#i typically vote for our greens party - who are the largest minor party in the country and the most progressive on most issues

[guiltyonsundays]

Incredible sequence of posts on the dash just now

[justbenice00]

Nuances and the Right/Left Paradigm

I agree wholeheartedly with this comment from Zeph at Quillette. This is on the comments of the article that I just linked to on my previous post.

@d It would be good if you were right that “[leftist]  it’s used as a short hand to mean something quite specific, at least by most people: I’d say “leftist” refers not to Dems or liberal or left of center but to the woke collectivist version of self-proclaimed progressivism”

Alas, I think if you reread the comment threads empiracally, you may find that that it’s used much more broadly by a large portion of those commentors right of center.  But K. Dershem’s point was not only about stereotyping of “leftists” but of “liberals” and “Democrats”, which is almost as rampant here as the stereotyping of whites, males, etc by the PC fringe of the liberals.  In the first few comments of this sub thread we find:

“To democrats there are no individuals, only whites, blacks, Hispanics, Christians, Muslims, Jews, gays, lesbians, ect…”

“To Democrats there are no individuals, only oppressors (whites, males, Christians, Jews, rich, Republicans) and victims (blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews, gays, lesbians, females, poor, Democrats, etc.).”

“Democrats and leftist only see groups. Democrats and leftist fear and despise individuals and prefer group think.”

I suspect you may not notice how ubiquitous this is.  I notice because I have been a lifelong “liberal” and have voted for Democrats for 50 years (sometimes not whole-heartedly).  The large majority of my close friends are liberals and vote Democratic (or Green).  I suspect some here would more quickly recognize stereotyping of conservatives, being human.

And yet, these characterizations of liberals do not fit the large majority of those liberals & Democrats I know.  The folks I know are largely very caring, thoughtful people who are not deeply into identity politics. (There are also SJWs in our extended circles, but we find them problematic people, not examplars to emulate). They are not evil people who despise individualism and see only groups, they don’t hate all white people, they don’t want to throw open the borders, etc. Of course, to some degree that’s because we all filter our friends, but even among generally liberal groups I spend time with, I find the ourright SJWs to be a noisy minority, not  representative of the community.

So the characterizations I see in the comments here are constantly striking me as overly broad brushes at the best, self-soothing caricatures at the worst.  I sigh and move on – I’m here to find the gem comments that are unusually prevalent in this ore (compared to most sites), so I try to mostly ignore the “mine tailings”.

I’m here, tho, because I do find Identity Politics and Political Correctness extremely troubling.

Even if the SJWs are a minority in many or most liberal communities, in some areas they have become dominant – parts of academia, some corporations, etc.  And yes, some of the Democratic party.

And despite what I have said about my liberal friends being very decent people, I do find that most of them frequently stereotype conservatives, and prefer to live in their liberal bubble.  (Just as I see conservatives do; this is a sickness of our society, not of just one party).  I see politically correct framings of reality creeping in, and it concerns me.

I see political correctness as an memetic virus (in the Richard Dawkins sense of “meme” as a self-replicating unit of cultural transmission, not more recent the captioned picture usage).  It preys on good intentions and kind feelings, but then distorts perceptions and seduces the well meaning.  As folks go deeper into that framing of the universe, it covertly offers “moral high ground” payoffs, which are like candy or cocaine to the ego (for all sides, but here I’m talking about liberals).

I see that “moral high ground” dynamics as the single largest core problem; it justifies selective empathy and selective numbness that allow nominally progressive people to act in ways that are inconsistent with their professed values.

And it’s becoming a real problem with infiltrating the cultural elites.  I don’t see any good outcome from that; instead I have a baad feeling about this.

One difference between me and the typical commenter here is that I am seeing it from the inside, with understanding of how it works.  I don’t impute projected bad motives on the liberals who are slowly succumbing to it – I can see that PC’s initial appeal is to their good motives, actually.

But at heart PC is very corrosive, it’s based on shaming and blaming, on asserting that moral high ground that corrupts and transforms.  It’s deadly for classical liberalism, and for what I consider the necessary “metaculture” contanier within which any hope for a multicultural society must exist.

I really do see it as a cultural pathogen, adapted or evolved to get past the defenses of liberalism and take root before spreading itself.

So my goal is to help with the immune response to this pathogen of the body politic.  It’s most prevalent among liberals because this mind virus is customized to appeal to them – but I see some very related victimhood dynamics on the conservative side as well, so believe that the right is immune to this cultural dynamic at your own peril (our own peril).

In that regard, we can be allies.  You might call me a philosophical liberal with a STEM background and a desire of politics that have a good impedence match with reality.  As such, I can respect philosophical conservatives, as to my best understanding both (traditional) liberals and conservatives have blind spots and are better at seeing each other’s blind spots than their own.  But I’m less impressed with what I call “tribal conservatives” and “tribal liberals”, who are less interested in converging on an every better approximation of the truth, than in “winning for our side at all costs”.

“A Harvard-Harris Poll survey showed that 55% of those polled said Google was wrong to fire [James] Damore, including 61% of Republicans, 56% of independents and 50% of Democrats.”- wikipedia

That’s only 11% difference between Republicans and Democrats.  Half the Democrats were against it.

Those of us on the side of reason and sanity are not all sitting on the Republican benches.  We need a broad movement including classic liberals as well as moderates, conservatives, and libertarians to oppose the many excesses of Political Correctness.

I have the experience that when I speak my perspective (strategically) in some liberal venues, a number of people tell me how it helped them put their finger on something which was bothering them too.  There’s a lot of discontent with the PC strategy building from within liberals, but it’s often unfocused and diffuse.  One of the strengths of PC as pathogen is that it makes opposition difficult.

But when opposition to the PC infection is mixed with heavy doses of opposition to everything left of center, unsurprisingly liberals feel pushed to join ranks; maybe the PC crowd isn’t that bad, compared to the attackers anyway.

It’s encouraging to find other liberals and moderates who can see the problems with PC.  But it would be good to join with reasonable conservatives who can distinquish between the PC infection and liberalism in general – and who are willing to help take down PC without expecting everyone to become an arch-conservative as a precondition.

Anyway, as part of this, I would like to encourage the folks here to be more nuanced than lumping all “left of center” folks as one hive-mind, and to avoid conflating the struggle against the PC infection with the permanent struggle between left/right.

That means being willing to work with sane liberals to resist the PC mindset, without expecting that means they will have to agree with every tenet of conservative philosophy.  I see Poliical Correctness as making civil and meaningful debate impossible and that’s a bad thing – but my goal is to restore that healthy debate, not to cede it entirely to conservatives.

So, how about we come up with a name for those infected with “PC” specifically, and aim our joint criticism at that.  (You probably wondered when I’d get around to your final question, no?).

I mean something neutral on the left/right spectrum.  Like I refer to most on the anti-AGC sides as “contrarian” versus “mainstream” scientific view, as the most neutral terms I’ve found.

Maybe “cultural absolutists”?  “social justice wing”?

In the meanwhile, how about just using “SJW” when you mean the crazies on the left, rather than all liberals, or all Democrats?  (The problem with “progressive” is that nobody knows which political subgroup it really means today, so it’s mostly just confusing).

The only minor disagreement I have is that, instead of using the term “social justice warrior” or “SJW” - I would, instead, use the term “social justice dogmatist”... simply because there is no single agreed upon definition of “SJW”. In fact, people on the alt-right will even use “SJW” synonymously with “liberal” or “leftist”.

[firedingo]

Australia, Marriage Equality & Plebiscites

Confused about all this talk going on about Australia, Marriage Equality and Plebiscites? Yeah it can get confusing. So I figured I’d write up this post about the whole debacle, yes debacle is the correct word and explain it for people who aren’t sure.

Ok, so Australia has a marriage act formally called Marriage Act 1961. It covers lots of things, from what is a marriage, to who is eligible, what is the minimum age, legal requirements to be recognized etc.

The bit everyone is talking about right now is the eligibility based on gender. Currently the act defines marriage as:

Interpretation

marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

As you can guess, that means same-sex marriages are not legally recognized in Australia. They are seen as a de-facto relationship, essentially two people living together with a romantic relationship between them.

Depending on who’s poll you look at you get a different number for how many Australians support same-sex marriages, typically between 65-75% will cover most. Almost everyone is agreed that a majority support same-sex marriages. It is usually something like 15-25% are opposed. I’ve seen some report 5-10% are undecided also, though many just lump undecided with opposed.

I think it was after the courts ruled same-sex marriages as valid in the US that some chatter started but it was really after Ireland legalized same-sex marriages in late 2015 that talk began here. 6 months later Australia went to the polls for a double dissolution election. Basically we had to vote for a candidate for every seat in the upper house and every seat in the lower house. Half the upper house sits for twice as long as the rest unless a double dissolution election is called.

Going into this election, one of the many promises was to hold a plebiscite to determine if same-sex marriages should be legalized. The Labor Party promised to just legislate it if they were elected, the Greens Party promised to support any legislation introduced and to bring forward a bill ASAP, many many Upper House cross benchers, basically small parties and independents said they were happy to support any legislation brought forward but they had no specific stance. Some said they were opposed. That leaves the Government or the Liberal/National Party. They are the conservatives and typically opposed to this sort of thing.

The National Party are more conservative than moderate Liberals but less conservative than some far-right Liberals. Typically the guys who hold the power in the party are the far-right, Ultra-cons as I like to call them, conservative power brokers with a small splashing of National ministers.

You may have heard of Tony Abbott. He is considered to be one of the most embarrassing and worst polling prime ministers this country has seen for quite some time. His numbers would rival that of Trump which might tell you how unpopular he was. He rose to PM after a rather chaotic time in Australian politics, people I think wanted a change though it became quickly obvious no one liked Abbott and he was replaced by Malcolm Turnbull. Tony Abbott is one of the many far-right power brokers. Malcolm Turnbull is a moderate liberal.

The far-right probably have 65% of the votes in the party while the moderates have 45%, this is just my estimation and of course I could be wrong, however what we do know is that the far-right carry the majority, enough so that they can turn ANY moderate into a puppet for their interests.

As such that’s what happened to Malcolm Turnbull, to his credit he didn’t go full puppet but that is how we ended up with this plebiscite plan. Essentially the far-right for the most part can’t stand the idea of same-sex marriages and threatened to pull the rug from beneath Turnbull if he brought on a parliamentary vote, the opposition doing what it does best threatened to hound Turnbull right up to the election if he buried this idea of same-sex marriages so he decided to outsource it to the people of Australia, then he couldn’t be shot from either side and if anyone went against their constituents then the public would shoot them.

Mostly it was a good plan I think, it removed politics and lets the people it will impact have a say. Now before we jump any further forward, you’re probably wondering what a plebiscite is eh?

Well a plebiscite is defined as nothing in Australian law :P But it is modeled off a referendum which is defined in law:

“The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the Governor-General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first-mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent.“

Essentially what that says is that to modify our constitution, a referendum must happen. First both houses must pass the bill proposed, then within 6 months and no earlier than 2 months it must be presented to the public to vote on. Then if a majority of voters in a majority of states approve of it then the bill proposed goes to the Governor-General or Queen’s representative for royal asset, after which it becomes law.

While a plebiscite is not quite THAT confusing, it still has some effort to it. The complexity of a referendum is partly why since 1901, only 8/19 proposed changed have actually passed. While there is no legal definition of a plebiscite, it draws from the referendum definition for how it should be modeled, essentially if politicians think the issue is big enough that they can’t just legislate it, they might ask the people what they think, legally the result is non-binding unlike a referendum.

The last time a plebiscite was called it was to discuss conscription in WW1 in 1916/17. It was pretty solidly defeated as you can imagine. Because our elections are run on weekends, if a referendum or plebiscite is to be held it is often done along side voting given the same people are likely to handle both the votes and the referendum/plebiscite results plus it is convenient for the public too.

So Australian election 2016 happens on July 2nd. We sit for hours watching and increasingly it starts looking like Turnbull might not make it across the line with the numbers, about halfway through the night it becomes clear the opposition aka The Labor Party definitely won’t have the numbers so the question becomes, will Turnbull just scrape over the line or will it be another minority government. I was praying for a minority government :P

Many days later we finally got the answer, a 1 seat majority for Turnbull. He had survived by a miracle. He had called for a double dissolution election after having trouble passing legislation because the crossbench kept blocking it. Before the election there had been 18 crossbenchers, before that the largest number had been 13, post election there was now 21 crossbenchers. So the hail mary Turnbull had wanted didn’t come.

None the less he pressed on and tried to pass the bill to hold a plebiscite post-election on same-sex marriages. With his one seat majority, he was able to pass it through the lower house but as soon as it hit the upper house it was knocked back by just about everybody except the LNP Senators, aka the government’s own party.

After that it died down until early 2017 when the media made a story out of reminding the public that February 11 would have been the day they could have voted on Same-Sex Marriage and by the following weekend it would have been legal. That generated talk for many more days but was quickly buried by other things going on like Government ministers buying properties on taxpayer funded trips, Centrelink, the welfare agency hitting people for false debts and a few other things.

All the while Tony Abbott god only knows how was returned to parliament, it would later turn out that Turnbull had to both bankroll his own party’s political campaign but also intervene in Abbott’s campaign to help him get elected. Anyway with Abbott back, he set to work on wrecking his own party. He called them “political interventions” and “advice”. His “advice” was basically to screw the people over. Turnbull to his credit ignored Abbott and proceeded to listen to the public while exercising caution on most occasions.

Despite this, the uninvited “interventions” by Abbott continued and happened usually when Turnbull wasn’t around, though more recently they have. At first they didn’t have much of an impact but as they continued more and more the polls began to tumble as the LNP became more unelectable. To be fair it wasn’t all Abbott’s doing but a large part was.

As Turnbull became increasingly unelectable talk about his failures and missed opportunities began, all the while the opposition is sitting cosy knowing that their leader while deeply unpopular is not actually hurting his party’s chance of being elected after coming within a hair’s breadth of winning the last election, all they need to do is avoid scandal and they’ll be over the line sooner than they realise. With media and the opposition talking about Turnbull he was increasingly feeling the pressure and the need to do something, anything, just so long as it was a win. Lucky for him electricity and boat people presented themselves as viable options, plus the banks.

There’s almost no one who doesn’t applaud the PM for taxing the banks given they each get about 10 billion in profits a year and there’s 4 big banks. Electricity is now the most expensive in the world here so bringing prices down is again another vote winner and of course good ol’ boat people is a common LNP go to. It’s always a vote winner to say you’re being tough on criminals and terrorists, you’re stopping the bad people coming here, stopping refugees coming here and sitting on the dole(welfare) and stopping them taking jobs from Australians.

One issue that still wouldn’t die was the issue of same-sex marriages and with ministers speaking behind closed doors and said comments being leaked to the media didn’t help the situation either. Soon enough that is all anyone could talk about. Now there actually are some ministers/senators in the LNP who actually just want the issue dealt with not because of politics but because it’s an unresolved issue.

At least 5 ministers have threatened to cross the floor, that is a process where by they actually vote against their own party, the term comes from the old days where ministers physically crossed the floor to indicate their vote position. Crossing the floor is considered politically risky because if you’re a lone person or end up on the losing side you can be punished by your own party. A similar thing happened in the NSW state parliament where several ministers from The National Party crossed the floor to vote against banning greyhound racing in the state, this lead the party to actually demote those people. In the end the backlash sent the Liberal AND Nationals leaders packing when a by-election produced a 70% swing AGAINST the Nationals.

On top of that crossing the floor indicates you don’t have confidence in your own party’s policy/position. Which when you have a 1 seat majority is not a good position to be in. It would basically indicate you lack the confidence of the majority of ministers and could destroy this government before it even makes it to the next election.

So caught in a three way split between the opposition leader Bill Shorten calling Turnbull weak and useless, Tony Abbott and other far-right members threatening to remove him from power and those 5 ministers threatening to cross the floor, Turnbull had no choice but to do something, anything to save the party.

Thus he called a special meeting of the Liberal Party and proposed to talk to them about the issue. They agreed to try to push for the same plebiscite again, of course all bets would be it would get rejected again. In the event that that happens then the party policy would be to move to a postal plebiscite.

Why a postal plebiscite and what makes it different from a plebiscite? Good Question. Well unlike a plebiscite which is modeled off a referendum and would involve the Australian Electoral Commission and thus requires a bill to pass parliament in order to happen, a postal plebiscite doesn’t.

Namely it gets around the issue the plebiscite has by:

Not involving the AEC directly, merely having them as “assistance”

Asking the Australian Bureau of Statistics to conduct the procedure

declaring it is a statistical “survey” and not technically a plebiscite

The unfortunate thing is the entire thing is so haphazardly cobbled together that it’s open to legal challenges which have been granted a hearing date by the High Court of Australia.

Challenge 1: Has be brought by independent MP Andrew Wilkie, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and lesbian parent Felicity Marlowe. They’re arguing that the minister authorizing the funding for the vote which comes in at $122 million does not have the authorization because the vote is not “unforseen” and that the issue is not “an emergency”. Short of that they’re also challenging the validity of the law that grants the minister the power to authorize the funding. I’d say if they get it, they’ll win on the first reason.

Challenge 2: Was filed on behalf of the group Australian Marriage Equality and Greens Senator Janet Rice. They also claim that the funding law is invalid in its application for this vote. They also claim that the postal plebiscite is constitutionally invalid given the original plebiscite was rejected twice by the parliament and it now appears the govt is trying to subvert the parliament with this postal plebiscite.

Both are seeking injunctions to stop the ABS from performing any of its preparatory work given they’ve said papers will not go out until at least September 12. The High Court has agreed to a hearing on September 5/6.

I’d say both have a pretty good chance of knocking this postal plebiscite out. The one thing no one is arguing that might actually come back is that this is a plebiscite via proxy and that it is invalid because the appropriate legislation hasn’t passed the parliament. After all AEC staff are working on it, will handle the counting and all their standard procedures will apply to the whole thing, only thing different is that there’s no legal protections and that the ABS is the one in charge.

The other thing no one is talking about is the privacy implication. Because this vote will use the electoral roll to know who to mail papers to there’s a few problems.

Anyone who is listed as a silent voter aka their address isn’t listed might end up being skipped since the AEC can not share their address with the ABS

There is 0 thought about Overseas voters. At this stage they’re being told to contact the local consulate for further information

The ABS has said that they will link the results from this plebiscite to other data they have AND we know they sell anonymized data sets to buyers which is NOT good.

On top of this the AEC website has crashed under the load of people trying to enroll, update or verify their details and Australians only have 2 weeks to sort this out

It also doesn’t take into consideration Australians unable to update those details via electronic means and who’s local electoral division office is closed.

So as you can see it’s an absolute clusterfuck that will likely fall over in a month’s time when the High Court rules the postal plebiscite invalid. I’m quietly hoping the High Court also puts some limits on what the ABS can and cannot do.

And another reason why the ABS is the wrong agency to be doing this, to run a census, it takes them 5 years to prepare and the last one they ran was primarily online and their system collapsed under the weight of Australians trying to log in and an ISP who was incapable of activating DDoS protection from overseas connections. After crashing and 4 DDoS attacks the ABS themselves pulled the plug for about 3 days. The whole issue is now known as #CensusFail.

On top of all this, while a referendum is compulsory, this postal plebiscite will be voluntary and there are people calling for the public to boycott it. As I’ve said to others, if by some miracle this postal plebiscite goes ahead and it returns a No vote then the LNP/govt will use it as a reason to bury marriage equality for eons. The Labor Party has said they will legislate it within their first 100 days so only way marriage equality doesn’t happen is if the LNP can work out how to stay in power which won’t happen. As I said earlier, they’re unelectable thanks to lots of things.

And so that sums up the whole issue. Now you’re informed like every other Australian who’s paying attention :P

Seriously if you read to the end of this, Congrats on getting to the end of this politics heavy post. I find politics interesting because it allows me to make an informed choice, I know some people don’t. If nothing else, I would encourage people to work out what their stance is on an issue and why and then find the candidates that closest match your views and vote for them.

When it comes to politics, there is no right or wrong answer except the uninformed choice. If you think a conservative party is the best because you think they can manage a country economically better, then excellent. You are a semi-informed voter. Now go find the proof that confirms your belief.

You prefer voting for a socialist party who’s left leaning because you think they’re in touch with the voters, are progressive and have proven this in the past? Excellent. You are an informed voter because you know why you’re voting and you know the party has proven they keep their promises.

Have no idea who to vote for, don’t care and would just vote based on what someone else said? Congratulations! You’re like the 80% of voters who don’t actually think about who they’re voting for or why. Even if you’re mostly uninterested, I would suggest you at least know what your major parties stand for and try and vote accordingly. There is nothing worse than an uninformed vote. It really is the most valuable thing that someone can own!

[mightbedamian]

#TMIishTuesday #62 - Dangerous CDU Dominance

Hey, In my last pre-intro I told you I was trying to keep the total score for my English C1 exam above the 90 % mark. Well, I got 27 out of 30 points for the oral part. Total score is something around 92 %. Crazy! So satisfied with it! Also: I got new glasses! Technically I could have picked them up today, but I was too f*cked off by the bad traffic (drive home lasted 45 minutes instead of the usual 25…) that I didn't do the extra detour. Might pick them up tomorrow. Oh, and I'm done with all exams. Next ones probably in September or so. Chill! Now hoping for satisfying results. Anyway, why are we here again? Right, the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia had elections in the weekend - and the result is clear: The Christian Democrats will be in power in the most populous state for the next 5 years. At the same time, the two parties from the previous coalition, the Social Democrats and the Greens, massively dropped. Let's talk about why that may potentially be dangerous to LGBTQ+ folks and our democracy in general. Hey there mighty people of the internet! And welcome to issue #62 of #TMIishTuesday. If you're new, here's the reasoning behind my weekly #TMIishTuesday series. // Last week I gave you a review of the new album "Laune der Natur" by my favorite German band, Die Toten Hosen. If you like music or are interested in what music I like, read it. // Okay, let's dive right into it: The Christian Democrats (CDU) won the majority of votes in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. If you don't know me too well, you'd probably go: "So what?". And one might also think that when you don't care about politics. I'll show you why you should care. 1. The chancellor - Angela Merkel If you haven't been living under a rock (or on Mars) for the last 12 years, you'll know that Angela Merkel is our chancellor. Yepp, that girl who's cool with pretty much the entire world - except for their own party. Oh, and her "step-party" (if you want so), the Christian Social Union (CSU). And I'm not gonna lie, four years ago I liked her very much. Although she was of the party that I didn't quite like, she seemed very approachable and open for discussion. Well, let's just say, things changed. Granted, it's not only HER fault that the coalition - CDU, CSU, and the Social Democrats (SPD) - seems to have very opposing opinions on virtually ANY topic. But she certainly didn't try not to clash. And with some topics - especially regarding the handling of refugees - Merkel and CSU chairman, Horst Seehofer, did a pretty good job at working on both extremes. Merkel was the oh-so-friendly and oh-so-welcoming lady who pushed all of Europe to accept all refugees. I give her that: That was good! But: It was the exact opposite of what her own party, the CDU, wanted. And the CSU took it even further than most of the CDU. Mr. Seehofer wanted to close the borders. That was not the only situation that Merkel totally disagreed with her party - and actually took on a stance that the parties left of the CDU - SPD, the Greens, and the Left party - favored. With Seehofer still on the ultra-right side and Merkel on the left side of the political spectrum, that massively garnered the following of her and her party. People who previously voted for parties on the left spectrum felt that the CDU now also stood for their opinions. The traditional voters of the CDU had no other options, but to keep voting CDU, if they didn't want to vote for the populist AfD. The effect: More and more people voted for those AfD idiots and less and less people voted for the traditionally left parties. 2. The federal parliament - Bundestag In the 2013 election, roughly 42 % voted for the CDU/CSU. Still, with the Liberals (FDP) not making the 5 % election threshold, they couldn't continue the coalition. That led to a Grand Coalition between the CDU/CSU and the SPD. What sounded like an improvement at first sight (I definitely like the SPD better than the FDP), soon developed the typical Grand Coalition syndrome: Postponing any major decisions. Discussing about those decisions until forever and ever. And with the opposition being in SUCH a minority (80 % of the seats in parliament are held by the two parties in power), there barely is any opposition. And I don't mean the number - which is obvious. I mean the discussions, I mean voting on laws and regulations, I mean bringing up topics for discussion. I think I addressed the topic of the same-sex marriage laws before. 3. The federal council - Bundesrat // The Bundesrat is the institution responsible for enacting laws. Without the consent of the Bundesrat, no law passes. Therefore, it plays a vital role in our democratic system. The council consists of representatives of the federal states' governments. They send members of their government to discuss certain topics (and laws). Depending on the number of population, each state is entitled a certain number of representatives. In general: The larger the population of a state, the more representatives he sends to the Bundesrat. // As of now, the SPD is still the major power in the council. However, with both the elections in Schleswig-Holstein and North Rhine-Westphalia - the most populous state (aka. a very influential state when it comes to the Bundesrat) - won by the CDU, this might change. And with the gap between the two largest parties growing more and more (the CDU/CSU will hold ~35 % of the seats in the federal parliaments, the SPD ~28 % after the recently elected parliaments have been constituted), our country might become one dominated - even more - by one party. And - let's face it - it's not the most modern party. Long story short: I don't like the direction our country is going. I addressed the topic of AfD loads before. They already hold ~10 % of seats in federal parliaments - that's frightening! Luckily they are not involved in any government yet, hence they claim no seats in the Bundesrat cause they are not involved in any governments (yet?). But there's more to worry about: With the CSU turning from right more and more to ultra-right, with the CDU turning from rather right to right, and with Merkel turning from right to rather left, we have a situation in which one party is covering an entire spectrum - and is recognised for that. Over the long run this might get us back to long forgotten times with one party holding the majority vote. I don't like that. Especially when this party involves idiots who can preach far-right opinions (Seehofer, De Maiziere, Schäuble, the list goes on) without getting in too much trouble! With that being said: I feel that national politicians have never been further from granting us LGBTQ+ folks our well-deserved rights. Tomorrow the Bundestag will debate same-sex marriage again. For 30 minutes. No voting about it. Afterwards it's the summer break and we get an election. Wow! Well done, CDU! You certainly know how to make a fool out of the SPD! Remember that it was one the big goals for the Social Democrats to make it same-sex marriage happen? Look what has happened since. Okay, just read this. I summarised it for you. Anyway, what I wanted to say is: Dear members of the Bundestag, you already messed up badly. You better work towards equality. Soon! This is probably the last chance we get in a long time - with a majority of parliament being "left": SPD, Greens and Left party. GO FOR IT! NOW! Right, so far my concerns. Let's hope we get a brighter future. Now let me know what you think of current political situation in Germany? Do you like it the way it is? Also: Were you allowed to vote in the elections? Or would you, if you could? Place a comment, tweet me, dm me, or do anything else you can think of to get to me. Queer Shoutout you say? I usually don't promote brands too much on here. But: Ben & Jerry's, made a special branding for their ice creams, in support of same-sex marriage. And I just think that is super awesome! Spreading awareness for the topic is the best way to deal with it. And one way to do it, is by making specially branded ice cream. Yes, Ben & Jerry's is still really expensive stuff, but Yes, I Dough like that campaign! (see what I did there? Good!) I heard about them being LGBTQ+ positive before and this just fits their concepts 100 %. Thanks for being awesome! (for the record: #notsponsered) As always: Next #TMIishTuesday next Tuesday. If you have any questions in the meantime, just ask away. Whatever you’re curious about - I don’t bite. :) Until then: Stay mighty! Linkage: - TMIishTuesday #56: The Social Democrats are a lie! - On the discussion of same-sex marriage in Germany: http://mightbedamian.tumblr.com/post/159196102114/tmiishtuesday-56-the-social-democrats-are-a - Queer Shoutout: Ben & Jerry's: "Verliebt, verlobt, verpartnert? Klingt doof? - Ist es auch!": http://www.benjerry.de/blog/unser-ja-habt-ihr

Oh, and here’s some self-promo: - Last #TMIishTuesday: http://mightbedamian.tumblr.com/post/160485106750/tmiishtuesday-61-laune-der-natur - All #TMIishTuesdays: mightbedamian.tumblr.com/tagged/tmi - More #TMIishTuesdays on politics: http://mightbedamian.tumblr.com/tagged/mightbeserious - More very cool stuff: https://twitter.com/MightBeDamian - Even more very cool stuff: mightbedamian.tumblr.com