In my neck of the woods, and remember just how far off the reservation I can go, very little credence is given to the idea that American society can heal itself from the inside. The political / economic system is simply too corrupt to allow that to happen. The bad guys can't be voted from power because only bad guys are allowed on the ballot. Public information is distorted beyond any chance of finding the truth by many factors, a government hostile to a free press, a corporate power structure which controls most public media, and all media - including "news" - becoming just another commodity marketed for profit. The Internet is the Wild-Wild-West where more actuate reporting can be found and ideas freely rampage around, but avoiding the dross is near impossible. The judicial system is a wreck. And religion, which can sometimes be a focus of progressive social change, (i.e. the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement, Catholicism's liberation theology, etc.) is now as compromised as the political system - lusting mostly for power and money.
None of this is absolute. Political figures who truly seek to serve the public interest sneak through. Not all corporate decisions are as abusive of workers / suppliers / customers / environment as they can possibly be. I suspect (and/or hope) there is a rather large number of pro-compassion / anti-abuse and anti-violence believers growing in many religions - even in some corners of Islam and the American Christian Right. (Okay, maybe not the American Christian Right. Those folks are, almost by definition, homophobic, racists, sexist, anti-education and tribal to the death. But there is an American Christian Left. Really. You could look it up.)
The institutions are corrupt, but the people? Not so much. Weird, I know, but human beings are messy, jumbled up bits of consciousness adrift in a massive cosmos. All together we act more along the lines of quantum mechanics than we do classical physics. Any individual has a range of probability when it comes to any particular choice. Those choices are not consistent and there is no way to predict exactly where any one of us will land on any particular issue.
(Human beings are literally quantum sized bits in the larger universe. Quantum effects are noted at sizes of 10(-14.7) meters. Human beings are sized around 10(-.2) meters. The Hubble deep field looks out to something like 10(+26.1) meters without reaching the boundary of the cosmos. So the scale difference between human beings and quantum effects is less than half the scale difference between human beings and the cosmos itself. I'm sure this doesn't mean anything, but I find the scale difference fascinating. We are to the cosmos what 1/2 of an atom is to us.)
So what does a quantum, social revolution look like? We are taught that, in the quantum world, things exist only as a probability until some interaction, some application of force, requires a resolution. People are a bit like that, not making a choice until some application of force from the outside, makes it unavoidable. So I can envision the pressure building in our society but so far it hasn't reached the trigger point for most people. When it does, what probability will become the new reality?
I think there is a good chance it can be peaceful. The anti-war movement of the 60s, civil rights, women's rights, even the early labor movement, started out as peaceful revolutions that changed society for the better. Sure there was some violence, mostly a result of the power structure seeking to defend itself against a loss of influence, but none of these degenerated into open, society wide, civil war. Replacing the current government / corporate structure will not be entirely without violence since they will not go away without a fight. But the violence need not be reciprocated.
How? By a massive movement that is more than shear numbers, a movement of probabilities. Not an "Occupy Wall Street" or even an "Occupy America" (though it might look like that on the evening news) but a fundamental shift in the bell curve as individual possibilities coalesce around a different peak. Instead of violence, control, and greed being at the top of the curve we see tolerance and liberty and compassion. Such a thing seems unlikely, human beings being human beings after all. But in the quantum world unlikely things happen. A whole lot of people are poor, and getting poorer. A whole lot of people long for the ability to actually care for themselves and the people they love without being burned by corporate greed and brutality. (A thousand people died making clothes - I still can't quite get my head around that. One thousand people deliberately put at risk and ultimately murdered for profit. One third the number lost on 9/11, one third. And this at the hand of corporate masters not Islamic terrorists.)
A whole lot of people will soon be suffering directly from climate change. A lot more people are going to go hungry. Many are going to hold children as they take their last breath due to disease. Disease that the well-to-do cure with a single pill or avoid with clean water. Not just in the "third world" but in our world, this world, the US of A world. Amongst our failing infrastructure are water and sewage treatment systems. Health care is out of reach for more and more, and one quarter of our children are born into poverty. This is an American reality.
More than enough pressure for a quantum change in human choices and possibilities.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
How far have we fallen?
There is the usual Republican blather going on about impeaching the Democrat in the White House. It is pathetic; really, really pathetic. These are the same people who cheered on the Bush / Cheney horror show of ineptness, propaganda, war, torture and economic collapse. These are some of the same people who, unable to beat Bill Clinton in two elections, impeached him and succeeded only in making him one of the most popular Presidents ever. At least, in the Clinton case, they had an actual - as in real - scandal to start with. With Benghazi they are taking a true national tragedy and trying to fabricate a scandal to exploit to their advantage. (Just typing that sentence reminds me of how loathsome the T-party / Republicans have become.)
And yet ...
... there are days, more and more of them actually, when I wonder if Obama shouldn't be impeached. Not for Benghazi, and not by the mad hatters of the T-party. But for truly criminal acts, and by people who actually support democracy and justice in the world.
For if Bush and Cheney are war criminals, and there is little doubt that is true, then Obama is one as well. Not only did he continue the debacles that were Iraq and is still Afghanistan, but he expanded the Bush drone wars beyond the point of no return. Another layer of murder and aggression has been added to the world, that of machine killers roaming the skies undetectable, virtually unstoppable, and totally outside the purview of any democratic oversight. By all accounts Barack Obama picks people, people who live half a world away whose arsenal is basically battered pick-up trucks and home made bombs, declares them a threat to National Security, and has them executed. I would think murder is an impeachable offence.
It is hard for us to grasp just how horrible this drone war is, but try to imagine this. Obama discovers the Boston bombers and is on to their plan. They haven't done anything yet and no one in the neighborhood knows what they are about. But in the middle of the night a massive explosion suddenly destroys the house they are in. Houses nearby are also badly damaged or destroyed. The two bombers are obliterated, a few of their friends (even those not in on the plot) are also vaporised. A couple of children sleeping next door are killed by the concussion. A few more houses away several more die from shrapnel wounds. Dozens are injured, some losing limbs, others blinded for life. But "National Security" has been served. Can one imagine for an instant that Obama would not be impeached the very next day? Certainly jailed. Perhaps executed?
In spite of all of the talk to the contrary, the Obama White House and Wall Street criminals are two peas in a pod. Some of the very people who crashed the economy and belong in jail are, instead, ruling the roost at 1900 Pennsylvania Ave. The Obama Justice Department (a misnomer if ever there was one) has dismissed any notion of upholding the law when it comes to the financial big-wigs of New York. One would think that appointing criminals to high office and helping them to perpetrate one of the most massive acts of fraud in human history, is an impeachable offence.
Not many actually think of the President being a direct beneficiary of criminal acts. But imagine that some of this loot could be traced and was found deposited directly into one of Obama's bank accounts? Is there any doubt he would be hounded from office within days, if not hours? Yet how much money is Obama going to make giving speeches to these very same people after he leaves office? How well is he going to be paid for "access"? That money came from the IRAs and out of the mortgage payments looted by the very same bankers what will be writing the checks, which will go directly into Obama's bank accounts.
It is no mystery why, by all accounts, the Obama White house is so secretive it makes the Nixon regime look like the choir boys of openness. The activities of this government couldn't stand the scrutiny of a candle, let alone the blazing light of day.
The Obama White House is a criminal organization. Sadly the T-party / Republicans who want to impeach him are even worse criminals, and bat-shit crazy to boot. The idea of agreeing with them on anything, even the idea of impeaching a President who probably should be impeached, just makes my skin crawl. Removing Obama from office becomes a bad idea because it gives a political victory to people who are worse. So leaving a war and Wall Street criminal in office is the best option we have.
See how far we have fallen.
Is is hard to envision a way out of this hole. A corrupt government attracts corrupt people, who then debase the political system even more. Even should the occasional honest person slip through the cracks and be elected to national office, the corrupt people surrounding them limit their influence to the occasional sound bite and way off the reservation blog post. When city hall is run by criminals justice has no chance. When the insane asylum is run by the inmates there is no hope that anyone can be cured. When a nation is run by the criminally insane?
When many nations are run by the criminally insane?
But, perhaps, therein lies our hope. There is a growing, stark contrast between the nations who have lost their collective minds and those that have not. In a world tied together by communications and travel the crazy are finding it harder and harder to hide while the non-crazy can start to ask questions. World wide there just might be the first shoots of individuals and small groups starting to ask the questions all tyrants fear. As technology reaches further and further down the economic pyramid even the poorest can join in the questioning. Pretty soon technology will talk and listen. Even those so poor that a basic education in literacy has passed them by will be be able to access information from around the world, and reach out to people across the globe.
When that happens "nations" don't mean much. Which also means political agendas don't mean as much either. It is becoming easier and easier to exchange ideas, much less easy to impose them. I can, and have, shared the thoughts of people who want nothing more than to live unmolested, to care for those they love, and be at peace with those they don't know. It doesn't matter where they live they are my allies, I can consider them friends, and we have much more in common than I will ever have with a T-party mad-person or a Barack Obama. At some point, when a drone missile falls into a neighborhood, I will be able to reach out and touch the family living next door to the impact sight, see the devastation wrought, watch the funeral of their kids who were out playing in the front yard. They will be able to ask me directly,"Why?" And I will have to come up with an answer that will define my humanity.
All of us will.
And then we can start climbing out of this hole.
And yet ...
... there are days, more and more of them actually, when I wonder if Obama shouldn't be impeached. Not for Benghazi, and not by the mad hatters of the T-party. But for truly criminal acts, and by people who actually support democracy and justice in the world.
For if Bush and Cheney are war criminals, and there is little doubt that is true, then Obama is one as well. Not only did he continue the debacles that were Iraq and is still Afghanistan, but he expanded the Bush drone wars beyond the point of no return. Another layer of murder and aggression has been added to the world, that of machine killers roaming the skies undetectable, virtually unstoppable, and totally outside the purview of any democratic oversight. By all accounts Barack Obama picks people, people who live half a world away whose arsenal is basically battered pick-up trucks and home made bombs, declares them a threat to National Security, and has them executed. I would think murder is an impeachable offence.
It is hard for us to grasp just how horrible this drone war is, but try to imagine this. Obama discovers the Boston bombers and is on to their plan. They haven't done anything yet and no one in the neighborhood knows what they are about. But in the middle of the night a massive explosion suddenly destroys the house they are in. Houses nearby are also badly damaged or destroyed. The two bombers are obliterated, a few of their friends (even those not in on the plot) are also vaporised. A couple of children sleeping next door are killed by the concussion. A few more houses away several more die from shrapnel wounds. Dozens are injured, some losing limbs, others blinded for life. But "National Security" has been served. Can one imagine for an instant that Obama would not be impeached the very next day? Certainly jailed. Perhaps executed?
In spite of all of the talk to the contrary, the Obama White House and Wall Street criminals are two peas in a pod. Some of the very people who crashed the economy and belong in jail are, instead, ruling the roost at 1900 Pennsylvania Ave. The Obama Justice Department (a misnomer if ever there was one) has dismissed any notion of upholding the law when it comes to the financial big-wigs of New York. One would think that appointing criminals to high office and helping them to perpetrate one of the most massive acts of fraud in human history, is an impeachable offence.
Not many actually think of the President being a direct beneficiary of criminal acts. But imagine that some of this loot could be traced and was found deposited directly into one of Obama's bank accounts? Is there any doubt he would be hounded from office within days, if not hours? Yet how much money is Obama going to make giving speeches to these very same people after he leaves office? How well is he going to be paid for "access"? That money came from the IRAs and out of the mortgage payments looted by the very same bankers what will be writing the checks, which will go directly into Obama's bank accounts.
It is no mystery why, by all accounts, the Obama White house is so secretive it makes the Nixon regime look like the choir boys of openness. The activities of this government couldn't stand the scrutiny of a candle, let alone the blazing light of day.
The Obama White House is a criminal organization. Sadly the T-party / Republicans who want to impeach him are even worse criminals, and bat-shit crazy to boot. The idea of agreeing with them on anything, even the idea of impeaching a President who probably should be impeached, just makes my skin crawl. Removing Obama from office becomes a bad idea because it gives a political victory to people who are worse. So leaving a war and Wall Street criminal in office is the best option we have.
See how far we have fallen.
Is is hard to envision a way out of this hole. A corrupt government attracts corrupt people, who then debase the political system even more. Even should the occasional honest person slip through the cracks and be elected to national office, the corrupt people surrounding them limit their influence to the occasional sound bite and way off the reservation blog post. When city hall is run by criminals justice has no chance. When the insane asylum is run by the inmates there is no hope that anyone can be cured. When a nation is run by the criminally insane?
When many nations are run by the criminally insane?
But, perhaps, therein lies our hope. There is a growing, stark contrast between the nations who have lost their collective minds and those that have not. In a world tied together by communications and travel the crazy are finding it harder and harder to hide while the non-crazy can start to ask questions. World wide there just might be the first shoots of individuals and small groups starting to ask the questions all tyrants fear. As technology reaches further and further down the economic pyramid even the poorest can join in the questioning. Pretty soon technology will talk and listen. Even those so poor that a basic education in literacy has passed them by will be be able to access information from around the world, and reach out to people across the globe.
When that happens "nations" don't mean much. Which also means political agendas don't mean as much either. It is becoming easier and easier to exchange ideas, much less easy to impose them. I can, and have, shared the thoughts of people who want nothing more than to live unmolested, to care for those they love, and be at peace with those they don't know. It doesn't matter where they live they are my allies, I can consider them friends, and we have much more in common than I will ever have with a T-party mad-person or a Barack Obama. At some point, when a drone missile falls into a neighborhood, I will be able to reach out and touch the family living next door to the impact sight, see the devastation wrought, watch the funeral of their kids who were out playing in the front yard. They will be able to ask me directly,"Why?" And I will have to come up with an answer that will define my humanity.
All of us will.
And then we can start climbing out of this hole.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
It has been reported that more than 40% of registered Republicans think that, in the next few years, an armed insurrection will be required in order for Americans to protect their freedom. Except for the "armed" part, I agree, but my guess is me and the 40% are going to be on opposite sides since I'm pretty sure we are not talking about the same kind of "freedom". The country I hope we are evolving into - hell, the planet I hope we are evolving into - is as much freedom "from" things as it is "of" things.
For example, I hope for a world where black people are free from being, "niggers"; gay people from being "faggots", and Latinos from being "spics". Whatever the derogating names any race or tribe has for any other race or tribe need to all fade away into the dark ages of history. We will (probably) always break up into tribes, but that doesn't mean my tribe has to think of yours as being inferior or somehow less than human. "Niggers" and "faggots" are both descriptions I have overheard in the last 12 hours, and both from people who fall into the 40%. What ever it is they are going to protect with their armed insurrection, universal civil liberty certainly isn't included.
That same 40% appear to be mostly Christian with a kind of even split between Catholics and American Protestants. Their idea of "freedom of religion" is the freedom to impose one particular religious ideology on everyone else; an idea so utterly twisted up I'm not sure how they actually say it without cackling like mad people. How they work out between them which particular religious ideology gets the nod would be an ugly thing to watch, a second armed insurrection to figure out who really won the first one would be my guess. The best thing is to hope they never get the first one.
Given that the 40% are largely made of T-baggers, and T-baggers are largely (even the ones so stupid as to not realize it) serve at the pleasure of the Corporate elite, will they be fighting to protect a 40 hour work week, over-time pay, sick leave, workplace safety, and vacation time? I suspect they will be fighting to end those things in the name of "free enterprise" and "capitalism". My hope is that a peaceful insurrection protects and expands all of these at the expense of corporate profiteering. As the drug and insurance corporations are making huge profits off the of the current health care system, I wouldn't guess the armed insurgents would be fighting for universal health care either.
These are also the folks who make up the anti-science, anti-education contingent of our floundering society. What is the chance they will be fighting for a quality education for every child, public financing for education through 4 years of collage, and to keep creationism out of the science class? If history shows us anything it is Stupid always teaches more stupid.
But it may be that something else is going on. A free society doesn't need, and in fact can't survive, the kind of robber baron capitalism currently dismantling the American economy. Nor can a free society exist with a government working against the vested interests of the majority. The armed insurrection the 40% of Republicans see coming may actually lead mostly to the dismantling of those crumbing foundations. The 40% may succeed in bringing down their masters to the benefit of all, then self destruct in a orgy of infighting. Catholics and Protestants, supply-side worshipers and working poor with guns and attitude; just being old (or late middle aged) white guys is not going to be enough to keep them from each other's throats.
But the chances of this actually happening are slim. Self described Republicans make up roughly 27% of Americans, 27 out of 100. Only 40% of that group is bat-shit crazy enough to dream of an armed revolution. So that 27 would round up to 11 whole people. Barely 11% think an armed insurrection might be necessary. How many of them would actually pick up a gun an aim it at a fellow American? I know they are fucked up, but are many of them that fucked up? The first people they will be shooting at are cops and military types ... and in that gun fight, (particularly with the military) they are sure to loose. So when the armed insurrection starts about 11 out of 100 are going to get mowed down pretty quickly, and for the most part those will be the bat-shit crazy fringe of the far right T-party nut cases. And they will have started it.
Sad, I know. Tragic even, the deluded lead to their demise by the likes of the Brothers Koch, Rush, Ted, Sarah, Glen, Michele, and the Fox News propaganda machine. How much do you want to bet on two things; 1) none of the aforementioned will actually be in the line of fire, and 2) Fox News finds that their access to the public airwaves has been revoked? After the gun smoke clears Rush and Co. are going to have a far smaller audience, Ted will be short some votes (assuming he isn't in jail for treason) and Glen will have surly lost what little remains of his mind and find himself in a institution getting the help he so desperately needs.
On the other hand 89% of Americans will have watched a corporate backed, right wing Christian insurgency open fire on cops and military boys and girls in order to restrict civil rights and force their brand of religion on a free nation. The backlash will be wonderful. Not only will civil rights and freedom FROM religion be at the top of the national consciousness but so will rational gun control (since all of the insurgents will look bat-shit crazy in the aftermath). And should corporate money be traced to backing the insurgency with the avowed attempt of bringing down a democracy? So much for crony capitalism...most of the cronies will end up behind bars. And really, who is it that thinks the military has not already hacked a copy of the NRA membership list? Once the shooting starts anyone on that list is likely to find themselves being treated as an "enemy combatant". (Another reality waiting for the bat-shit crazy? There are a lot of progressive people who actually do love freedom and democracy, who desire rational gun control, who own guns, and who wouldn't hesitate to shoot corporate insurgents bent on taking their freedoms from them. Surprise!)
An armed rebellion by the bat-shit crazy would be a truly horrible thing. Fortunately the odds of it happening appear to be vanishingly small. It isn't that I don't think they are stupid enough to try it. But stupid enough to try it needs to be coupled with brave enough to die for it. And I doubt they are brave enough. Bullies and blow hards mostly, good at shooting targets and unarmed animals. Shooting at cops and military personnel with a pretty good chance of getting killed in return, and pretty quickly at that? I don't think they have it in them.
Which, I suspect, is something their corporate masters think as well.
For example, I hope for a world where black people are free from being, "niggers"; gay people from being "faggots", and Latinos from being "spics". Whatever the derogating names any race or tribe has for any other race or tribe need to all fade away into the dark ages of history. We will (probably) always break up into tribes, but that doesn't mean my tribe has to think of yours as being inferior or somehow less than human. "Niggers" and "faggots" are both descriptions I have overheard in the last 12 hours, and both from people who fall into the 40%. What ever it is they are going to protect with their armed insurrection, universal civil liberty certainly isn't included.
That same 40% appear to be mostly Christian with a kind of even split between Catholics and American Protestants. Their idea of "freedom of religion" is the freedom to impose one particular religious ideology on everyone else; an idea so utterly twisted up I'm not sure how they actually say it without cackling like mad people. How they work out between them which particular religious ideology gets the nod would be an ugly thing to watch, a second armed insurrection to figure out who really won the first one would be my guess. The best thing is to hope they never get the first one.
Given that the 40% are largely made of T-baggers, and T-baggers are largely (even the ones so stupid as to not realize it) serve at the pleasure of the Corporate elite, will they be fighting to protect a 40 hour work week, over-time pay, sick leave, workplace safety, and vacation time? I suspect they will be fighting to end those things in the name of "free enterprise" and "capitalism". My hope is that a peaceful insurrection protects and expands all of these at the expense of corporate profiteering. As the drug and insurance corporations are making huge profits off the of the current health care system, I wouldn't guess the armed insurgents would be fighting for universal health care either.
These are also the folks who make up the anti-science, anti-education contingent of our floundering society. What is the chance they will be fighting for a quality education for every child, public financing for education through 4 years of collage, and to keep creationism out of the science class? If history shows us anything it is Stupid always teaches more stupid.
But it may be that something else is going on. A free society doesn't need, and in fact can't survive, the kind of robber baron capitalism currently dismantling the American economy. Nor can a free society exist with a government working against the vested interests of the majority. The armed insurrection the 40% of Republicans see coming may actually lead mostly to the dismantling of those crumbing foundations. The 40% may succeed in bringing down their masters to the benefit of all, then self destruct in a orgy of infighting. Catholics and Protestants, supply-side worshipers and working poor with guns and attitude; just being old (or late middle aged) white guys is not going to be enough to keep them from each other's throats.
But the chances of this actually happening are slim. Self described Republicans make up roughly 27% of Americans, 27 out of 100. Only 40% of that group is bat-shit crazy enough to dream of an armed revolution. So that 27 would round up to 11 whole people. Barely 11% think an armed insurrection might be necessary. How many of them would actually pick up a gun an aim it at a fellow American? I know they are fucked up, but are many of them that fucked up? The first people they will be shooting at are cops and military types ... and in that gun fight, (particularly with the military) they are sure to loose. So when the armed insurrection starts about 11 out of 100 are going to get mowed down pretty quickly, and for the most part those will be the bat-shit crazy fringe of the far right T-party nut cases. And they will have started it.
Sad, I know. Tragic even, the deluded lead to their demise by the likes of the Brothers Koch, Rush, Ted, Sarah, Glen, Michele, and the Fox News propaganda machine. How much do you want to bet on two things; 1) none of the aforementioned will actually be in the line of fire, and 2) Fox News finds that their access to the public airwaves has been revoked? After the gun smoke clears Rush and Co. are going to have a far smaller audience, Ted will be short some votes (assuming he isn't in jail for treason) and Glen will have surly lost what little remains of his mind and find himself in a institution getting the help he so desperately needs.
On the other hand 89% of Americans will have watched a corporate backed, right wing Christian insurgency open fire on cops and military boys and girls in order to restrict civil rights and force their brand of religion on a free nation. The backlash will be wonderful. Not only will civil rights and freedom FROM religion be at the top of the national consciousness but so will rational gun control (since all of the insurgents will look bat-shit crazy in the aftermath). And should corporate money be traced to backing the insurgency with the avowed attempt of bringing down a democracy? So much for crony capitalism...most of the cronies will end up behind bars. And really, who is it that thinks the military has not already hacked a copy of the NRA membership list? Once the shooting starts anyone on that list is likely to find themselves being treated as an "enemy combatant". (Another reality waiting for the bat-shit crazy? There are a lot of progressive people who actually do love freedom and democracy, who desire rational gun control, who own guns, and who wouldn't hesitate to shoot corporate insurgents bent on taking their freedoms from them. Surprise!)
An armed rebellion by the bat-shit crazy would be a truly horrible thing. Fortunately the odds of it happening appear to be vanishingly small. It isn't that I don't think they are stupid enough to try it. But stupid enough to try it needs to be coupled with brave enough to die for it. And I doubt they are brave enough. Bullies and blow hards mostly, good at shooting targets and unarmed animals. Shooting at cops and military personnel with a pretty good chance of getting killed in return, and pretty quickly at that? I don't think they have it in them.
Which, I suspect, is something their corporate masters think as well.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
The greatest generation
Sometimes it is a real struggle to get one's head around the things happening in the country and around the world. It seems so increasingly bizarre, as if human kind has reached some tipping point of shared insanity. Terrorism, the deliberate targeting of non-combatants for bombings, airstrikes, drone attacks, rocket barrages, and (apparently) chemical assaults, is a daily occurrence. The psychology, history, and social forces behind such atrocities are surly complex to the point of being unfathomable, but in the end some twisted up individual pulls the trigger that leads to the immediate butchering of people who were not, themselves, butchers.
Slightly down the scale of crazy lay the policy choices of government officials the world over. Places where government is actually functioning more or less to the benefit of the population it governs are distressingly few. There are utterly failed states of mayhem and anarchy. There are empires of brutal dictators and populations suffering under religious tyranny. On a list of risk for failure there are thirteen nations counted as "sustainable", i.e. little or no risk of failing. Thirteen, of one hundred seventy seven. There are thirty eight listed as having a "moderate" chance of failing, including the US of A. Just on the surface it would seem that the nation/state is turning out to be a pretty poor choice as a way to structure human society.
In many cases, as it is in the US, the risk factor compromising the sustainability of a society seems to be rampant corruption with the resulting coalescence of wealth and power into the hands of the very few. Sometimes such imbalances are corrected though the political process. Laws written by the elite to serve the elite get re-written to serve the majority. Officials and moguls guilty of bribery and being bribed, of buying influence and selling same, are voted out of office and (very rarely) jailed. International and domestic policies enacted at the expense of the general population for the benefit of the ruling faction are abandoned by those answering to the call of being public servants. Instead are offered policies aimed at the public good.
There is a small chance that such inside-the-system reformation could still happen in the US, and one hopes such a righting is in our near future. If it doesn't happen soon though, it will not happen that way at all. At some point the power is so concentrated, the society so skewed, and the general population so disenfranchised that the political system breaks down. Some form of open revolt becomes the only option for change. Politicians are driven from office rather than voted out. Judges are hounded into hiding. The concentrated wealth of the elite is mostly confiscated and redistributed though, inevitably, some of it is simply destroyed. Once the fires have burned out new wealth is created in a more equitable manner.
Those same fires tend to burn down the political structures as well. New ones are created with the hope that the flaws in the old that weakened the system to the point of collapse are corrected. Any such reworking of the American system would surly dismiss the idea of an Electoral College. The ranking of a Senate as the primary governing body with its unequal representation might also disappear. (The two Senators from Wyoming represent 288,206 people each. The two Senators from California? Nineteen million, twenty thousand, seven hundred and fifteen ... each. Yet they all wield equal power.) A Supreme Court, appointed for life and vested with the power to sell the political system to the highest bidder, is ripe for overhaul. Gerrymandering congressional districts would hopefully fall into the trash bin of bad ideas as well.
The flaws built into the current American government structure are pretty fundamental. The Electoral College, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the gerrymandering of Congress are all at the very core of a political system gone awry. Thus is seems even less likely that renewal can come through somewhat benign political processes. Maybe, if a new party was swept into power with a mandate to overhaul these very flaws using the Amendment provisions provided in the Constitution, a party that had the support of like minded State governments, change could happen inside the boundaries of politics. But given the propaganda capabilities of the current two party / corporate / media coup d'état, such an organized and thoughtful path into the future is unlikely. Some form of open citizen's rebellion is more likely.
Unfortunately such rebellions are much more likely to succeed if undertaken by an unarmed population as opposed to an armed one. An unarmed people bring down a government by a collective force of will; general strikes and mass demonstrations supporting a common goal. The society's shared wealth of infrastructure is not destroyed. Community sized political structures often remain to help with the rebuilding. The military can stand aloof as a kind of referee and a deterrent to other nations being tempted to move in to scoop up some of the loot.
Armed populations in revolt rapidly degenerate into various embattled camps, of which the soon-to-be-ex-government and its military is the best equipped. Most of the collective wealth of the nation is destroyed during the struggle, taking generations to rebuild. War lords become the new elite and the people end up trading one form of oppression for an even bleaker future.
A tendency which does not bode well for the renewal of the United States.
Making getting one's head around the whole current situation even more difficult. How can a free and somewhat knowledgeable people vote in a T-party, listen to a Rush Limbaugh, or tolerate a Michele Bachmann? Who is raising kids that kill in the name of a god? How is it the money is spent to keep the planes flying on time but kids and old people are going without food, cancer patients are going untreated, the bridges are falling down and the water systems are falling apart? The failures of "austerity" politics are shrugged off though millions are unemployed and the vast majority still working have seen wages stagnate or shrink for more than a decade. Some eight or nine out of ten of us want to reign in the madness of the NRA and gun manufacturers. The response given by the Senate of the United States to the desires of their constituents, "Fuck off".
We could vote them out but any likely replacements will be vetted by the same special interest elite and presented to the public by the same corporate media. But should the people of the United States take to the streets to demand renewal the camps of the NRA, T-party, and religious extremists will surly gather up their guns and hijack any attempt to move into a better future. Though they might claim to be part of the rebellion the true goal would be strengthen some part of the current government. The NRA and weapons manufacturers need a society of violence and war. The T-party is opposed to social and economic justice with the idea of expanding the power of democracy to all constituencies being their worst nightmare. The religious right, (the "god loves the NRA, hates fags, and created women to have babies" crowd) want nothing to do with universal civil rights or an open and tolerant society.
It may well be that the path to a better future for most people lies outside the boarders of the United States. The Arab Spring has failed, but that does not mean Australia or New Zealand are falling into the hands of religious dictatorships. The nations of South America, with a firsthand view of what happens when capitalism goes off the rails, could forge a different path. Canada seems to have far fewer crazies than the US and, if they can avoid the fallout from a major nation folding along a shared 3,987 mile border, could be part of a democratic future for the world. The sheer weight of the populations of China and India may force those governments onto a more open path. India has a few step lead on China, but no government can face down a Billion+ pissed off people who can access Facebook, Twitter, and the Web. (The people of China and India are not very heavily armed, giving social unrest in those nations a much better chance of succeeding in going forward rather than backward.)
For those inside the US things may not be as grim as it appears. People in my generation have seen the fruits of an entire working life siphoned off into the coffers of Wall Street and small faction of the obscenely rich. But we are nearly as wedded to capitalism and religion as were our parents, and can barely see over the boarders of America. The generation after mine struggles just to get a finger hold on any promise for a better future and for them capitalism is a system that seemed to work, almost, at some time in the past. Institutionalized religion still sways their world view but for them the world is a smaller place than it is for us. The generation after, that of my grand kids ... I think they are the first generation of Americans most likely to take to the streets with some hope of going forward rather than back.
All indications are that they are a generation that is not homophobic, racist or sexist. There will be no majority of race or religion to bully the rest. Tolerance will be as natural to them as breathing. For the most part they will not grow up gun owners or hunters. An urban history rather than rural background will frame their lives and the only economy they will know is that of failed capitalism. They will be a social generation having been city dwellers and having had access to the Web from the day they were born. For them boarders will not be nearly as broad nor "other peoples" very far away. Anyone will be able to communicate with everyone speaking any language, and religion? It is hard to imagine many of them insisting that theirs is the religion of the one true god.
They may well be the true "greatest generation". When they take to the streets the future will look bright indeed. And they will start coming of age in less than 20 years.
I can get my head around that.
Slightly down the scale of crazy lay the policy choices of government officials the world over. Places where government is actually functioning more or less to the benefit of the population it governs are distressingly few. There are utterly failed states of mayhem and anarchy. There are empires of brutal dictators and populations suffering under religious tyranny. On a list of risk for failure there are thirteen nations counted as "sustainable", i.e. little or no risk of failing. Thirteen, of one hundred seventy seven. There are thirty eight listed as having a "moderate" chance of failing, including the US of A. Just on the surface it would seem that the nation/state is turning out to be a pretty poor choice as a way to structure human society.
In many cases, as it is in the US, the risk factor compromising the sustainability of a society seems to be rampant corruption with the resulting coalescence of wealth and power into the hands of the very few. Sometimes such imbalances are corrected though the political process. Laws written by the elite to serve the elite get re-written to serve the majority. Officials and moguls guilty of bribery and being bribed, of buying influence and selling same, are voted out of office and (very rarely) jailed. International and domestic policies enacted at the expense of the general population for the benefit of the ruling faction are abandoned by those answering to the call of being public servants. Instead are offered policies aimed at the public good.
There is a small chance that such inside-the-system reformation could still happen in the US, and one hopes such a righting is in our near future. If it doesn't happen soon though, it will not happen that way at all. At some point the power is so concentrated, the society so skewed, and the general population so disenfranchised that the political system breaks down. Some form of open revolt becomes the only option for change. Politicians are driven from office rather than voted out. Judges are hounded into hiding. The concentrated wealth of the elite is mostly confiscated and redistributed though, inevitably, some of it is simply destroyed. Once the fires have burned out new wealth is created in a more equitable manner.
Those same fires tend to burn down the political structures as well. New ones are created with the hope that the flaws in the old that weakened the system to the point of collapse are corrected. Any such reworking of the American system would surly dismiss the idea of an Electoral College. The ranking of a Senate as the primary governing body with its unequal representation might also disappear. (The two Senators from Wyoming represent 288,206 people each. The two Senators from California? Nineteen million, twenty thousand, seven hundred and fifteen ... each. Yet they all wield equal power.) A Supreme Court, appointed for life and vested with the power to sell the political system to the highest bidder, is ripe for overhaul. Gerrymandering congressional districts would hopefully fall into the trash bin of bad ideas as well.
The flaws built into the current American government structure are pretty fundamental. The Electoral College, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the gerrymandering of Congress are all at the very core of a political system gone awry. Thus is seems even less likely that renewal can come through somewhat benign political processes. Maybe, if a new party was swept into power with a mandate to overhaul these very flaws using the Amendment provisions provided in the Constitution, a party that had the support of like minded State governments, change could happen inside the boundaries of politics. But given the propaganda capabilities of the current two party / corporate / media coup d'état, such an organized and thoughtful path into the future is unlikely. Some form of open citizen's rebellion is more likely.
Unfortunately such rebellions are much more likely to succeed if undertaken by an unarmed population as opposed to an armed one. An unarmed people bring down a government by a collective force of will; general strikes and mass demonstrations supporting a common goal. The society's shared wealth of infrastructure is not destroyed. Community sized political structures often remain to help with the rebuilding. The military can stand aloof as a kind of referee and a deterrent to other nations being tempted to move in to scoop up some of the loot.
Armed populations in revolt rapidly degenerate into various embattled camps, of which the soon-to-be-ex-government and its military is the best equipped. Most of the collective wealth of the nation is destroyed during the struggle, taking generations to rebuild. War lords become the new elite and the people end up trading one form of oppression for an even bleaker future.
A tendency which does not bode well for the renewal of the United States.
Making getting one's head around the whole current situation even more difficult. How can a free and somewhat knowledgeable people vote in a T-party, listen to a Rush Limbaugh, or tolerate a Michele Bachmann? Who is raising kids that kill in the name of a god? How is it the money is spent to keep the planes flying on time but kids and old people are going without food, cancer patients are going untreated, the bridges are falling down and the water systems are falling apart? The failures of "austerity" politics are shrugged off though millions are unemployed and the vast majority still working have seen wages stagnate or shrink for more than a decade. Some eight or nine out of ten of us want to reign in the madness of the NRA and gun manufacturers. The response given by the Senate of the United States to the desires of their constituents, "Fuck off".
We could vote them out but any likely replacements will be vetted by the same special interest elite and presented to the public by the same corporate media. But should the people of the United States take to the streets to demand renewal the camps of the NRA, T-party, and religious extremists will surly gather up their guns and hijack any attempt to move into a better future. Though they might claim to be part of the rebellion the true goal would be strengthen some part of the current government. The NRA and weapons manufacturers need a society of violence and war. The T-party is opposed to social and economic justice with the idea of expanding the power of democracy to all constituencies being their worst nightmare. The religious right, (the "god loves the NRA, hates fags, and created women to have babies" crowd) want nothing to do with universal civil rights or an open and tolerant society.
It may well be that the path to a better future for most people lies outside the boarders of the United States. The Arab Spring has failed, but that does not mean Australia or New Zealand are falling into the hands of religious dictatorships. The nations of South America, with a firsthand view of what happens when capitalism goes off the rails, could forge a different path. Canada seems to have far fewer crazies than the US and, if they can avoid the fallout from a major nation folding along a shared 3,987 mile border, could be part of a democratic future for the world. The sheer weight of the populations of China and India may force those governments onto a more open path. India has a few step lead on China, but no government can face down a Billion+ pissed off people who can access Facebook, Twitter, and the Web. (The people of China and India are not very heavily armed, giving social unrest in those nations a much better chance of succeeding in going forward rather than backward.)
For those inside the US things may not be as grim as it appears. People in my generation have seen the fruits of an entire working life siphoned off into the coffers of Wall Street and small faction of the obscenely rich. But we are nearly as wedded to capitalism and religion as were our parents, and can barely see over the boarders of America. The generation after mine struggles just to get a finger hold on any promise for a better future and for them capitalism is a system that seemed to work, almost, at some time in the past. Institutionalized religion still sways their world view but for them the world is a smaller place than it is for us. The generation after, that of my grand kids ... I think they are the first generation of Americans most likely to take to the streets with some hope of going forward rather than back.
All indications are that they are a generation that is not homophobic, racist or sexist. There will be no majority of race or religion to bully the rest. Tolerance will be as natural to them as breathing. For the most part they will not grow up gun owners or hunters. An urban history rather than rural background will frame their lives and the only economy they will know is that of failed capitalism. They will be a social generation having been city dwellers and having had access to the Web from the day they were born. For them boarders will not be nearly as broad nor "other peoples" very far away. Anyone will be able to communicate with everyone speaking any language, and religion? It is hard to imagine many of them insisting that theirs is the religion of the one true god.
They may well be the true "greatest generation". When they take to the streets the future will look bright indeed. And they will start coming of age in less than 20 years.
I can get my head around that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)