  All temporary employees have been terminated.  There is no money for any thing, except to function.  I've never been furloughed before because I am considered essential.  But, that's only if the entire government shuts down.  In the case of my agency, the agency itself is not shutting down.  In order to spare the layoff of at least twelve employees, everyone in my agency will be furloughed for at least one day a month for at least twelve months, if not indefinitely.  No wonder those planning to retire have have decided to retire sooner.

There were tears and worries when the furloughs were announced.  Some people are single parents, some are the sole-income earner, some are married to others in our agency.  Many people in my agency work other part-time jobs.  One, I know of, works two other jobs.  My colleagues are college-educated folks, most with masters degrees, who are career government professionals. It's a blow financially.  It's a blow professionally.  Our workloads will remain the same.  The over-40-hour weeks many of us work will now be more. nBecause we are professionals.  Because we take pride in our work.

I am one of the more fortunate ones.   My partner's wages are frozen too.   (She works at a local center of higher education.) But she has wages.  Not great, but at least professional wages.  We will not feel the income loss as much as some of the others in my agency and much less than some other federal agencies where people are being furloughed one to two days per two-week pay period.  And certainly much less than those like my partner's sister who has been without work for over two years or those, like some friends, who've given up looking for work entirely.

Having perpetual furloughs, of course, is not a good way for government to function but that, as I see it, is the goal of the corporate elite and the tea-baggers.  To bring the whole thing down. The former want to have no government save that which is yoked to the wishes of greedy rich and the latter, funded by the former, want to get rid of the government forevever and strive to bring on Armageddon.  I hope I can say with with my job until I am required to retire in eight and a half years; but I am glad I have the option to retire in a year and a half.  Then, we may feel compelled to leave for a less scary place, than the close-minded, mean, ignorant place to which United States is accelerating at a warp speed.  That thought both sickens me and makes me sad.  Very sad.  I want to continue to serve my country with pride.  I can only do the best I can.