My Time in Ferguson

I just got back from today’s march in Ferguson, protesting the recent murder of Black student Michael Brown by the Ferguson PD.  

     This tragedy seems to be a pretty straightforward case of the police brutality that, according to the Malcolm X Grassroots Project, ends in the death of a Black man every 28 hours.  We had a lot of different signs and chants present- it’s been a long time since I was at a rally this size, and the only previous ones were to watch someone speak, not to move and chant.  My voice was definitely out of practice- prominently used were “hands up-don’t shoot!” and the usuals like “No justice-no peace”.  It was an intense atmosphere, and I’m glad this many people are still able to be outraged when a young Person of Color is killed in cold blood. 

     The attendant release of information designed to turn media even more firmly against Brown was, regrettably, a familiar tactic.  What we know to rebut it is that the murderer did not yet know of the crime in which Brown was a suspect, so the shooting had nothing to do with it.  An unarmed person was killed at 35 feet from his assailant, where he really couldn’t pose any threat.  The whole confrontation would probably not have occurred if Brown had been white, and it almost certainly wouldn’t have turned lethal.  This is an example of the systemic racial oppression that characterizes our society, and every leftist in town should have been out there this entire week protesting it, and the glacial pace of the investigation.  I regret only coming out today, but I’m not brave.  The ones who have been out there for six nights being gassed and shot at are heroes, even if some looting is going on.

     There were a lot of other white people at the march, which was encouraging in that it showed anger over injustice can in some cases be enough to establish cross-racial solidarity, but we need to be careful not to overvalue our contribution- we are there to lessen the shame we feel at being part of this oppressive system; our participation is secondary.  We cannot speak for the oppressed as well as they can speak for themselves, and we should only attempt to do so when there is no viable alternative.  If we in our positions of privilege can help our Black comrades in their struggle, all well and good, but we need to make sure we never pat ourselves on the back too much, or allow a shared moment blind us to the reality of wildly different experiences.

     The event itself went well enough.  I got a pleasant surprise when I realized I was standing twenty feet behind Jesse Jackson, who got the crowd going pretty well before we began marching- worked up a lot of positive energy, talking/chanting about getting back up after being knocked down and the like.  He really shows that he cares effectively, and is still an effective leader for any righteous protest.  I was a little disappointed with him later- when we reached the destination, the parking lot of the Church of Greater St. Mark, he began asking for donations to the church.  A woman walked up and told him that not all the marchers were believers, and he left immediately after that- he could well have argued his point, or asked the comrade to speak with him after the speech he was going to give.  Still, it was cool to see him.

     One sign that really caught my eye was one of those cardboard cutouts of the president, with a placard on it reading "Where are you?"  While his policies and general tone have often been centrist and evasive, we know Obama is capable of empathizing with the families of the victims- he's shown us this especially after the Martin murder in 2012, and a visit could be a prelude to something truly transformative- like the administration reducing the military-grade heavy weaponry provided to police departments, preferably combined with some real changes in policing values.  I can't imagine anything decent ever passing this House, but some Democrats and Rand Paul are talking about it a lot in the Senate.  (I'm always a little disconcerted when Paul says anything I agree with, but there it is), and having a no-longer passive executive on this issue could bring about some rapid benefit.  I can't say I'm hopeful, but calling the president out and asking him to come to Ferguson is a good tactic.

     This is a good moment to disseminate information on everything from police militarization to racial profiling to economic policies which maintain unequal divisions of wealth between Black and white.  All I’ll say at this point is that this is just a very visible symptom of America’s disease of racism.  Now that Nixon has reinstated a “no-blacks after sundown” policy, we see even clearer the effort of society to shift the focus from the systemic, racist violence to a few broken windows in fast food franchises.  Anything to keep white America from realizing the Black community has a list of grievances that would take 400 years to read and understand.  Now we should all keep the pressure on- go to what demonstrations we can, call elected officials to demilitarize police, donate to bail funds, whatever, but we must also keep this level of vigilance constant, and try to do our part to improve the status quo.  Much of what hope there is for meaningful change on any number of other issues first start with the erosion of racial boundaries and oppression, especially the climate of fear cultivated by law enforcement.

Solidarität, Genossinnen und Genossen

UPDATE- I just got back from holding a vigil outside the County Prosecutor's office- his name is Bob McCulloch and he's got a history of ignoring cases of police shooting Black folks, has numerous police officers among his immediate family, and has firmly opposed the addition of the supposedly more moderate highway patrol to protest prevention.  He's also got a history of opposing Black candidates for office- by no means is this conclusive, but we can all see a pattern here, and this is not a man I want deciding anything about this case.

Single Mothers in Science Fiction

Hello, all.

As I write this I’m eyeballing Wisconsin primary election returns, and it’s an exciting night!  My choice for Attorney General, Susan Happ is leading comfortably- she’s also backed by Emily’s List and Doug La Follette, and her main opponent was the choice of Conservadem Mayor Barrett, and it’s unusual for him not to get his way in a primary.  This is pretty fun to watch, as is the Treasurer’s election- Dave Leeper is only 2 points behind, and he made support for a publicly run bank a centerpiece of his campaign!  Mary Jo Walters is also running competitively (within 8 points) for Lt. Governor, which is pretty impressive for a candidate only a couple of cycles removed from the Green Party.  Janis Ringhand- the pro-choice movement’s choice (and therefore mine as well) for state senate appears to be winning easily.  Truth be told, if any one of the three statewide candidates alone pulls this off it’s been a damn good night, but the local legislature seats going the Left way would be nice too.  Not enough to make up for last week's defeat, or the attendant reminder of how strong racism remains in my city with the murder of an innocent teenager by police in North County.  I know I’ve got at least one friend at the protests, and I’m hoping to join them myself given enough courage.

Update-all those elections went the way they were trending last night.  Yaaaaay Happ!

I’ve continued writing this into Wednesday night and soon Thursday morning.  The heroes at the protests keep at it.  I may be brave enough to join them but I doubt it. 

     Now on to the piece itself.  I’m hoping eventually to turn this into a presentation to give at school this fall, so be sure to let me know what you think.  My contention: that the portrayal of single mothers in contemporary science fiction must work to transcend social prejudices and oppression based on race, sex and class, and it often fails to achieve this, with disturbing implications following.

     Full disclosure- I’m a Trekkie.  I’m a Whedonite.  Genossin Sophie is teaching me to be a Whovian.  In a word, I’m nerdy.  And in continuing my enjoyment of some of the big nerd franchises, I’ve really been struck by the messages used to reinforce or question perceptions of single mothers. 

                Our society places a premium on the nuclear family model with patriarchal gender roles as the proper habitat for good citizens.  Much of our public policy and economy is structured around the idealized image of competent, assertive male breadwinners and loyal, chaste housewives who remain appendages to others and attain neither economic independence nor fulfillment outside the role of caregiver to their families.  Social shaming results no matter the course chosen, with women who stay at home being shamed for not performing economically rewarded work, and those who work shamed for abandoning traditional femininity, accused of warping their children’s development.  Anything which could make it easier for women to determine the course of their own sexuality, or pursue career paths outside caregiver, is viewed as highly suspect.  Beyond this, our government spends hundreds of millions encouraging marriage, to say nothing of its subsidy to churches which reinforce the necessity of women’s occupation in the home.  

                These problems are compounded for the single mother- in the case of childbearing out of wedlock, her morality is considered forfeit, and she is to be reminded by culture and policy that she has (willingly or not) violated the rules society has placed on the use of her body.  She will be criticized for fostering delinquency if she works outside the home, and criticized for laziness if she doesn’t.  Race is obviously a factor here, as these arguments are rhetorically used particularly against Women of Color.  Their result is to restrict funding for social programs which help everyone, and reinforce the myth of personal effort as the main determinant of people’s prosperity.  Shaming of single mothers is a dangerous weapon used to reinforce conservative notions of women’s proper place, undermine cross racial solidarity, and damage the welfare state.

                With this in mind, we should examine how our media reinforces or questions this trend.  To that end, I am evaluating three episodes, one each from Star Trek, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Dr. Who, that prominently feature single mothers (Dr. Beverly Crusher, widowed mother of Wesley, morality is not questioned but is still put in the bind of work vs. domesticity, white; Nikki Wood, teen mother of Robin, very work focused, morality is questioned-also happens to be her generation’s Vampire Slayer, black; Nancy, teen mother of Jamie, who is community focused, but has lost her own child, and is generally marginalized-albeit presented in a nigh exclusively favorable light, white.)

     Star Trek, The Next Generation- episode: “Evolution”- this is the simplest to analyze, as the mother in question (Dr. Beverly Crusher) is a widow, and therefore not morally suspect for having a child.  She is questioned, however, by her son Wesley who resents her absence throughout the previous year, while she worries she’s missed irreplaceable time of his adolescence.  While Crusher has an incredibly successful career, saving countless lives (and being one of three doctors in Trek history ever to successfully de-assimilate someone from the Borg, she is still implicitly condemned for leaving her son (where she knew he would thrive, mind you) for a year, and what is used to reassure her is that Wesley is doing well because she has already been a good mother, rather than that she is entitled to decide her own life.  This doesn’t sit all that well with me.

     

     Buffy the Vampire Slayer- In the seventh season episode “Lies My Parents Told Me” features Sunnydale Principal Robin Wood, the son of Slayer Nikki Wood, hunting down the vampire, Spike, who killed her.  We see through flashbacks and recollections from both Wood and Giles that Nikki was called to battle evil in the early 1970s, and shortly into her Slaying career, gave birth to a son.  This is described as a singular occurrence in the history of Slayers- young women chose to protect the world from demons, vampires, and forces of darkness who usually live nasty, cruel, brutish lives despite their superhuman strength and toughness.  The one Slayer mother happened to be a Black Woman operating in New York.  The Watchers’ Council- the Committee of Wise Men who created slayers, was at a loss and shunned Nikki- her personal Watcher, however, helped raise her son, and enabled her to take “maternity leave” from her battle with the forces of evil.  She returned- voluntarily- to answer the calling that structures the lives of the chosen in the Buffyverse.  This is explicitly stated to be a choice of work over family, and set up as morally questionable, but the choice that the show decides is necessary.  Our perception is shaped by the fact that we see the memories of Robin, but his mother cannot speak for herself except in flashbacks.  We see much more the impact of her decisions on her son than we do of the decisions themselves or her personality, which limits the potential of the episode to transcend previously denoted trends, simply because we can get no answers to the questions of the decision-making process.  What is clear is that Nikki’s son was able to get on with his life materially, supported by her father-figure watcher, and his underlying resentment of his mother’s choice is at least implied to be petty and misplaced.  This episode does not engage with the patriarchal standard of sexual behavior, which is probably a wise choice.  It does do a good job of humanizing the Black single mother in her brief time on the screen, and a better job of humanizing her son, but the backstory in which a white patriarch must care for the neglected Child of Color really seems problematic.  Most troublingly, the episode does reinforce the outside work-family binary, saying women must make a choice.  While this does depict economic realities of a patriarchal society very well, it doesn’t consider how things could be different, even with a strong support network, and it doesn’t make the racism in the system central to its discussion.

     Dr. Who (reboot) “The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances”.  In this early episode, the Doctor and Rose have travelled to London during the Battle of Britain, and encounter what’s left of Jamie after he’s been rebuilt by nanite-like creatures which found him injured by a German bomb.  His mother, Nancy- who has been posing as his sister to alleviate the shame- keeps a pack of Cockney orphans safe from his contagious touch and also uses guile, guts and stealth to keep them fed.  The circumstances of Jamie’s birth are not touched upon, but Nancy clearly lacks the support of a wealthy benefactor that helped Nikki.  This is much more a class-based example, and it does engage with the sexual shaming, if only wackily.  It turns out that Nancy denying the truth of her motherhood is what fuels not-Jamie’s rampage, and she of course wouldn’t be lying if there wasn’t a stigma against which to protect herself and her son.  On the outside work-family issue, they are pretty much the same to Nancy, as her work consists of stealing and negotiating to feed her child and her other young charges.  The episode implicitly calls for economic redistribution and social acceptance of both children out of wedlock and their mothers, though it’s easy to see Nancy being judged as worthy based on how thoroughly she subordinates her own needs to those of others, which is a good message for class solidarity but shockingly regressive from a perspective of concern for women’s equality.

     To conclude, discussion of single mothers, even in science fiction shows thought to be the cutting edge of cultural progressivism, often ends up leaving oppressive trends and tropes unchallenged or even reinforced.  That said, all of these examples show strong female characters juggling economic and socio-emotional pressures to do the impossible, and all serve to create empathy among an often scornful public.  I’m not sure I can feel great about any of these, but they’re all useful starting points for any number of discussions.

     Ok that was a lot.  I might flesh this out a bit more later- and add in a section about Shmi Skywalker- but I hope you enjoy this (now belated) update for now.

Solidarität, Genossinnen und Genossen

my election day letters

Here's what I sent out yesterday morning at midnight, followed by my message today.  I'll post more creative and less dramatic work later, but right now I'm wiped.

In three hours my alarm will go off and I will begin getting ready for my election work in the St. Louis County Executive Democratic Primary.  Can't sleep- my old boss stopped by the office when I came back from my shift, and that got me excited and ready to go.  The next 24 hours are going to pass in a haze of caffeine, accelerated heartrate, maniacal laughter, serious worry, nailbiting, and exhilaration. 

It's worth it.

Charlie Dooley has shown that local government can do a lot to help people, even in conservative areas.  Our county is now sponsoring everything from mammograms to birth control, helping 80,000 women and 50,000 kids get at least some basic treatment, and a particular success story comes from the county's Black community, which has seen a 30% drop in breast cancer mortality.  The county passed a civil rights bill for Gays and transgendered folks last year, our severely limited public transit system is expanding (slightly and only the bus line, no train) and our single stream recycling program is pretty cool.  There's also talk of a city-county merger, and a new county standard to give some quota of contracts to Minority and Women Owned Businesses.  

(Some problems with that- the Supreme Court pretty much ruled that it's unconstitutional to give public contracts to nonwhites, and most of the local minority-and-women owned businesses are also non-union, but it's encouraging that it's being considered)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of this would have happened had someone like Stenger (Dooley's opponent) been in office.  He's anti-choice, pro-austerity, has accused underage sex slaves of "choosing that lifestyle" and pretty much relied on a whisper campaign of unspecified corruption charges, aided by a local media that is tired of a Black man leading our county.  We've already got a slimy conservative democrat leading a major local government- Mayor Slay of St. Louis city leaves me unimpressed, and Stenger is just him with an anti-choice agenda added in.  I worked for Charlie last time, and the county held true in a bad year, and I bet we will again.

Our once insurmountable 60point lead has vanished- the last information I got from my boss had us neck and neck, while her boss said we had a 5 point lead.  I'm double checking my figures, and yes, 0-5<60, so we've lost ground.  Add in a partial bradley effect- white voters being more likely to say they're voting for the Black candidate than to actually vote for him an the fact that this is a summer primary in an off year with no bigger election to compensate for low turnout, and I would be fucking petrified that all these wonderful things are about to be undone for no good reason.  Would be.

I've got cause for optimism though- both those estimates came BEFORE Stenger's remarks against the trafficking victims had been properly publicized, and we've been hitting him hard with that over the airwaves and in a few flyers.  Charlie killed on the radio forum, but I'm not sure how many voters were listening.  Also, we outgunned Stenger 4-3 on money these last two weeks.  Most important is turnout- powerful forces are at work here to try to beat the disadvantage we have- namely, that the summer electorate is primarily old white pensioners.  All of Charlie's appointed staffers have been running signs around all night under the theory that each one may remind SOME absent minded citizen that the election is today.  We'll have some fifty canvassers (many of them admittedly inexperienced) in the field tomorrow, and that's just for starters.  We'll have 30 Union men out there canvassing too, and that's just from two of the 6 or so major locals that have endorsed us.

And Charlie has me- young, very pretty, and fired up to win him term number 4.  I assure you all, I will be singing "Bandiera Rossa" at the top of my lungs as soon as the sun comes up.  That sun will continue shining on Charlie Dooley's St. Louis.

If you wish to feel solidarity with us today, I recommend the following video, glorifying another city that heroically defended its Leftist bent much longer than it was expected to.  Also notice the heroic German commies who wrote the song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJD0eI61ifs

Well then.  Wow.  Beaten more than 2-1.  Even the hostile polls only showed a 15 point gap

In hindsight, I should have foreseen the problem once I thought of Admiral Hansen's speech to Riker explaining the Federation-Klingon preparations to meet the Borg at Wolf 359 when I described all the steps we'd taken and factors in our favor.  If any of you don't know the scene in question, it's from Star Trek the Next Generation Best of Both Worlds Part II, and the prelude to the Battle of Wolf 359, which ended in a similar disaster.  Of course, if you watched the video I sent, it's now even more relevant.

I want you each to know that I have no regrets- this summer I held down a political job (albeit one for which I am overqualified) for a public servant I deeply respect without either being involved in a major catastrophe or having to compromise any principles.  I think I contributed, and things may have been different.  I almost feel like I won already once I got my first paycheck for doing something I love for a cause I believe in.  Almost- I could say a lot here, some of it graceful, some of it thoughtful, and some of it clever, witty and thought provoking, but I'm just going to say that Stenger is a prick and leave it at that.  I'll say more after consulting with EVERYone I know in the business to figure out what went wrong.

Something that was interesting is how high turnout was.  We were expecting 10%, much lower than the 30ish that is often achieved in national elections with a lot of money behind them, but we got something more like 16.  Charlie got the number of votes projected to put him over the finish (we thought we needed 35,000, got 38,000 and change) but Stenger blew us away with 70,000.  I'll know more after talking to everyone who already knows more.  Just wanted to pass this along

Charlie still accomplished a lot, much of which will endure if Stenger wants to keep any of his new friends.  We can be proud of that, and I'd going to work my heart out to get him back in office if he wants it, or to elect Jake Zimmerman next time if he doesn't.

Solidarität, Genossinnen und Genossen

Saying more- Well, turnout actually didn't go up.  What happened was the Republicans.  they had no hotly contested races, and therefore no reason not to cross over and vote in our primary.  I've got to laugh though- apparently it is NOT actually a good idea to remind the entire county that your opponent is an anti-choice, misogynistic conservative when all the other anti-choice, misogynistic conservatives have nothing else to keep themselves busy.  In a primary where we expected 70,000 voters there were well over 100,000, and the difference came entirely from Republican areas.  There were other factors working against us- not least of which was a hostile media- but nothing we did would really have stopped this.  I have nothing but respect and gratitude for my superiors, Donna Davis and Chris Corbett, who made a superhuman effort to lead a very green field operation, and everyone I encountered of their level and above was professional, talented, and kind.

My best to you all- now off I'm going to try to sleep for a few hours

Attachments area

Preview YouTube video Ernst Busch - Halt´ stand, rotes Madrid

Ongoing conversation about Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Hello all.  When out canvassing, I got to meet Hazel Erby, County Councilwoman for the 1^st district of St. Louis County, and opponent of the recent (successful) bill to extend employment non-discrimination guarantees based on sexual orientation and gender identity to St. Louis County’s Workers.  We briefly discussed her opposition, and here is the letter I’ve sent her, rebutting her two arguments against it.  This may be beating a dead horse, as the measure passed and was signed by Charlie Dooley, but this is the issue that first got me into this business 8 years ago, and I want your opinion as to whether I’ve stayed sharp.

To the Honorable Councilwoman Hazel Erby

Hello.  My name is Graham Krueger.  I met you when I was canvassing for a candidate we both support, and we spoke briefly- we both had much to do, and we resolved to continue our conversation at the election watch party, come the 5^th.  I just wanted to be sure I ordered my thoughts beforehand, as I find that produces my best results.  If you’d rather continue this conversation via email or in person, let me know.  Either way I look forward to seeing you again at the watch party.

I’d like to say that I’m writing as one who has distributed your campaign flyers, and deeply appreciates your efforts to encourage Minority and Women-Owned Businesses and to break the monopolies on county contracts often held by the business firms of old white men.  Your efforts to obtain foreclosure protection for families targeted by predatory banks are exactly what we need from public policy makers.  I also appreciate your support of Mr. Dooley, whose leadership of the county I continue to view as of the highest quality.  Everything I’ve seen from and about you suggests that you are a great asset to St. Louis county’s government, except for the issue we were discussing. 

We were discussing why you oppose what is commonly referred to as the ENDA – employment non-discrimination act, which would extend protection from prejudice-based firing and in some cases eviction to the LGBT community.  The majority of states have no such statute for the lgbt community as a whole, even more lack it for Trans people.  Now, homophobic discrimination to the level of firing and eviction may not be entirely pervasive, but it does happen frequently, from gas stations in Virginia to police departments in South Carolina to restaurants and schools all across the country.  You responded to my question by claiming that there are no protections against firing or eviction based on race, so there shouldn’t be for sexual orientation or gender identity.  I believe this is incorrect- does the federal Civil Rights Act (1964) not include provisions barring most employers from discrimination based on race, sex or religion?  Title II extends this prohibition to public accommodations, title III to government facilities, while Title VII bars most private employers from discriminating against current or potential employees based on race, sex, religion, or country of origin.  I strongly contend that sexual orientation and gender identity need to be included in ordinances of this kind, and yes, they do exist at the federal and state level for other persecuted minorities.  Now, St. Louis County has joined the list of states, counties and cities to have extended it to the LGBT population, and I’m very excited for that.

You also claimed that extending employment protections to the LGBT community would pave the way for extending them to the short.  I’m not sure where you were going with this, but assuming you intended to suggest that “frivolous” claims to protection (to use Speaker Boehner’s words) would proliferate in the wake of ENDA passage, I’m not sure it necessarily follows.  Of course, in the example you cited, there is some noticeable social bias in favor of the tall, but on the topic of physical difference we did pass the Americans with Disabilities act, which does spell out the principle that physical conditions other than those necessary for performing a job should not affect one’s chances for obtaining that job, and specifically said that disabilities cannot be used as a reason to bar applicants.  Whether the example you offered will ever be included, I don’t know, but the principle in similar cases has been the law of the land for 24 years now.

Returning to my point, you say you believe in “fairness” but oppose this law.  My primary question is, in your opinion, is it fair to allow opponents of the LGBT community to deny employment, fire or evict us based solely on personal prejudice with no legal consequences?

It was an honor to meet you, and I look forward to your reply

Your Comrade

Graham Krueger

Rather more conservative than my usual work, but what do you think?  Perhaps I should have offered some description of the need to build workplace solidarity free from homophobia- the more we get used to seeing each other as comrades first and everything else second the better we'll get at not only reducing hate and violence against the LGBTQ community but at building up awareness of our contributions to society and what we deserve in return- and what we owe to others.

I'll mention that to her the next time we meet.

Solidarität

Genosse Graham

Recent Complications in our Federal System

Good morning

We’ve seen it a lot this past year- elements of the government made unable to act by the strictures of the system.  Most recently, the Hobby Lobby decision in which the Supreme Court held that corporations need only claim religious status to not only weasel out of compliance with the law of the land, but also to block their female employees from obtaining reproductive healthcare from any other source.  Now we see an Appeals court ruling that government subsidies to insurance companies’ customers/prisoners are unconstitutional if their state of residence has decided to make it so.

On the other side, we see a potentially game-changing climate plan from this administration being delayed until 2018, millions of people being kept from obtaining insurance privately or through Medicaid, and drastically different levels of access to education and healthcare based merely on the whims of our government’s constituent states. 

The bottom line is our congressional system was designed to thwart popular action and maintain the dominance of the southern planter class.  Its bicameral structure needlessly increases the number of goals needed to advance a bill, and the senate systematically undervalues the votes of urban citizens, sometimes by multiple orders of magnitude.  Furthermore, our supreme court has a unique status worldwide in that it is unelected, serves life terms, and has effectively uncheckable power, as the amendment process is nigh impossible, even with a competent and representative election system which we lack.

Judicial Review has certainly proven useful over the years- can you imagine school integration, legalization of consensual sodomy, Gay Marriage (for some), (temporary) extension of the Bill of Rights to high school students, or a Woman’s Right to Choose happening when they did, if even at all, if it hadn’t been for a court of unanswerable power?  Conversely, can you imagine corporate personhood, the destruction of campaign finance, complete fabrication of a universal right to play with weapons, or the present erosion of union rights happening without it?  I’ll leave Bush v. Gore off the table for now.  The events of recent weeks have been sufficient to push “People’s History of the Supreme Court” to the top of my list- it’s accomplished so much good, due in large part to its invincibility before public opinion, and until recently I was willing to call it a wash.  Now, with an irrevocably broken election system fueling those who choose its members and no real means to control our legislators, let alone unelected judges, it seems just one more barrier to democratic action- this can be a good or a bad thing, but does anyone think it wouldn’t be easier to get a functioning government under a parliamentary model, with a weaker court and dependent executive?

The problem with trusting to democratic processes to figure this out is that our system is not democratic and systematically disenfranchises millions while deciding elections based on a woefully corrupt, ridiculously expensive, and technically obsolete system of campaigns and voting.  The artificial guarantee of rights to states at the expense of citizens (witness the weighting of small states vs. big states, undercounting residents of the big ones) is a further complication.

I recognize the theoretical merit and historical use of judicial review, as well as the present excitement possible by state-based reform, but here are some changes I would like to see.

Parliamentary government- ok off the table for now, but we can adopt many of its common advantages, namely

                Proportionate Representation in legislatures

                Unicameral legislatures

                Ideologically responsible parties

I actually think the present level of state power is manageable if we had a unified federal government.  As we don’t, I’m left pondering a more Unitarian model.  At the very least, legislation should permit fewer loopholes for dissenting states to flout regulations.

Elections- public finance, public finance, public finance

                Party Based voting

                More representatives, smaller districts

Once private money is out of the picture, the initiative, referendum, and recall become viable tools once more, which may be all that’s needed to save the concept of judicial review.

I know this is short and a bit incoherent, so please post.  I want to discuss possible fixes, not just spitball my own ideas.

Solidarität, Genossinnen und Genossen.

Genosse Graham