Elections and 'isms

Am I the only one getting tired of people claiming that any vote for Clinton is a racist one while any vote for Obama is a sexist one? So far today, I've seen news articles on Obama being the target of racism, Clinton being the target of sexism, and the two using these views against one another.

Is it not obvious what is actually going on here? These two people are vying for a single job. Only one of them is capable of getting it. That's not because of their race or sex, but rather because of the fact that they are, in total, two people. Two people, one position. Clearly, one of them is going to be ineligible after the final nomination is made.

It does an injustice to people who are actually struggling with these issues to claim that these two individuals are in constant battle with them. These are two people who clearly have risen above these challenges to a significant degree. The black man who fights racial injustice every day of his life is not in the position that Obama is. The woman who has to struggle against people who judge her based on her chromosomal makeup rather than her abilities is not in the position that Clinton is.

Let's face it, if you're in the position to become the President of the United States, you're not struggling with the same issues that many other people are dealing with. A presidential candidate has, by whatever means, been lifted above the muck that a lot of us are still stuck in.

I think most people recognize this as a simple fact. But I also find that people want to ignore it anyway. It's been true with all the white male presidents in the past as well. There's the now-infamous "Which candidate would you rather have a beer with?" question, and it shows the same desire of people to put themselves on the same level as these few individual politicians. And why wouldn't we want to do that? These are people of influence, wealth, and fame. They're celebrities of a sort, and celebrities whose brains and values are celebrated rather than mocked (as we see with actors, for example).

So it seems simple enough to understand why people want to identify with high-profile politicians. This is only made stronger when the candidate isn't the usual white male that we're so used to. We want to think that they can identify with us. Women want to think that Clinton knows what it's like to deal with sexism, getting stuck in clerical jobs, getting smacked on the ass by some random lech. I have a hard time believing she really does, but I can certainly see how it could seem comforting to women if someone who did understand that was in charge. Likewise, I can see how African-American voters want to see a president who knows what it's like to be passed over for a promotion, called names, or being threatened for the color of his skin. Again, given his current position, it's hard to imagine that he has an understanding of what it's like for the common black person, but the appeal of the idea is clear.

What I find most disheartening about this topic is that it shows how many people identify themselves based on traits that they see as negative and have no hope of changing. Whichever candidate wins the nomination, a rather sizeable portion of the population is going to see their side as being even more oppressed than before. Rather than a win for either side, it'll be touted as proof that either women or black people are still being held down and unheard, depending on which "side" loses.

And that results in a loss for everybody. Both sexism and racism are very real issues, but to claim that one is worse than the other only downplays one of two equally important issues. The real matter at hand here is inequality based on an arbitrary physical trait. Regardless of what that trait may be, it is the inequality itself that we should be focusing. People identify too much with what they think is holding them back, rather than targeting the very fact that they're being held back unfairly. Saying, "I'm a woman and that's good, dammit" is the wrong approach. Rather, the idea that "I'm a woman and it doesn't matter" is far healthier. The focus on the second specifically targets the problem at hand, the idea that being a woman makes a person somehow different. The first one, on the other hand, segregates women from the rest of the population, by trying to ascribe some value to womanhood itself.

But for whatever reason, people like to hold onto what they see has holding them down. People would rather hope in vain that their labels go from negative to positive than to abandon those labels altogether. They would rather pretend to identify with a politician entirely unlike themselves than determine who they support based on real ideas and values held by those individuals. It's easier to say, "We're the same because our skin looks similar" or "We're the same because we've got two X-chromosomes" than to examine the individuals' beliefs and ideas.

Death by Idiocy

A man was prescribed medical marijuana to help him cope with the very real physical symptoms of his Hepatitis C. He was given this prescription by a real doctor who saw it as a valuable treatment. The hospital in charge of the transplant list saw the patient as a drug addict and refused to put him on the organ recipient list. He's dead now.

This is beyond ridiculous. Why not deny people being treated with Oxycontin or Vicodin for cancer; maybe they're just in it for the painkillers! Maybe I shouldn't say that; these people would probably take it seriously. A prescription drug for a real illness from a legitimate doctor should pretty much speak for itself. Someone who just wants drugs doesn't go out and get a deadly disease first. Just look at him in that photo. Does that look like someone who doesn't need a new liver? And let's not ignore the fact that marijuana doesn't even harm the liver in the first place!

There is no reason to treat medical marijuana patients this way, no good reason anyway. I suppose that believing high school propaganda videos from the '50's would be a reason, but anyone who does so shouldn't be in charge of determining who lives and who dies.