Something to consider when everyone is mad at the boomers as a whole generation for having more money than the rest of us.

In reality…that's probably a good thing. No, but hear me out.

We aren't making less than our parents because of our parents. We make less because of horrible policies.

We used to have a lot more elderly people in poverty. When our elders are in poverty, the younger generations have to care for them. Could we even do it?

(1/)

We're able to villainize our elders, because they don't live in our houses–because we aren't holding them, helpless, and without resources.

That our parents (not my parents) did well is one bright spot. It is one burden that's lifted–and it may be the only way that there is any ease for anyone: That when they die, there might be something left. A house or something.

I worry that every time there's a trend in saying "okay Boomer" what we're doing is giving permission…

for that last little bit of relief to be taken away. For abusive policies towards the elderly. To plunge them back into poverty.

There are the things we want for the future, and the ways we wish things were, and there is the reality. The reality is they want us ALL fucked, and the boomers were a generation that slipped through.

Let's guard that. And then demand more for everyone. But let's not repeat the propaganda that they should have less. That's antithetical to everyone having more. Let's not confuse evil politicians and corporations with our parents.

If I were a Republican strategist, this is what I would do in this moment:

I would denounce Trump as someone who wants to take everyone's guns–and shoot people on the street like some communist dictator in order to squash American freedom. I would lead the party in ousting him from office, and I would put him in jail. And then that would solidify the Republicans as serious about gun rights, serious about law and order, serious about freedom. And it would humiliate the Democrats. Demolish them.

I think Democrats need to anticipate this possibility, and do something first.

Politicians have shown they don't care about stopping fascism. They care about fundraising and elections.

So let's put it in those terms: Either we're all oppressed forever, or someone's going to do something. And whoever does something wins.

I'm rewatching #TheWestWing , and I just got to the debate episode with Matt Santos and Arnold Vinnick.

It's an interesting episode, because West Wing, when painting Republicans, always asks first, "What would a Republican you can trust look like?" And then they make much better arguments for them than any Republican makes.

But the way they do that? They take the abortion question off the table: They make Vinnick pro-choice.

Because to be anti-choice is to not view women as human beings.

But the Republican party is inherently of the belief that women aren't human beings.

Because here's the thing: Vinnick argues that climate change is a hoax. He argues that tax cuts for the wealthy are a good thing. He argues a free market solves everything. But because he's played by Alan Alda, and it's very well written, in this universe, he obviously won.

If dropping one issue makes them infinitely more appealing, why wouldn't they abandon it?

Because the party exists to oppress women.

The Republican party will always be the fascist party so long as they hold their stance on women's autonomy, in any time and place.

What if the whole Republican party says, "I cannot associate with Trump anymore."? What if THEY put him in jail?

They are still fascists so long as that is their bottom line.

I just had a realization about the perspective on immigration. I am a white woman. I also work very low wage jobs.

Which means that I'm EXACTLY the person that the republicans say immigrants are crossing the border to terrorize. To rape. To take my job.

I have been a white woman in low wage jobs all across the country. In the south, in the north, in the Midwest, the southwest, the west, in big cities, and small towns and suburbs and rural unincorporated areas…

I've lived in poor black neighborhoods, poor Hispanic neighborhoods, poor asian neighborhoods and poor white neighborhoods. I've worked in restaurants and hotels that are high end and low end.

And all my life, the question of borders and immigration have seemed to be the kind of thing I don't have experience in to talk about. Like, I'm obviously for immigration, and I've read the pamphlets, and I'm on the left's side, because I believe what they say, but it has always been conveyed to me…

that my experience isn't relevant. The "immigration threat" never comes up in my life.

But the narrative is that it should have come up in my life. Even on the left, the question is not "is immigration a problem at all?" The question is "How big of a problem is it?"

It's just assumed there is a little truth to this narrative that immigration is some sort of problem. That it's good, it's good…but we gotta watch out for too much. For some reason.

(con't)

But in the narrative, I'm the supposed victim. The working class American. The white woman who's going to be raped. The person in the neighborhood full of drug dealers who are run by the cartel.

I tell you, it has never come up in my life. Every place I've worked that had foreign workers brought in to work–the hotel where they brought in Jamaicans every year, the restaurants with Mexican back of house–these were places that were chronically understaffed. There was no threat. Job or physical.

When I think about it, I've known more immigrants in my life than I think probably most people I know. But the thing is, I always feel separate from everyone because I'm such a transient person–I don't belong anywhere. Including the white neighborhoods, because in those places I'm the white trash. So it always seemed a philosophical question to me.

But I'm realizing, if this were a danger..I'm precisely the person they say it's a danger to. I'm not some separate transient. I'm in the story.

And the story is categorically false. That many different kinds of places? All across the country? And I'm middle aged? That's enough life experience. I'm calling myself the expert on whether immigration poses any kind of a threat to the United States–because they say that threat is aimed at me, directly. I don't see that it's a problem even slightly. It doesn't even fucking register. It's not a threat. At all. Even slightly.

And I wish I could talk to Republicans, because I'm preaching to the choir. Because this is the kind of thing where you realize what you believed isn't just logically true, but is true on a visceral, lived experiences way. You feel just as dumb as if you were admitting that the things you believed were wrong. The things I believed were right. But it wasn't based on my experience.

When I base it on my experience–Accept that experience as valid: It's still fucking true.

I think we have a tendency to count ourselves naive and rely on experts. We think of people as dumb when they can't pick the right experts to listen to.

But it's so much more important to be able to look at your own experiences logically. We so often discount what we see and hear because we don't think much of ourselves, or trust ourselves to be the interpreter of the world around us.

But if we take that seriously–seriously enough to be honest–whether that means questioning your ideas, or..

…believing in what you've experienced, that is when you REALLY know a thing.

You are in the story. We don't get the truth without your honest perspective.

Bottom line:: Fear of what may be is a hard thing to disprove–because anything may be. But I can say this:

In my 40 years, working since I was 16, it's never posed a threat on any level. If I were younger, or had lived fewer places, I might not say my experience is enough.

But it's enough. I don't need more to know what's true.