Textiles and Bicycles

Sometimes I think about politics. Though living in the center of it, literally on Capitol Hill, I often purposefully disengage from the issues. I also admittedly have little faith in the system. While the democratic party offers more hope than usual this year, there are some fundamental things I just don’t think will change (Obama does support “clean coal” afterall–which, FYI, is possibly the most oxymoronic concept on earth, it should be called “kind of sort of a cleaner option for one of the dirtiest energy options known to humans”).

The Political Compass somewhat reaffirmed my fears in their analysis of where the US Primary candidates fall on the political compass, which consists of 4 quadrants: the y axis runs from very authoritarian (fascism) to very libertarian (anarchism) and the x axis from economically left (communism) to right (neo-liberalism). Based on some interesting questions you can see where you fall on the continuum (I’m about where Gandhi is), and in this case where our politicians fall.

While Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while in any other western democracy her record is that of a mainstream conservative.

Interestingly, when you look at the difference between Clinton and Obama, there’s not much there. I will stand by my opinion that I think the difference is one of charisma and oratory–which I don’t think is inconsequential or not valuable. But I don’t think there’s a difference on fundamental political ideology or issues. And they’re both quite centrist, or even conservative, hence my inability to get too excited.

The second bit I’d like to share is courtesy of the Times and a lovely United States city: San Francisco

From the Department of Damned-With-Faint-Praise, a group going by the regal-sounding name of the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is planning to ask voters here to change the name of a prize-winning water treatment plant on the shoreline to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

The plan, naturally hatched in a bar, would place a vote on the November ballot to provide “an appropriate honor for a truly unique president.”

Finally people are starting to make some sense to me.

I don’t mean to get political, but….

I’ll start with this–I’m not sure who I’m voting for. I also do not think that women have to vote for Hillary Clinton.
BUT. This is what this website says:

“Hillary Clinton, the Wicked Witch of Capitol Hill, wants to be President of the United States. Republicans and Democrats across the nation agree that 2008 is the year of the storm, and this hurricane’s name is Hillary.
Our nation doesn’t have the patience for a wardrobe malfunction, and Monica doesn’t have a brother. Do your part to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House. Hillary T-Shirts are here to help.”

First of all that a woman can actually be tarnished by the actions of her husband is ridiculous, when in her actions she has never proven to lack the specific sexual moral compass that Americans seem to think is important in leading a country.

Second, I don’t understand the wardrobe malfunction comment. As far as I can tell, this refers to the terrifying possibility that we could at some point see Senator Clinton’s nipple–or (oh God!) some cleave! This is just not a risk that America should be willing to take by voting for a woman.

So, while I’m not sure about anything regarding this election, I will say this: if Hillary wins, I can see myself being overcome with emotion at the (albeit SLOW) progress of women in this country. Especially when I ethnically come from a country (India) that is perceived to be extremely sexist–and in many ways is, but embraced female leadership decades ago.
I remember being unbelievably frustrated when I was backpacking through India and would find that many cities had public restrooms for men only. Forget that it’s women that can’t just pee anywhere and have smaller bladders…it’s an interesting situation when the female presidents or prime ministers of the past can’t find a place to pee in the capital.
Maybe this country is the opposite, but I’m not sure which is better. Is there a third option?

The point is that website makes a stupid sexist point. It may be possible that I’m interpreting it wrong, but I can’t imagine what the explanation is.