A quick Internet search suggests about 92% of humanity believes in some sort of god; with 1/3 Christians of one sect or another, a tad less than 1/4 claiming Islam as their own, 14% are Hindu, 6% Buddhist,with a mix of this and that making up a bit more than one out of 10. (I have heard Buddhists described as atheists with a sense of theater - but I'm going to include them in the "believer" column.) Go around the world, pick any 100 people at random, and barely a hand full will admit to not having a god belief. I would be among that handful.
Which is one of the reasons I am off the reservation. According to dictionary.com an atheist is, "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"; which sounds a bit more harsh than simply not believing in a god. Would they claim that the average person denies or disbelieves the existence of Santa Clause? (Actually, I'm not sure "disbelieve" is a word. I can conclude that what I am being told is true. I can conclude that what I am being told is false. I can conclude that what I am being told doesn't include enough information to decide either way. But how do I disbelieve something?)
Anyway, it isn't so much that I "disbelieve" in the existence of gods. It is true, I have concluded that all the gods and the religions that follow are inventions of human kind; myths, stories, analogies, anthologies, attempts at sharing moral teachings and efforts to explain things that are currently misunderstood. But that is just a surface objection, and a minor one at that. There is nothing wrong with sharing moral teachings or undertaking the task of explaining things. Often myths, stories, and analogies are the best and only way to share understanding and a bit of wisdom. (Sometimes wisdom is even more subtle than myths can convey, which is why we also need art, music, theater, poetry and dance to share what the heart can know.) But I am not an atheist just because all the gods are clearly human created characters in mythical stories.
Humanity is so new to, and such a small bit of, the cosmos, that it is impossible to think that we have much of anything right yet. Imagine an intelligent species one hundred million years further down the evolutionary trail then is humanity. (Not much of a reach actually, the dinosaurs roamed the earth for more than two hundred millions years.) How likely is it that they hold any concept of god at all, or if they do that it is one that we could even recognize? How likely is it that theirs is wrong as compared to ours? Is it even remotely possible that their concept of god is based on the idea that IT created the cosmos specifically for human kind, that humanity is at the very center of ITS attention? The shear scale of the universe makes our god concept little more than the imaginings of arrogant children. Still, I am not an atheist just because all of our god imaginings are most likely akin to a child's first attempt at coloring inside the lines.
In all of human history the only observations, the only things we have ever seen that were clearly created items, are items that we created ourselves. Everything else we have observed, everywhere in the cosmos as far as we can see, has turned out to be the manifestations of natural processes. We have even uncovered the natural processes that lead to us. But because we create things we make the assumption that everything must be created. All through our history we have attempted to inflict this "created assumption" on the rest of the universe in the guise of one god or another.
Centuries ago human kind had no clue that lightning and thunder were natural phenomena eventually to be explained by thermodynamics and Maxwell's equations; and so invented Indra, Thor, Perun, and Zeus. The concept of nature was wrong, the concept of what the god needed to explain was wrong, and the invented gods were nothing more than myth. Today's gods are no better. Nothing could be further from the truth than the Jewish fable of creation. It errs in every possible detail yet believers cling to its basic claim that god did it! The Greeks said the same about Zeus and lightning.
The very foundation of our god concept is based on a human view forced on the cosmos. Based as they are on ignorance the gods we invent are a direct reflection of humanity. At times they call to the best of what we hope for; love, forgiveness, tolerance, justice and peace. More often they mirror humanity at our worst; jealous, hateful, scornful, easily offended, war loving and vengeful. There are hells of eternal torture, regional wars over this bit of desert or that bit of mountain, genocide and slavery. And every god seems to be the worst sort of petulant child if someone dares not worship it. Really? If you were god, could you imagine yourself being so petty, churlish and infantile? There is something seriously wrong with the very concept of a god that so closely parallels the evolution of a species of tribal ape just recently climbed down from the trees.
I am not an atheist because all the gods are human created characters. I am not an atheist because humanity is too young to have any concept of the universe that is likely to be anywhere near the truth. And I'm not really an atheist just because the very idea of "god" is so clearly a human construct.
It seems to me that over the centuries even some religious and spiritual teachers have stumbled onto these same kinds of thoughts about gods. Often they are known as "mystics" and inhabit the fringe (or the core - depending on your point of view) of many a religious ideology; including most of today's mainstream religions. They don't start at the fringe (or the core) and must make some inner journey to "mystic". Since that inner journey happens in a human mind and heart which lives in the cosmos as it actually exist, it is no surprise that many of them end up in nearly the same place. Along the way they notice that the gods bare a remarkable resemblance to humanity and, realizing that is unlikely to reflect the true nature of a god, shed those perceptions as they journey toward understanding. Eventually they end up with an experience of a god that is beyond description, bereft of all vestiges of humanity, where language fails and the mystics find they have little to add to wisdom. They are left with an experience impossible to share, "The Divine mystery" is about the best they can do, (probably why we call them "mystics".)
I am just an airplane driver and an arm-chair philosopher. (An arm-chair philosopher is a claim any thinking person should make. Why bother using up good air if, at least once in a while, you don't think about this stuff?) But it seems to me a very similar journey can be made even if one doesn't start from religion. Believing in a god is not a prerequisite for wondering about the cosmos, one's relationship to it, and one's position in it. The same inner journey is made in the same human heart and mind that inhabits the same cosmos as it actually is. The atheist doesn't have to shed the erroneous perceptions of a god that the mystic must contend with, but that just leaves the atheist with a slightly shorter path to tread. The atheist and the mystic are likely to end up at a very similar place.
Both will find themselves gazing out at a cosmos that stuns with its complexity and shear existence, but that completely dwarfs the human scale. Both will find it a beautiful mystery that they exist to hold such a wonder in thought. And,(though I can only speak for myself and take as honest the words of other atheists and mystics alike) both will often find a knowledge of intimacy and belonging, of being part of an unimaginable whole. (Which is a pretty good description of being loved.) Most importantly both will find an experience that is beyond words, a mystery so deep as to be impenetrable, a vision (if you will allow me to use the word) to be spoken about but beyond description.
Do they discover the limits of what is? Of course not, something they both joyfully admit. Are they connected somehow to what they perceive Yes, though the mechanisms of that connection are also a mystery. Do they fear what they have encountered? Not usually, though it seems there is often a profound mixing of the knowledge that they are, at one and the same time, infinitesimally small yet of unimpeachable value. The believer now turned mystic assumes to have been touched by the divine. The atheist is content with the idea that a bit of wisdom and a touch of understanding have swept by. Both are often deeply moved by the experience, understanding, or encounter; call it what you will. An almost universal reaction seems to be a quieting of demands, a willingness to be a bit more gentle in judgments, a deeper appreciation for both the differences between individuals and the connections we all share. It is nothing to be dismissed out of hand, but the interpretations of the experience need to be handled with care.
While I haven't the slightest hint of god belief I find mystics of any religion to be kindred spirits. Though they cling to religious rituals of various types, taking communion, making the sign of the cross, going on a pilgrimage, meditating on a set schedule, repeating selected words at selected times, attending worship services; they know the rituals to be illusions, nearly transparent reflections of a mystery, reminders of what they don't understand but hope to experience in a continuing way. The rituals are a way to quiet the mind and brush against the mystery. There is no vice in such rituals, no evil intent on the part of the practitioners. By their own words the intent is to keep the mystery center in their lives, letting it infuse their whole being with joy. It is an impulse I completely understand.
What I do not understand is the mystic's insistence that the flawed human idea of god is somehow necessary to the mystery. The cosmos has no need of any human offering, understanding, or concept. Insisting that some human idea of a god must be responsible for a cosmos we barely understand isn't humility, it is a nasty piece of hubris that hides a vital bit of truth and dims the heart just that little bit.
Until we embrace the cosmos as we find it to be we will forever remain ignorant children. What we find is beyond fascinating; space is warped, time is pliable, what we can see in the universe is less that 5% of what is, (dark matter and dark energy making up about 96% of what is) entangled particles that share something akin to information beyond the edge of the individual particle's light cone, reality is probabilities until a observation is made. Does this sound like the day your are having? Yet this is the world as humanity goes about growing up. And those are just the edges of some of the easier mysteries. Things we suspect include multiple dimensions and universes (Universes!) uncountable. The cosmos is as much a thought as it is a machine with both analogies being equally misleading.
Religions claim that the fear of god is the beginning of wisdom. Observing the universe suggests the beginning of wisdom lies with laying all human prejudices aside, including the one for gods. Even the mystic can not quite find the wisdom sought so long as the human concept of a god is allowed to block the way.
Which is the real reason I am an atheist.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
"Revolution" is a loaded word
REVOLUTION; noun
1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2. Sociology . a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. Compare social evolution.
3. a sudden, complete or marked change in something: the present revolution in church architecture.
Given the state of the union it seems reasonable to think about the revolution needed to revive the vision that was once a free democracy. For me part of the debate revolves around the effectiveness of a peaceful revolution and wondering if it doesn't take, at the least, some property violence to power the change. But the word "revolution" needs to be used with some thought. When used in relation to politics and government "revolution" immediately brings to mind guns and bullets and cities reduced to rubble. Basically revolution via civil war. While that may well be a possibility in the near future for the US, it does not seem very likely. The revolution that we need is more in line with definition No. 2, a social revolution that drags a protesting government along with it.
The first pervasive change we need is a near universal rejection of the corruption that has become our government. The OWS protests are a good first approximation of what is needed, but on a much larger scale. Those who have benefited most from the corruption, and those who have done the most to facilitate it, need to be driven from power by shear force of public opinion. (As stated in other places in this blog, the Robert's Court would be as good a place to start as any.) I think a good argument can be made that the leaders of both major political parties are knee deep in graft. This would be a good time for them to take their millions and head off into the sunset somewhere. Let them play golf and write books to explain how they are not actually thieves that belong in jail as we will have a much better chance of fixing the future without them around. Filling the streets of Washington DC until a whole slew of "leaders" goes away would be a fair portion of the revolution needed.
(By the way, Mr. Obama is surly in as deep as any of the Republican leaders. His inner circle is recruited mostly from Wall Street, the wars go on, defense spending goes up, and the economy is still on its ass even though Banks and the Stock Market are doing pretty well. It isn't clear how we could get rid of him though. Of the current 18 names in the line of succession none look to be free agents that would act in the best interests of the people of the United States. The upcoming "election" is a total farce. And that is kind of a depressing thought.)
A second pervasive change would be a robust anti-war movement. The US has become a war mongering nation. By nearly any accounting we spend more on the military and weapons than all of the other peoples on the planet, combined. We have amassed, by far, the largest collection of WMDs on the world and have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to use them. We are the only nation now using unmanned drones to kill, at a distance and inside the boarders of countries that we are not a war with, targeted individuals who we think might be a minor threat at some point future. That we are killing mostly civilians is not even a regular part of our national conversation. Our love of killing is completely entwined in the relentless propaganda of the military / corporate system that is largely responsible for the corruption of our democracy. But that does not absolve our individual guilt for going along with the brutality. A simple change in mindset from, "war is good" to "war is evil" might just be the most jarring revolution that could happen in our society.
We need to reject the notion of war that has seeped into every bit of our national conversation. Ever notice that we are "at war" with everything; poverty, drugs, socialism...there is a war against Christmas (and now a war against Thanksgiving)? The Christians think everyone is at war with god and the Muslims think they are at war with everyone in the world. Yet the reality is that the human species is successful insofar as we are cooperative. Sure, in the past, the tribe that cooperated the best subdued the rival tribe. But now we are all one big tribe of humanity inhabiting one increasingly crowded planet. We need to find ways to disagree, discuss, compromise and move along without reaching for a gun and going to war. And that means we, as individuals and as a nation, need to reach for hate a little less often as well. It has become our favorite emotion, the driving force behind our politics, the lens though which we look at the rest of the world, and forms the foundation of much of our religion.
We really need to reject religion, or at least acknowledge that the particular religion "I" happen to follow may not be the only description of reality. Give a little room for different interpretations based on a different history or geography. (For example, the Muslim idea that women should be covered from head to toe would never have come from a society that lived in the tropics.) If nothing else at least admit that the Jewish / Christian / Muslim tradition that most of us follow is based, at its very core, on war; war in heaven, war on earth, war in the soul. Our worship of war is not helping. More to the point the idea that there is a god who endorses any of the political, corporate or military leaders currently tearing up the world, is near total insanity.
We could all do with a little less consumerism and, eventually, will be forced to concede that unending, exponential growth as somehow a sustainable economic model is pure foolishness.
Point blank, the best thing you can do for your family, yourself, your friends, your community and maybe the world at large is to turn off the TV more often and never, ever, listen to talk radio again. We need to visit with neighbors, friends and strangers, working once again to find our common connections. We need to think for ourselves, put in the effort to learn what is happening rather than just passing along the gossip that keeps the talking heads in money. (We need to quit taking the gossip as gospel as well!) I'm pretty sure that talking through a microphone doesn't improve one's I.Q. or make one an expert in every subject under the sun. Microphone talkers are primarily pitchmen, out to sell us whatever their sponsors want us to buy.
We need to admit that most of the people who got rich by talking got rich by lying to us. It worked, they are rich, now we need to just walk away without embarrassment, remorse, or recrimination. In addition to giving us all a chance to clear our heads a little this will have the added benefit of reducing the avenues for consumer propaganda and deflating, at least a little, the political coffers of the powers-that-be. It might even make for a little more money in your pocket. How much was that cable bill again? How much stuff would you actually decide you needed to buy if it wasn't relentlessly pitched to you by pretty people with perfect white teeth?
As individuals we need to be basically disgusted by the corrupt; we need to be anti-war, and need to be moderate in our consumerism. Then we need to force these views onto the powers the be through the market place and in the streets. Eventually that will allow us to enforce these views in the voting booth, but not yet. With both parties completely engulfed in the current putrid system of lies and propaganda and war, with all elections tainted by special interest money and every potential candidate vetted by those already in power before they are allowed on the ballot, voting is still a waste of time. In fact, at this moment in history, voting helps keep the corrupt in power by allowing them to proclaim a "mandate." Before voting can matter again a whole bunch of people need to be driven from power, a few people really, really need to go to jail, and a large number of international corporations need to be brought to heel, (or at least prevented from buying elections).
So the revolution that will salvage the American Dream actually starts with definition No. 3; "a sudden, complete change in something. That "something" would be us.
1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2. Sociology . a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. Compare social evolution.
3. a sudden, complete or marked change in something: the present revolution in church architecture.
Given the state of the union it seems reasonable to think about the revolution needed to revive the vision that was once a free democracy. For me part of the debate revolves around the effectiveness of a peaceful revolution and wondering if it doesn't take, at the least, some property violence to power the change. But the word "revolution" needs to be used with some thought. When used in relation to politics and government "revolution" immediately brings to mind guns and bullets and cities reduced to rubble. Basically revolution via civil war. While that may well be a possibility in the near future for the US, it does not seem very likely. The revolution that we need is more in line with definition No. 2, a social revolution that drags a protesting government along with it.
The first pervasive change we need is a near universal rejection of the corruption that has become our government. The OWS protests are a good first approximation of what is needed, but on a much larger scale. Those who have benefited most from the corruption, and those who have done the most to facilitate it, need to be driven from power by shear force of public opinion. (As stated in other places in this blog, the Robert's Court would be as good a place to start as any.) I think a good argument can be made that the leaders of both major political parties are knee deep in graft. This would be a good time for them to take their millions and head off into the sunset somewhere. Let them play golf and write books to explain how they are not actually thieves that belong in jail as we will have a much better chance of fixing the future without them around. Filling the streets of Washington DC until a whole slew of "leaders" goes away would be a fair portion of the revolution needed.
(By the way, Mr. Obama is surly in as deep as any of the Republican leaders. His inner circle is recruited mostly from Wall Street, the wars go on, defense spending goes up, and the economy is still on its ass even though Banks and the Stock Market are doing pretty well. It isn't clear how we could get rid of him though. Of the current 18 names in the line of succession none look to be free agents that would act in the best interests of the people of the United States. The upcoming "election" is a total farce. And that is kind of a depressing thought.)
A second pervasive change would be a robust anti-war movement. The US has become a war mongering nation. By nearly any accounting we spend more on the military and weapons than all of the other peoples on the planet, combined. We have amassed, by far, the largest collection of WMDs on the world and have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to use them. We are the only nation now using unmanned drones to kill, at a distance and inside the boarders of countries that we are not a war with, targeted individuals who we think might be a minor threat at some point future. That we are killing mostly civilians is not even a regular part of our national conversation. Our love of killing is completely entwined in the relentless propaganda of the military / corporate system that is largely responsible for the corruption of our democracy. But that does not absolve our individual guilt for going along with the brutality. A simple change in mindset from, "war is good" to "war is evil" might just be the most jarring revolution that could happen in our society.
We need to reject the notion of war that has seeped into every bit of our national conversation. Ever notice that we are "at war" with everything; poverty, drugs, socialism...there is a war against Christmas (and now a war against Thanksgiving)? The Christians think everyone is at war with god and the Muslims think they are at war with everyone in the world. Yet the reality is that the human species is successful insofar as we are cooperative. Sure, in the past, the tribe that cooperated the best subdued the rival tribe. But now we are all one big tribe of humanity inhabiting one increasingly crowded planet. We need to find ways to disagree, discuss, compromise and move along without reaching for a gun and going to war. And that means we, as individuals and as a nation, need to reach for hate a little less often as well. It has become our favorite emotion, the driving force behind our politics, the lens though which we look at the rest of the world, and forms the foundation of much of our religion.
We really need to reject religion, or at least acknowledge that the particular religion "I" happen to follow may not be the only description of reality. Give a little room for different interpretations based on a different history or geography. (For example, the Muslim idea that women should be covered from head to toe would never have come from a society that lived in the tropics.) If nothing else at least admit that the Jewish / Christian / Muslim tradition that most of us follow is based, at its very core, on war; war in heaven, war on earth, war in the soul. Our worship of war is not helping. More to the point the idea that there is a god who endorses any of the political, corporate or military leaders currently tearing up the world, is near total insanity.
We could all do with a little less consumerism and, eventually, will be forced to concede that unending, exponential growth as somehow a sustainable economic model is pure foolishness.
Point blank, the best thing you can do for your family, yourself, your friends, your community and maybe the world at large is to turn off the TV more often and never, ever, listen to talk radio again. We need to visit with neighbors, friends and strangers, working once again to find our common connections. We need to think for ourselves, put in the effort to learn what is happening rather than just passing along the gossip that keeps the talking heads in money. (We need to quit taking the gossip as gospel as well!) I'm pretty sure that talking through a microphone doesn't improve one's I.Q. or make one an expert in every subject under the sun. Microphone talkers are primarily pitchmen, out to sell us whatever their sponsors want us to buy.
We need to admit that most of the people who got rich by talking got rich by lying to us. It worked, they are rich, now we need to just walk away without embarrassment, remorse, or recrimination. In addition to giving us all a chance to clear our heads a little this will have the added benefit of reducing the avenues for consumer propaganda and deflating, at least a little, the political coffers of the powers-that-be. It might even make for a little more money in your pocket. How much was that cable bill again? How much stuff would you actually decide you needed to buy if it wasn't relentlessly pitched to you by pretty people with perfect white teeth?
As individuals we need to be basically disgusted by the corrupt; we need to be anti-war, and need to be moderate in our consumerism. Then we need to force these views onto the powers the be through the market place and in the streets. Eventually that will allow us to enforce these views in the voting booth, but not yet. With both parties completely engulfed in the current putrid system of lies and propaganda and war, with all elections tainted by special interest money and every potential candidate vetted by those already in power before they are allowed on the ballot, voting is still a waste of time. In fact, at this moment in history, voting helps keep the corrupt in power by allowing them to proclaim a "mandate." Before voting can matter again a whole bunch of people need to be driven from power, a few people really, really need to go to jail, and a large number of international corporations need to be brought to heel, (or at least prevented from buying elections).
So the revolution that will salvage the American Dream actually starts with definition No. 3; "a sudden, complete change in something. That "something" would be us.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
SCOTUS
When the revolution comes I envision it starting at the Supreme Court; with millions of Americans locking that building down until the current Justices, all nine of them, are driven from power. It doesn't appear as if the political system in the United States can recover until the corruption that is endemic to that system is rooted out. When it comes to corruption no one holds a candle to the Robert's Court.
One does have to give them credit for shear chutz-pa. Imagine standing straight-faced before the people of the United States and declaring that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution the inalienable right of a corporation to buy any elected official it thinks it can afford.
There can be no political reform until there is campaign finance reform; and the Supreme Court has determined that campaign finance reform is unconstitutional. Corruption is now enshrined as a Constitutional right. The only candidates that are ever going to make it onto a ballot are those swimming in special interest money, pre-approved by those determined to keep the system exactly as it is now. There will be no anti-war candidate, no one pro-union or pro-environment. There will be none who will seek financial reform, or who will rein in military spending, or even demand that the military account for the money it does spend. There will be no one calling for the prosecution of Wall Street criminals, or who runs on the promise of investigating how the United States became a nation that uses torture, that sent prisoners to Muammar Gaddafi to be interrogated and murdered. "Left-wing" will be a label for people who think Regan was pretty much a moderate. (Right wingers might invoke Regan's name, but he couldn't compete in today's Republican primary or hope to raise a dime of corporate money.)
Thanks to the SCOTUS reform is now beyond the reach in the current American system. Revolution has become the only chance for revival. It may as well start with on the steps of a Supreme Court that made illegal any chance of changing the system from the inside.
One does have to give them credit for shear chutz-pa. Imagine standing straight-faced before the people of the United States and declaring that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution the inalienable right of a corporation to buy any elected official it thinks it can afford.
There can be no political reform until there is campaign finance reform; and the Supreme Court has determined that campaign finance reform is unconstitutional. Corruption is now enshrined as a Constitutional right. The only candidates that are ever going to make it onto a ballot are those swimming in special interest money, pre-approved by those determined to keep the system exactly as it is now. There will be no anti-war candidate, no one pro-union or pro-environment. There will be none who will seek financial reform, or who will rein in military spending, or even demand that the military account for the money it does spend. There will be no one calling for the prosecution of Wall Street criminals, or who runs on the promise of investigating how the United States became a nation that uses torture, that sent prisoners to Muammar Gaddafi to be interrogated and murdered. "Left-wing" will be a label for people who think Regan was pretty much a moderate. (Right wingers might invoke Regan's name, but he couldn't compete in today's Republican primary or hope to raise a dime of corporate money.)
Thanks to the SCOTUS reform is now beyond the reach in the current American system. Revolution has become the only chance for revival. It may as well start with on the steps of a Supreme Court that made illegal any chance of changing the system from the inside.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Hunkering down for the winter
Police violence against the OWS protests is increasing, and so a common story of history is repeated before our very eyes. It is still unlikely that OWS will be the movement that leads to a real change in government, though they have clearly bent public discussion. The once unbreakable stand of Republicans on "NO NEW TAXES" is giving way (oh so grudgingly) to the political reality of being the "PARTY OF THE 1%". They are the party of the 1%, they intend to be the party of the 1%, they just realize they can not survive as a viable political force if enough voters think of them that way. They need better P.R., they know it, and they are hoping (as usual) that it proves enough to give them cover as they serve their real masters.
And they might be right. Citizens of the US, bound as we are to having TV and radio do all of our thinking for us, make us the most P.R. susceptible people on the planet. All governments use propaganda of course; the difference in the US is that we actually swallow it without hesitation. It seems likely that the Republicans will raise a few taxes on the poor and middle class by doing away with deductions, insist on even more draconian cuts in social spending on things like roads and schools and public safety, declare themselves the champions of fiscal responsibility. A good many of the people in the US will buy it.
But not everyone will buy it. Maybe not enough every ones that the OWS protests will grow into something that actually will change the trajectory of this country. Not likely, but there is a remote possibility. The OWS protests will fade away during the winter. Police oppression, the constant propaganda playing up the violence as being started by the protesters, as well as a good bit of the country being locked in ugly weather; people will find a warm place to hunker down for the winter.
But come spring...
...of an election year
...with an increasingly schizophrenic government completely detached from
the realities of people trying to live with their "pro-rich" policies
...and an increasingly angry and mobilized population
...that remembers the protests of the fall
...and starts them up again
...Wall Street, Main Street and K Street
...with all the places in between
...knowing that the police will be sent out once again to "restore
order" (as in protect the status quo)?
Imagine an actual leader stepping into this cauldron. Someone unexpected. Someone basically unknown. Someone savvy enough to exploit the mass communications channels that bypass the propaganda machine. Someone who manages to survive the assassination attempts of the lunatic fringe and the black ops of the established power structure. Someone who counts the 99% as the base, and the 1% as the enemy.
Her vision will determine how the government of the US falls, and what replaces it.
(I think a "her" is a bit more likely than a "him". Arrogant, middle aged white guys need not apply. African American males? After Obama and Cain? Tough sell there as well. Latino male? Could be. But maybe the time has come to be done with shallow male machismo of all colors, and I hope that takes the religious fanatics out of play as well.)
Fantasy? Probably. But all revolutions start from such. This social system cannot survive the path it is on. Some kind of revolution is inevitable. Maybe this spring?
And they might be right. Citizens of the US, bound as we are to having TV and radio do all of our thinking for us, make us the most P.R. susceptible people on the planet. All governments use propaganda of course; the difference in the US is that we actually swallow it without hesitation. It seems likely that the Republicans will raise a few taxes on the poor and middle class by doing away with deductions, insist on even more draconian cuts in social spending on things like roads and schools and public safety, declare themselves the champions of fiscal responsibility. A good many of the people in the US will buy it.
But not everyone will buy it. Maybe not enough every ones that the OWS protests will grow into something that actually will change the trajectory of this country. Not likely, but there is a remote possibility. The OWS protests will fade away during the winter. Police oppression, the constant propaganda playing up the violence as being started by the protesters, as well as a good bit of the country being locked in ugly weather; people will find a warm place to hunker down for the winter.
But come spring...
...of an election year
...with an increasingly schizophrenic government completely detached from
the realities of people trying to live with their "pro-rich" policies
...and an increasingly angry and mobilized population
...that remembers the protests of the fall
...and starts them up again
...Wall Street, Main Street and K Street
...with all the places in between
...knowing that the police will be sent out once again to "restore
order" (as in protect the status quo)?
Imagine an actual leader stepping into this cauldron. Someone unexpected. Someone basically unknown. Someone savvy enough to exploit the mass communications channels that bypass the propaganda machine. Someone who manages to survive the assassination attempts of the lunatic fringe and the black ops of the established power structure. Someone who counts the 99% as the base, and the 1% as the enemy.
Her vision will determine how the government of the US falls, and what replaces it.
(I think a "her" is a bit more likely than a "him". Arrogant, middle aged white guys need not apply. African American males? After Obama and Cain? Tough sell there as well. Latino male? Could be. But maybe the time has come to be done with shallow male machismo of all colors, and I hope that takes the religious fanatics out of play as well.)
Fantasy? Probably. But all revolutions start from such. This social system cannot survive the path it is on. Some kind of revolution is inevitable. Maybe this spring?
Friday, November 11, 2011
Allies
So I'm heading into work today and hear a story about women and Saudi Arabia, (on NPR, which means it was actually a whole story and not just a headline). I knew that women are not allowed to drive and must ask a male "guardian" for permission to leave the house. The utter absurdity of one restriction just struck me; a group of women cannot get on an elevator if there is a man in it, they have to wait for an empty car. For some reason that one little detail put a spot light on how depraved that society actually is. Break any of these "laws" and women are likely to be beaten by the religious terrorists knows as Mutaween. (Beaten mind you, as in with a whip. Are you fucking kidding me?)
These people are allies? Imagine the Saudis declaring that a black man was not allowed on an elevator with a white man. Imagine them dragging a black man into the city square and beating him with a whip for driving a car. The USA would be screaming for sanctions in every hall in the UN - and rightly so. Hell, we would park an aircraft battle group or two off their shores, aim a big barrel directly at Riyadh, and dare them to drag another black man off to a public beating. Furious crowds would gather around the Saudi Embassy and, should someone upload a U-tube vid of such a grotesque act of barbarism, probably burn the place to the ground. And you can bet your ass not a single politician in all of Washington D.C. would utter a single syllable of support for King Abdullah. (Speaking of which, exactly why is it we are such big fan of a King? Wasn't our democracy launched in defiance of Kingdoms?)
But the Saudi brutality toward women is a religious and cultural thing, so we give it a pass. That, and they have a lot of oil. It can't be just oil though. We give a pass to Iran when it comes to women as well. The US government is mute when it comes to women's rights in Pakistan or Afghanistan. In Iraq, with the approval of the US, woman's rights were sacrificed to appease the new Islamic Theocracy. (Iraq, the country we "liberated" from Saddam Hussein? Are you fucking kidding me again?) In fact, the more I read about it, the more amazed I am that American women haven't already set fire to the White House.
Maybe its because we good Americans sort of understand. After all, Christianity doesn't have much to boast about when it comes to treating women as equals. Our own Christian fundamentalists are doing their best to walk back the civil rights of women with the help of all kinds of political types. But even they aren't crazy enough to suggest that women shouldn't be allowed to drive or should be beaten in the public square. (Not allowed to have sex? That they would go for. And they do like their beatings, though children are the usual victims of that particular abuse. I didn't say they weren't a little bit crazy.)
It doesn't really matter that Saudi Arabia is a Muslim society. When the United States was born most of its citizens believed that Christianity supported slavery. Then some changed their minds and decided that Christianity opposed slavery. Now, most US Christians see slavery as an evil thing regardless of what the Bible might say or the history of their religious tradition. South Africa was a "Christian Nation; the USA worked to end apartheid anyway. In the US people go to prison for beating their children to death even when they do it in the name of god. Honor killings are not ignored by our legal system regardless of the religion of the murderer. Very often religious people work with their secular neighbors to move society forward. And, like slavery, it is in defiance of what their holy writings might say or the history of the ideology. (Which is to say that religious people often transcend the worst part of their own traditions and are better at serving humanity than are the gods they worship.) Maybe, someday, Islam will look on its history with women with the shame it deserves. (Maybe, someday, so will the Christians.)
Protesting abuse, oppression, and slavery isn't a religious thing, it is a human thing. The USA should be protesting the abuse of women where ever it occurs, loudly and consistently.
These people are allies? Imagine the Saudis declaring that a black man was not allowed on an elevator with a white man. Imagine them dragging a black man into the city square and beating him with a whip for driving a car. The USA would be screaming for sanctions in every hall in the UN - and rightly so. Hell, we would park an aircraft battle group or two off their shores, aim a big barrel directly at Riyadh, and dare them to drag another black man off to a public beating. Furious crowds would gather around the Saudi Embassy and, should someone upload a U-tube vid of such a grotesque act of barbarism, probably burn the place to the ground. And you can bet your ass not a single politician in all of Washington D.C. would utter a single syllable of support for King Abdullah. (Speaking of which, exactly why is it we are such big fan of a King? Wasn't our democracy launched in defiance of Kingdoms?)
But the Saudi brutality toward women is a religious and cultural thing, so we give it a pass. That, and they have a lot of oil. It can't be just oil though. We give a pass to Iran when it comes to women as well. The US government is mute when it comes to women's rights in Pakistan or Afghanistan. In Iraq, with the approval of the US, woman's rights were sacrificed to appease the new Islamic Theocracy. (Iraq, the country we "liberated" from Saddam Hussein? Are you fucking kidding me again?) In fact, the more I read about it, the more amazed I am that American women haven't already set fire to the White House.
Maybe its because we good Americans sort of understand. After all, Christianity doesn't have much to boast about when it comes to treating women as equals. Our own Christian fundamentalists are doing their best to walk back the civil rights of women with the help of all kinds of political types. But even they aren't crazy enough to suggest that women shouldn't be allowed to drive or should be beaten in the public square. (Not allowed to have sex? That they would go for. And they do like their beatings, though children are the usual victims of that particular abuse. I didn't say they weren't a little bit crazy.)
It doesn't really matter that Saudi Arabia is a Muslim society. When the United States was born most of its citizens believed that Christianity supported slavery. Then some changed their minds and decided that Christianity opposed slavery. Now, most US Christians see slavery as an evil thing regardless of what the Bible might say or the history of their religious tradition. South Africa was a "Christian Nation; the USA worked to end apartheid anyway. In the US people go to prison for beating their children to death even when they do it in the name of god. Honor killings are not ignored by our legal system regardless of the religion of the murderer. Very often religious people work with their secular neighbors to move society forward. And, like slavery, it is in defiance of what their holy writings might say or the history of the ideology. (Which is to say that religious people often transcend the worst part of their own traditions and are better at serving humanity than are the gods they worship.) Maybe, someday, Islam will look on its history with women with the shame it deserves. (Maybe, someday, so will the Christians.)
Protesting abuse, oppression, and slavery isn't a religious thing, it is a human thing. The USA should be protesting the abuse of women where ever it occurs, loudly and consistently.
Monday, November 7, 2011
POTUS
I think the last few presidential elections, and certainly the string of Presidents since at least Nixon, are all the evidence anyone needs to conclude that Democracy as practiced in the US of A needs reinvented. (It would be no surprise if historians of the future mark the reign of Regan as the beginning of the end of the US experiment in representative democracy.)
The upcoming 2012 election puts an exclamation point to our failing system. Whatever hope there was when Barack Obama beat McCain was quickly abandoned. I'm not sure how he managed it, but President Obama may well turn out to be a worse president than the second President Bush. Obama, while carrying on with the worst of Bush's economic and military policies, while completely buying into the narrative of the extreme right wing of American politics, and while caving into same at every turn, still manages to be portrayed as a left wing radical. (It helps that the right wing owns most of the media outlets and controls most of the information disseminated in our culture.) In addition he is now rightly regarded by nearly everyone as an ineffective leader, a man without a single moral backbone to be found anywhere in his body. He has earned the right to be a one term President.
Unfortunately his Republican opponent is likely to be the most whacked of whacked out nut cases. The entire Republican field is made up of religious fanatics, people who are sure they hear the voice of god ringing in their ears. They are anti-science, anti-education, and universally pro war. Though all claim to be "outsiders" there isn't a one of them who wasn't bought and paid for years ago. There isn't an international corporation they distrust or a working person they like. Greed seems to be the only motivation they know and hate their favorite emotion. Which ever of them eventually ends up the standard barer, in any normal election in any normally functioning society, they wouldn't find the backing to run for dog catcher.
So in 2012 we will have a President who should not be re-elected running against an opponent who should be unelectable. This is what passes for Democracy in the US of A today. The upshot is I honestly don't believe it matters which of them wins. Regardless, the US will continue its military adventurism (right up until we are utterly, completely bankrupted both morally and economically). Regardless, corruption will still be the backbone of our tax policies, greed the only measure of our economic policies, and re-surging oppression and abandoning of care for the civil rights of others, (especially anyone who doesn't happen to be "An American") the basis of our social policies. Though the imbalance of wealth distribution will eventually lead to the disintegration of our society (as it has in countless other societies throughout history) any attempt to redistribute the wealth in any semblance of fairness will be decried as "socialism" and "class warfare." We will continue to protect the very thing that is killing us right up until the society dies.
Given what we have become, whose to say it shouldn't die?
The upcoming 2012 election puts an exclamation point to our failing system. Whatever hope there was when Barack Obama beat McCain was quickly abandoned. I'm not sure how he managed it, but President Obama may well turn out to be a worse president than the second President Bush. Obama, while carrying on with the worst of Bush's economic and military policies, while completely buying into the narrative of the extreme right wing of American politics, and while caving into same at every turn, still manages to be portrayed as a left wing radical. (It helps that the right wing owns most of the media outlets and controls most of the information disseminated in our culture.) In addition he is now rightly regarded by nearly everyone as an ineffective leader, a man without a single moral backbone to be found anywhere in his body. He has earned the right to be a one term President.
Unfortunately his Republican opponent is likely to be the most whacked of whacked out nut cases. The entire Republican field is made up of religious fanatics, people who are sure they hear the voice of god ringing in their ears. They are anti-science, anti-education, and universally pro war. Though all claim to be "outsiders" there isn't a one of them who wasn't bought and paid for years ago. There isn't an international corporation they distrust or a working person they like. Greed seems to be the only motivation they know and hate their favorite emotion. Which ever of them eventually ends up the standard barer, in any normal election in any normally functioning society, they wouldn't find the backing to run for dog catcher.
So in 2012 we will have a President who should not be re-elected running against an opponent who should be unelectable. This is what passes for Democracy in the US of A today. The upshot is I honestly don't believe it matters which of them wins. Regardless, the US will continue its military adventurism (right up until we are utterly, completely bankrupted both morally and economically). Regardless, corruption will still be the backbone of our tax policies, greed the only measure of our economic policies, and re-surging oppression and abandoning of care for the civil rights of others, (especially anyone who doesn't happen to be "An American") the basis of our social policies. Though the imbalance of wealth distribution will eventually lead to the disintegration of our society (as it has in countless other societies throughout history) any attempt to redistribute the wealth in any semblance of fairness will be decried as "socialism" and "class warfare." We will continue to protect the very thing that is killing us right up until the society dies.
Given what we have become, whose to say it shouldn't die?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)