mellish musings

for president, the chairman is leaning toward mckinney. there are a few reasons. mckinney has touched more on racism and sexism than nader. she is younger. she is running as a member of a political party (flawed as it is), and not just as an independent. i think she should be supported for her decision to leave the democratic party, and i like the idea of voting for a women of color ticket. having said that, i haven't ruled out nader, who is one of the great men of our age. i am infuriated by how he is dismissed, and his knowledge of the issues is surely unsurpassed. i can go either way on this one. as far as obama goes, my state is in his pocket. i am happy i don't live in a swing state, but i may still vote third party even if i did. i couldn't even bring myself to vote for him in the primary against clinton.

ma questions

question 1, if it passes, would eliminate the state income tax. while no one likes paying taxes, this would eliminate 40% of the state's revenues, likely leading to an increase in property and sales taxes, and further cuts in various social services. college tuitions at state schools would wildly increase. word has it that umass tuition would go up by $4,500 a year! that amount alone is more than the average savings of 3,700 per person that would accrue due to an elimination of the state tax. the thing about averages is that the working man doesn't pay that much in state taxes. rather, that average includes everyone, such as those who make 6 and 7 figures. my savings would be less than $1,000. sure, i could use the money, but let's say that property taxes go up as a result of the law. this may lead to a rent increase (of course, your rent can always go up, but it is more likely to go up, and by a bigger amount, if property taxes rise). let's say the rent increase is 100 dollars when it otherwise may have been a 50 dollar increase, or no increase at all. therefore, i am either losing 600 or 1200 dollars per year in this instance. not to mention the likely increased sales tax, and the decreased funding of higher education and other significant social services. so, while it pains me to say this, i encourage a no vote.

question 2 would would turn possession of less than an ounce of weed into a civil violation rather than a criminal offense. under the proposed law, possession of such would be akin to a traffic ticket, though youth under 18 caught with it would have to attend some classes on the dangers of drugs. i don't even think there should be a fine involved, unless you want to start ticketing every redneck you see walking out of a liquor store, but it beats the current set up. vote yes on 2.

question 3 would ban dog racing in the state. this is a no brainer. if dogs want to run around, they should, but we have no right to force them to. as far as the argument that people will lose jobs, we should stop building bombs too, even though doing this would mean that people will lose jobs. guards in the concentration camps lost their jobs after ww2, and bush will soon lose his job as well. not all jobs are worth defending. rather, some jobs should be eliminated. so, for all those who work at race tracks, i recommend that they start training their bodies now, so that someday, they can become professional runners.

election day (11/4)
the major difference between the two parties are the people who vote for them. all the good people, many of them quite progressive, are democrats. if only they organized and began to insist on a radical transformation of the society. of course, many democratic voters don't want such a transformation, but alot do, and if they began to work for it, we would be off and running.

marcuse once spoke of "the incorporation of opposites," and understanding this idea is crucial to our awareness of where we currently stand. the system is brilliant at incorporating seemingly contradictory aspects in order to maintain its hegemony. so, a mixed race man stands at the cusp of being elected president in a country that continues to oppress its black population. the opposite, (obama) in terms of race, is incorporated into the power structure. his incorporation does not alter the power structure, which practices the systemic oppression of the race the incorporated obama (at least partly) belongs to. this incorporation actually acts to strengthen the existing structure, even though it appears to challenge it. furthermore, the fact that it appears to challenge the existing structure is the source of its power. the apparent challenge convinces the majority of people that it is a real challenge, hence strengthening support for the structures of inequality, racism, and war.

to revisit, jesse jackson and al sharpton are "too black," but obama is not. what does it mean to be "too black?" it means that your views and persona can not be incorporated enough into the existing power structure, for if substantial racial and class criticisms of the current structure were to be incorporated, the structure would be altered. therefore, the trick is to incorporate only what can be incorporated without fundamentally altering the existing power dynamic. this is what bogosian means when he says "everything becomes a part of the system." the trick then, is to alter the system.

having said that, i hope mccain gets the shit kicked out of him.