Why I participate in the political discussion

Some of my friends, mostly those from abroad, wonder why I bother to enter the US political debate amongst citizens. I am a legal resident of the United States and although I share every other right, I lack a very important one: I can't vote. So why bother? I am sure many of my friends and contacts here wonder about that as well, except that they are probably too polite to mention it to me, lest I feel being called an outsider. 

Well, I have a few reasons. First, I happen to be married to an enthusiastic politically active American, who takes elections, politics and policy-making very seriously. That enthusiasm is infectious. Second, living here subjects me to the laws of this land. I pay the same taxes and abide by the same rules and regulations as does everybody else. So why shouldn't I be interested in the process that determines those rules and those taxes? It would be just a different form of "taxation without representation". I can't vote, but I can certainly persuade a citizen to vote. Especially since the law permits me to both make campaign contributions and volunteer at a campaign, it only makes sense for me to get involved.  After all, who the citizens elect, I will "inherit".

But apart from those two reasons, yet based on them, the third and most compelling reason for me to be engaged in this process is the fact that I have the the unique experience of living in Arizona, home of John McCain, during an extremely negative and divisive campaign run by him. 

I have a Obama08 bumper sticker on my car. On multiple occasions McCain supporters, with their own derogatory, negative and hateful bumper stickers of course, have recklessly cut in front of me on the highway, putting both me and them in danger. On multiple occasions these supporters have showed me the finger. On multiple occasions these supporters have swerved their cars in an attempt to make me lose control of mine. And on one occasion, while I was waiting at a drive-through window, one McCain supporter behind me rolled down his window to throw racial and other derogatory epithets aimed at Barack Obama and several random insults aimed towards me. And only yesterday a friend of mine had his Obama yard sign stolen just a few hours after he put it up! So what happened to Free Speech?

Some of my friends that are on or that are leaning towards the Republican side are concerned that a Democratic administration will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine that will "muzzle the right". To them I have to say that the "right" looks very wrong at the moment, and if a dog becomes rabid, muzzling it may not be a bad idea. It's also easier to put lipstick on a dog once it has been muzzled.

This is why I have decided to participate in the political discussion here in the United States.

Should you talk about politics at work?

I just read this piece on the CNN.com website:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/06/04/politicking.at.work/index.html

Should you be talking politics at work? Yes? No? May be?

As one the persons quoted in the article says, free speech is an urban myth. The moment you walk in the door of that office you leave the free world behind. You are no longer in America. You enter some medieval kingdom or fiefdom where you can't talk freely, you can't speak up and you certainly can't hold your superiors accountable. I italicized superior. Superior automatically relates to inferior, subordinate, lower, etc. If all men were created equal why should some be superior? Yes, I know some of you will say it's just a word. But words are everything. We think in words; we communicate in words; we express our emotions in words; we arouse masses of people with words. What would we be if we didn't have words? And of course there are symbols. Equally important.

Coming back to the original point: the choice of words is not a random act. Words are deeply connected to thoughts, emotions and ultimately physical reactions. So why choose superior instead of a more class-less (no pun intended) word? There are no such words in the political sphere. The names there are flatter with no hint of inherent hierarchy. Congressman, Congresswoman, Representative, Senator: all powerful positions but without the inherent implication of one being higher than the other. But in the corporate office, words are chosen differently. There is a superior and there is a subordinate. There is no free speech. There is no choice. There are no elections. Your leader is not someone you chose. Well some would say they didn't really choose George W Bush either. But you at least had a choice. Not once, but twice. At work, you don't have a choice. You are given a "leader" by the people above.

In England, in 1215, the barons revolted against the king and forced him to be bound by the Magna Carta. Even in England. Even in 1215. Can you imagine some people in a modern corporation revolting against their boss and forcing upon him/her a set of rules?

So why can't you talk politics at work? Yeah you can't put work aside and talk politics, that's not productive. Apart from that why can't you talk politics otherwise? Why can't you campaign for an issue? Why can't you send political email? Why can't you make political statements? If you spend 8 to 10 hours a day at work you spend approximately one third of your active adult life in a place without free speech!

It probably doesn't sound so surprising when you think of the purpose of the existence of corporations. But that's for another day.