I Dream of Gringo

I have a confession to male.
It’s only three days since the election, and I’ve already engaged in my personal self-harming action of choice. No, dear reader, I am not a cutter; I do not binge and purge; I do not engage in fits of manic spending or sexual abandon (except in the case of your mom). No, my demon is a far darker creature, more apt to ignore the immediate gratification of self-mutilation and partake in the soul-crushing long game.

I’ve started reading about the 2016 election cycle.

“How can this be?!” You might ask, and you’d be justified in your confusion. After all, we just got done with the whole blasted mess, how can I be so full of hatred for my sanity that I’m already looking up information regarding an event that won’t take place until I’m 30?
Because, my friend, in four years we may have the chance to see a deathblow leveled against a major political party. I’ll do my best to prognosticate about this with as little bias as possible, even though the claim itself may appear biased to begin with. I’m simply exploring a possibility.

Obama killed it with non-whites. No reason trying to call this anything other than what it was; it was an absolute stomping. I could waste my time trying to explain why this took place, but rather than do that I’d like to extrapolate outwards. Let’s look at Latinos, for example. They’re the fastest-growing population in the country; according to Pew research they accounted for 46% of the nation’s growth between 2000 and 2010- this group jumped from contributing about 35,306,000 people to our population… to 50,478,000. That increase is enormous. Latinos increased their number by almost half over ten years, coming to ~16% of our entire population. By contrast? Us white boys only got together with enough white girls to bring the Gringo vote from 194.5 million to 196.8 million (that’s about half a percent increase). While that’s still a huge head start, the gap is closing by leaps and bounds.
Now consider this. Assuming similar rates of population growth over the next ten and twenty years, we could be looking at an American electorate with a Latino population of 112 million or so, compared to a White population only a few million higher than it currently is.

Why is this important?
In an electorate that decides its President by a margin of only a few million votes here or there, any one population that is growing faster that the others must be paid special attention to; pretending that the population growth of Latinos isn’t important is political suicide. Similarly equitable to electoral seppuku is taking a hard-right stance on immigration issues, as Mitt Romney did by supporting “self-deportation”, which is essentially hoping that illegal immigrants find the atmosphere of the country so unfavorable that they get up and leave on their own. Other conservative standpoints, such as building a wall on “every mile, on every yard, on every foot, on every inch of the southern border” do the Republican brand no favors with people of Latino heritage. (It’s also a completely untenable construction project, but that’s beside the point).

All of these issues for conservatives combine into a possibility that if, within the next four years, immigration reform can be attained? The credit could very easily go to President Obama and the Democrats. I’m not going to speculate about the staying power of the DREAM Act (or something like it) if its passed early in Obama’s second term; nor will I speculate about the number of Latinos (or voters in general) this could net the Democrats come 2016. What I can say is that any cursory inspection of the news will reveal how powerful an issue immigration reform is for the Latino community; a poll conducted by Latin Insights on behalf of Fox News in March of 2012 revealed 90% support for President Obama’s DREAM Act. Pew Research’s Hispanic Center found that 91% of Latinos supported DREAM; 84% supported giving in-state tuition to undocumented students.

TL;DR: This is a big fucking deal.

…Which brings me back to my original claim. I went out on a limb and said that we could witness a deathblow to a major American political party, and I stand by that possibility. Republicans currently stand almost entirely on the wrong side of this issue, politically speaking. Never mind who’s actually right or wrong; the fastest growing population in America says immigration reform is a huge deal, and the Republican party couldn’t trip over itself fast enough to tack further and further to the right on the issue. They very well could have saved their election efforts if they hadn’t have alienated this key demographic. If they continue to talk about border-length fences and self-deportation, or -as some have suggested- if they react to their recent loss by deciding they haven’t been conservative enough, I would think they can expect to continue losing seats in both houses. And that trend, combined with the losses experienced from most other minorities, could spell the deathknell of their party.

Or the Tea Party 2 could come along and prove me wrong. But only time will tell.

Things I Learned on Election Night

It's finally over.

Election Night has come and gone; the ceaseless campaign machine can grind to a halt and the talking heads can give their vocal chords a rest (aside from a few remaining blowhards). I won't try to hide my elation at the country's collective decisions- but I do want to take a brief moment and talk about what all just happened here.

1) President Obama, smug as ever, keeps his job.

I was clearly an Obama supporter. I think he's done a lot of good in the face of an unprecedented amount of conservative obstructionism. A Romney Presidency would have disappointed me, make no mistake. Now- I wasn't one of the "I'm moving to Canada!" liberals that were bemoaning our possible fate, but the worries I had were as follows: If Romney had won, I was afraid that liberals would have become embittered and taken up the mantle of obstructionism, and the whole damn process would have started all over again. With Obama retaining his job, and Democrats gaining ground in both the House and the Senate, I'm hoping that conservative stonewalling will have lost some of its steam. The same ideologues that said their top priority was to make Obama a one-term President will hopefully see how far that got them, and be more willing to come to the table and make realistic offers.

2) People set up a firewall vote about marriage equality and reproductive rights. 

Four out of four states (including my home state, Maryland! Woooo!) either supported marriage equality or rejected state constitutional amendments to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The reverses a trend of anti-equality ballots, and could send an interesting message. Also on the list of things that split heavily against Republicans were two big names who came out as being ignorant-at-best and anti-womens'-rights at worst, Todd Akin and Richard Murdock. They're the proud owners of the "legitimate rape" and "God intended rape-borne babies" statements, and voters turned out in droves to tell them where to stuff their opinions. These two factors taken together could signal a warning to surviving conservatives that running on social issues such as these is political suicide- and if that does end up being the takeaway from this election, that could have enormous ramifications in the culture wars.

3) Puerto Rico voted to become a state.

No, really. They've apparently voted this down two or three times before, but this time it passed with a 61% majority. I know nothing about the pros and cons of accepting another state into the union, but at the moment it's being drowned out by MSNBC's congratulatory orgy and FoxNews' sob-fest, so I figured it needed mentioning.

So what comes now?

Well, there's that whole automatic tax-increase and spending-cut thing that comes up this winter that needs dealing with; we've still got beef with Syria and we're still at or around 8% unemployment. There's no shortage of things that need work. But, what I plan to do personally is write to my state's national House and Senate members, be they Democrats or Republicans, and tell them to work together. I will tell them that I'm mailing their counterparts across the aisle, saying the same thing. Because now that this whole battle is over and done with, we have too much to do to keep saying "Well, he suggested it, so in the interest of increasing our potential wins in two or four years, I'm voting against it". The hyper-partisanship needs to cool.

"A 50/50 race, it doesn't get much closer than this."

No, Wolf Blitzer, it doesn't get ANY closer than that. 50/50 is as close as it gets.
Allow me to put aside my eye-rolling at Mr. Blitzer's filler speech and look at what he's talking about.

Predictably, he's talking about the Wisconsin Recall. For those of you who don't know, here's the long and short of it: The Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, made waves by balancing the state budget at the cost of Union power. This angered many people, who organized and decided to try and recall him. That angered many other people, who organized and decided to try and save his job. Today was the recall election, and the polls just closed. Unsurprisingly, the exit polling stands at a dead heat.

The born-and-bred liberal in me wants to cheer for this attempt, especially after some sources say that Republicans have outspent Democrats 10:1.
(I'm too tired for citations tonight, so this whole post is hearsay and opinion.)
But the aspiring moderate in me says, this dude might have been able to bring his state out of the red. In an economic recovery as fragile as ours, isn't that an amazing thing?


Its a confusing back-and-forth, at best. Pros and Cons for simplicity.

Pro-Walker
On the one hand, dude looks like he managed to balance his state's budget. This is a great thing for a state to do, and it comes at a time when other states (and private households alike) should spend more time balancing their budgets. His state is now reported to enjoy a surplus, which means everyone that works for the government will get paid on time; public works projects can be funded, and taxes don't have to increase. That leaves more money in the hands of the workers, public or private. Further, Unions have gotten way out of hand with their rules on Tenure; if a Union worker sucks balls, but has Tenure, firing them is a legal nightmare. That wastes money and produces a lower-quality product.


Anti-Walker
 On the other hand, gutting the Unions could lead to weaker-paying jobs, since Unions help raise workers' salaries through the power of collective bargaining. Removing the Unions' ability to demand dues (Walker made such dues voluntary, rather than mandatory for Union membership like they have been historically) takes away the ability of these groups to remain operational on the scale that they have been. This reduces the odds they can rally their troops to get what they want; so, if a factory wants to lower wages to save money, there's less chance of a strike. Lower wages means less consumer spending, which kills industry in the long run. Also, without any serious challenge to big business, business-friendly (and consumer/environment-unfriendly) laws are more likely to be championed in the halls of legislature, lowering the quality of life.

And these are just the most simplistic arguments I could come up with off the top of my head.
Point being? Don't fall into the trap of "I'm a Liberal/Conservative, so I'm anti/pro-Walker". I promise you, with an issue this complex, dumbing it down to that sort of a party-line vote is exactly the sort of partisanship the nation doesn't need.

Rest is for the Dead: Atlantic City Edition

May 31, 2012
5:25- After a hard day of un-crazy-ing the crazies, I get into my car. I am heading back East for an extended weekend of family and friends; two nights in Philadelphia and Atlantic City, two days at home with my folks. As it has been six months since my last trip, I am feeling well overdue for such a vacation. So, with a smile on my face I start driving down to Indianapolis.

6:10- It has occurred to me that I might have fucked up my packing. Investigating my suitcase on the side of the road, I discover that I have packed two suits, but no dress shirt; a bathing suit, but no sandals; tee shirts, but no shorts or jeans. I have also forgotten my iPhone charger, and I have exactly zero condoms (Hey, it always pays to be prepared). This does not bode well.

6:41- I fly through security like I'm some kind of young white male or something, and I decide that I'm hungry enough for a burger. I grab a seat at Champps and order. Flight leaving at 7:10? No problem!

6:44- This might be a problem.

6:55- I have essentially swallowed my burger whole, but my waiter (who is now aware of just how strapped for time I am) is being intentionally slow bringing me my change. After the gate calls for "all passengers on the flight to Baltimore" a second time, I realize I cannot wait any longer, and I abandon my $20 on a $9 burger. I got to eat exactly two fries. If, by some unfathomable coincidence, you are reading this and you know the waiter I'm talking about, kick him in the goddamn balls.

7:23- No sooner are our wheels off the ground than the baby behind me begins screaming as if she'd just been forced to pay $20 on a $9 burger. But as eardrum-burstingly loud as she is, I can't decide if the more annoying sound is the baby herself, or her father talking to her in a baby voice. "Daaaaaaddy's patting!", he says in a coochy-coochy-coo falsetto, burping her as best he can, "Mooooommy's patting! But we neeeeeed moooooore power for BLAAAAAASTOOFFFFFFF!"


7:39- The baby has been knocked unconscious by her father's voice, some unknown medication, or possibly by my sheer force of will. Assuming it's the third, I begin writing out an appropriate cover letter to the Green Lantern Corps. Do you think you start such an application with "Dear Sirs" or "To Whom it May Concern?"

7:58- I find myself in an unenviable position. The speed at which I ate my burger, combined with the pressure changes at 30,000 feet, and the soda I just pounded have caused a chain reaction in my stomach similar to Mount Vesuvius. There is a belch bubbling up in me from the depths of my very soul... and I am sitting next to one of the most attractive women I've ever actually seen on a Southwest flight. I'm talking like, this burp could actually destabilize the fuselage of the airplane, and I have to hold it for another... half hour? Forty minutes? This is not good.

8:13- Nope, I am no longer able to hold back. This beast is making itself known to the world.

8:14- I let out a belch of such force that people in the back of the plane think we've been hit by a surface to air missile. This, in turn, wakes the baby- but this time, Daddy doesn't have any quiet words of comfort to reconcile what I just committed upon innocent bystanders.

9:30- I have, in fact, landed safely and made it home. Mom brings home dinner, but I take a moment to visit where they buried my cat about a month ago. She was very old, and fortunately didn't go through much pain, but I still feel guilty for not being there for her. So I take a knee and say my proper goodbyes.

9:40- The Rents and I spend some quality time ranting about politics and why Ron Paul is an idiot.

12:00- After determining that Ron Paul is, in fact, still an idiot, I retire. The real show begins tomorrow.

The Case of the Phantom Trolling Gall Bladder

"So... you're saying that you used to be thirty pounds... heavier."

A counselor is judged on their ability to regulate their own emotions and reactions. If everything that happens in your client's life sends you into the sort of hysterics that they're in, you're not helping. If you're always laughing along with them, you're not staying on topic. And if your patient is looking to get a rise out of you and you take the bait, you can expect more of that garbage in the future. You have to train yourself to be able to take anything that comes out of their mouths and respond in a way that is best for that client, while still being true to yourself. Sometimes, this means hearing them out when it is literally impossible for you to care less, and usually, I'm good at keeping myself well-regulated.

"Oh, yeah! After my gall bladder got infected I was just sick and leaking out every hole in my body. Couldn't eat anything more than crackers and Gatorade. I lost a lot of weight."
"But, you..."
"Mmm?"


...Usually.

"Oh, nothing. It's just that you're already three inches shorter and at least fifty pounds heavier than your profile stated, and I just drove fifty miles down to this damn city to meet up with you. Now you tell me that you're still this big after you lost the ability to eat fatty, greasy foods- and you're not even really a red head?"


At least, that's what I said in my mind. What actually came out was this:

"Nothing. I forgot." And I looked back at the TV while she ate whatever it was she was eating. Damn my inability to be intentionally rude.

---
Now then! Just what the hell am I talking about, and why am I being a hypocrite about bigger ladies? Fear not, dear reader, there's a reason for my apparent flip-flop. First, allow me to explain what I'm talking about.

A buddy of mine recently met someone on a dating website. He will not shut up about her. While I'm happy for him, it did get me thinking about internet dating as a whole. And while it can go very right, it can also go very, very wrong. So, while he continues foaming at the mouth about his aforementioned strumpet, I decided to write about some of the dates I've had that resulted from online encounters.
Now, let me defend myself. I stated in a previous blog that there is no need to be ashamed of your form if you're naturally a bigger girl (the same would hold true for dudes I suppose); you just have to know yourself, take care of yourself, and rock what you've got. I said there was a STARK difference between a bigger girl with some bodacious curves and someone who would just get eaten by the pack of velociraptors first. The girl I was stuck on a date with was not only poster child for the latter, she'd outright lied about it by posting pictures from years ago that depicted her as a far thinner (read: actually attractive) redhead. But she didn't exactly make up for it in conversation either.
---

"Look at those two guys running!" She said, as we were stopped at the light coming back from our meal.
"Mmm," I agreed, happy to be focusing on anything except my date, "The one guy is totally dusting his buddy." It was true; I assume they were together because it looked like they were wearing similar team-themed shirts, but the thinner guy was half a block farther than his clearly-winded companion.


"At least he's trying, though," she said, and I nodded.
"Yeah. Better to be practicing than to say 'aw fuck it'."
"Yeah. I never run, actually."
"No?" I ask, my eyes veritably rolling out of my head.
"Nope!" she said cheerfully, and grabbed her breasts to give them a good squeeze. "It's these things right here."


Had she really just...? "You don't say," I said, even though she clearly had.
"Oh yeah!" She giggled and accelerated from our now-green stoplight. "An extra fifteen pounds just floppin' around up here. Some people ask me if I give myself a black eye with 'em. But nope! I just don't run."


---
Now, if you're Tucker Max, you might know a funnier way to respond to this than I did. If you're Richard Simmons, you might know a way to turn the conversation into a morale-boosting kick in the pants to get physical. And if you're this guy... well, if you're that guy, you're ridiculously photogenic and you probably don't need OKCupid to get a date. But I digress.
Who talks about that sort of thing on a first date when the other person is clearly not interested? Who talks about that even if they are? Are we goddamned barbarians? You've got to keep it classy, everyone. There's always going to be a degree of awkwardness on a blind date, but you're putting your best foot forward.

The Avengers and Why We're Living In the Future

So, I just got home from watching The Avengers. And first of all, if you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor and go see it. Whether or not you're a fan of superhero movies, you will like this film. Without making this a post about the specifics of why it is awesome, there is a reason it is making as much money as it is. So, go see it. I'll wait.

...

How'd you like the movie? Awesome, right? Sweet. Let's get into why we're living in the future.

I make this argument a lot- usually when some new technology comes out and everyone is fawning over it. I say this most often when people make changes to their cell phones via WiFi, and the example that I use most often is a story about the zoo. A friend of mine and I were at the zoo one day, and we wanted a picture of a tiger, but the big cat was lounging too far away for our cell phones to really get a good shot. No problem, says I, and I quickly pull up my app store and grab a free camera zoom app. Within sixty seconds, the camera on my phone can now zoom close enough to get a decent picture- not just enlarging a pre-existing small picture, mind you, it actually zooms. I accomplished this -this fundamental alteration to the nature of my phone- without plugging in to a computer, for free, in less time than it took for me to type this paragraph.

So, what does this have to do with The Avengers?

In the movies previous to this one, especially Thor, the idea is proposed that some of the "magical" aspects of the various superheroes (again, mostly Thor), are actually super-advanced science. This theme of science that borderlines on the arcane is repeated again and again throughout the Marvel universe: Tony Stark can build a fuel source that provides more energy from a generator the size of a baseball than a conventional coal plant could ever hope to output; Bruce Banner turns himself into a nigh-invulnerable, unstoppable force of anger and rage; Captain America becomes the ultimate soldier at the peak of human physiological development; Scarlet Johansson is hot. All miracles of super-science.


"Don't forget about Hawkeye, Dan!"


For better or worse, the real world doesn't have Tony Stark or Bruce Banner running around to solve all our problems. But that doesn't mean we aren't cracking into the realms of super-science, ourselves. Take, for example, the ITER- or the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Slated for a commercial debut of somewhere between 2030-2050, a fusion (as opposed to fission, big difference!) power plant such as this would revolutionize the way we think of energy. Or, if power plants ain't your thing, consider a helmet that the Army is reportedly developing that could read your brain's activity and compose messages from it- essentially, a telepathy helmet. Or, hey, apparently James Cameron feels like blowing up asteroids to mine their sweet, sweet metallic-rich cores.
This is all besides the fact that while I was typing this, I downloaded a new music album to my phone while I Yelped where I'm going to get dinner from, while video-chatting to my parents.

If we can just... not blow up the planet for the next 50 years or so, I firmly believe that we're going to be staring down the barrel of a glorious super-science future.

Obama Out of the Closet for Gay Marriage

So, earlier today, President Obama said he supports gay marriage. Simply put, these are my thoughts.

First of all: this was politically motivated. Coming on the heels of North Carolina’s state constitutional ban of gay marriage, Obama wanted to shore up some support from his base- support that has been lackluster by many accounts. I believe that he made the determination (correctly so) that a lot of the people that would hate him for supporting gay marriage were also people that weren’t going to vote for him anyway… but that a lot of the people that would appreciate his support of gay marriage were people that might be less likely to vote or donate if he didn’t support it. “My views are evolving”, my ass; he waited for the right time to drop this bomb, and saw an opportunity here.

Second, he was not boxed in by Joe Biden. Uncle Joe might have his “Big Effin’ Deal” moments, as well as a horrendously awkward introduction of another Head of State, but he’s not going to paint his boss into a corner on an issue this big. He was the man on point for this issue. I’ve no doubt that he honestly believes what he said about being comfortable with gay marriage, I just believe that his job was to channel that belief into a pragmatic political strategy, stick his neck out and gauge the response. Since there wasn’t enough vitriol spat at him, the plan for Obama to voice his support after the NC vote went forward.

Third, things are going to get ugly. And I mean UGLY. This is one of the biggest battle lines in American politics, and it gets people pissed. Those who support gay marriage have long been without a big-name champion; now they have one, and as far as champions go, you don’t get any bigger name than the President. With presumptive-nominee Mitt Romney still coming out against gay marriage, people have their figureheads to rally around. Expect woefully inaccurate attack ads from both sides in all 50 states. Expect a firestorm.

Fourth: this is, all in all, a good thing. If you’re against same-sex marriage… then, I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong. Allow me to support my position with some handy bullet points, now with 15% fewer calories.

The “research” that says it’s terrible is wrong, wrong, and wrong some more. The idea that kids do better in two-parent homes is correct- but it doesn’t matter which sex the parents are. They just need good parents.

The idea that marriage is something that needs to be defended (by straight people) is ridiculous when nationally, just about half of marriages end in divorce… and is doubly absurd when the states that resist gay marriage the hardest are also the states with the highest individual divorce rates, highest rates of teenaged pregnancies (and the higher rates of teenaged marriage... and divorce). That’s some high and mighty instiution you’re defending, there! (Get off your self-righteous horse, Southern States.)

The idea that it’s against the Bible or God’s Will for the nation or something- tough cookies. There’s that whole separation of church and state deal. (First Amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It means the government can't pass a law giving preference to any one religion or it's opinions. Not even yours. So essentially, whatever it is you interpret God's opinion to be on gay marriage, it doesn't matter; the issue has to be handled based on its mortal, non-religious merits.)

And lastly, people sure don’t want Big Government getting involved in their lives… until they do. You can’t have it both ways, kids. Either tell the government to GTFO as a whole, and let each state decide… or, have the government come in and accept the results on a national level. But you might want to have Uncle Sam make a ruling on it quickly, because as time goes on, you might not like the results.