Sunday, October 28, 2007

Simmering I

October 28, 2007

I need to take a break. I need to let my pot simmer. I have added a bunch of ingredients and they need to cook down, blend. I won’t know what I have or am until then.

I have been politically sleep walking. I want to thank our President, Mr. Bush. He did shake me hard enough to wake me up. It took some doing. The dream I was in was far better than this nightmare.

For most of my political life, presidential contests have offered little or no choice. Congressional choices have been a little better, but not much. These “contests,” filled with sound and color, are much like choosing between two different styles of jeans. I cannot tell if either candidate has a relationship to my interests which I see as the nation’s interests.

I am not sure I see any difference in the race to 2008.

When I look over the long haul, my experience, it dawns on me that the opposing candidates have more in common with each other than they have with me. They represent less of my interests than the interests of others.

I have decided that politicians are those attention getters we all grew up with in grade school classrooms. They will do what is necessary to do what they do. When they get older, this means campaign financing. Dollars replace clapping and cheering. They will be attentive to the loudest clapping, the most dollars. To balance this playing field, their source of campaign funds as with their salary must come from me, John Citizen. That is one very important answer. There is no other way. There will still be work to do. Of late, there has been a lot of talk about how teachers should know what they teach. It is equally reasonable that we ask politicians to know the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and what a democracy is.

I am outmatched. A single citizen. In a nation where corporations have the legal status of citizens. I am not rich. Never will be. In a nation where private dollars fund political contests. Because corporations can off shore their headquarters and flow of money and responsibilities to the United States, equity, fairness, and patriotism mean that I should be able to do that also? I do not think so. Not only that, but I think if corporations want to play they should stay.

I can understand how Captains of Industry, with a thousand or a hundred thousand employees, might see things differently than I do. I can understand how they might inadvertently – in their legislative initiatives, in their employee practices -- overlook the welfare of single citizens. On the other hand, when knowingly and with intent, they introduce legislation giving themselves an unfair advantage, combine with other industrialists for the same purpose, employ legions of lobbyists to catch and hold the ears of my representatives, or engage in practices that divide the citizenry, including physically attacking parts of it in many different ways, then I must be opposed.

To the above must be added some of the very rich and some of the less rich.

I problem is that the public discourse of public issues ended some time ago. Our news is managed. It is well managed and it does not represent my interests nor the interests of most I know.

I know we, the citizens, are losing. It is like a war, a war on many fronts, and yet not all of the opposition know they are fighting. Some don’t know they are being fought. Few know they are losing. Few want to say “War.” The issue needs reframing. What if a small powerful part of society decided to declare war on the rest of society? What if the rest of society did not know it? Who is the enemy? How would the battle be fought. Who is winning? Losing? Who are the combatants?

They are winning and taking no loss, and since they are winning and taking no loss, there is no hurry.

Who are we and who are they? And why should I care either way?

When the Captains of Industry (I think they would prefer Generals) increase their salaries by factors of ten and their employees’ wages are stagnant, is this simple greed or is it greed plus a desire to distance themselves from their employees? Or is it distance from their employees-as-a-class. What about gated communities? When President Bush feels free to lie to Congress and the American people to justify a war is he telling Congress and you and I where to go? When he pardons an office staff member who was in instrument in illegally revealing the covert identity of a CIA officer, endangering her and her contacts, what does this say about how he sees the expendability of his staff versus us workaday blokes? When he calls the rich his “base,” does that identify his class as he sees it? When he tries to bring oil contracts to his friends by sending an ill-equipped army to Iraq – forgetting that he already had another war going that was unfinished – what does that say about who he sees as his class and how they are treated and who he sees as peons? And what of the tax breaks for his friends? Does he care for the workaday folks? No, it is war on the cheap. Inadequate body armor, inadequate medical care, inadequate armored vehicles – All Katrina Moments. On the other hand, his friends at Halliburton had no-bid contracts, felt free to lie on their justifications for payment, have sought immunity from investigation, and they deliver gasoline with water in it and deliver water no soldier should drink. It is this matter of who obviously is cared about and who is not. A man who lives in this kind of world and who is so arrogant is very dangerous. He could consider a coup. He could consider introducing a viral infection to the general American populace. He could consider staging an attack on American. He bounds are quite narrow, reflecting his class, and I and the majority of Americans are not members.

It is interesting that most members of Congress also are not members. Yet they do not appear to be threatened. Do you suppose they are still asleep?

1 comment:

Snave said...

Simmering indeed... I have had a brief burst of blogging energy the last few days, but when I look at the output it seems like I'm saying stuff I have already said over and over.

I think things began to take a real turn for the worse in America about 30 years ago. Maybe that is only because I started to pay attention to political matters about then and because I lack some perspective about what went on prior to around 1975... but it does seem to me that when Jerry Falwell began his "Moral Majority" crap in the mid-late 70s and Ronald Reagan and the GOP embraced it and made it part of the GOP platform... it began the decline of what was once a fairly-decent political party. The Republican party has basically become the nation's first religious political party... and it's a shame, because being addled with religion clouds out reason and critical thinking skills, giving us the modern "conservative" Republican party we have today... As Sinclair Lewis said, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

I see what you are saying about the economic troubles we have, how things end up being thought of not in terms of human lives but in terms of dollars... And there are too many dollars being placed into too many peoples' pockets for things to ever change drastically in America. I think money has always been a problem, throughout human history, and that it represents what may well be an insurmountable problem here in our country today.

I wonder... if the undue influence of religion in our political system can be alleviated somewhat, could things get a bit better? It might at least slow down the Republican party a little. I firmly believe that Bush's "born again" and "armageddon" things color his world outlook to the point where he uses very little reason in making his decisions besides the good old "what's in it for me" and "it doesn't matter what we do because Jesus is coming soon" lines of thought. Neither of those qualify as "reason" in my book.

So maybe getting Bush out of office would be a great starting point, and Cheney along with him. I believe that while Bush is motivated by 1) what he thinks is the voice of "God" telling him what to do (i.e. hasten the "end times" by waging wars in the Middle East) and 2) by the vast Middle East oil deposits (he who controls the world's primary energy source controls the world), Dick Cheney is mostly motivated by his lust for his lunatic version of America to have power and control over the world... with him running the show of course. If we can get both these sick losers out of office before they start another war and/or declare martial law, we will be doing well and will have to consider ourselves fortunate.

As much as the two parties' candidates actually do resemble each other in many ways, I still see a clear choice in that the Republicans will want to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and possibly a third one in Iraq while the Democrats might be more willing to at least try and do something to get us out of those situations and keep us out for a while. The left won't want to spend untold amounts of money on wars, whereas the GOP will want to spend money on the wars as a way of bankrupting social programs here at home.

That could be a fairly naive way to look at it, probably way simplified, but I think that because too many Americans depend on government programs for their survival, we can't just go starving those programs out of existence through "tax cuts" and extravagant war spending. Maybe we could scale a few things back, but never because we should think those who use the programs should have to "earn" access to food, shelter and medical care... that is bullshit. If the left wants to repeal "tax cuts" and end the wars, and if the GOP doesn't want to do either, my choice is easy to make, even if it means a vote for a Dem I don't particularly like (i.e. Mrs. Clinton).

As far as taking any of the candidates seriously, I WON'T until I hear any of them addressing what I feel is THE most important issue of right now... and that is, how much of Bush/Cheney's unconstitutional power-grab are they willing to roll back? If their response is silence, that's a strong reply, suggesting to me that they wouldn't mind having that unchecked executive power for themselves should they get elected president. I haven't heard of this being discussed much at all in any of the presidential debates. I'm waiting, but I won't be holding my breath.

I posted a link on my blog about something Congress passed a while back that basically paves the way for our country to become run by martial law. The mentions of this in the news were few and far between. "It can't happen here"? Ya wanna bet? Heh... All the framework is now in place for it, and we have a couple of goons running our country, just licking their chops.

I guess, first things first. Get rid of the goons before they decide to keep themselves in power forever. If we can get that accomplished OR if we can live through the next 445 days and see someone else assume the White House, I guess the next step will be to focus on getting more monies back into federal coffers for non-war-related items. I think the best way to do that will be to scale back and gradually end military efforts in the Middle East, replacing such things with humanitarian efforts, foreign aid (gasp!) and diplomacy. While neither approach is optimal, I think we need to speak softly and try to understand them more than we need to speak loudly and carry big bomb-sticks. Heck, if the people in Lebanon like Hamas because it does a lot of humanitarian things for them, they might like us more if we did the same kinds of things. We wouldn't be as likely to share their religious beliefs, but it would sure give their militant religious fundamentalist nuts a lot less ammo in their propaganda war against America.

Enough of that. Time to go watch "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central. It and Stephen Colbert's "The Colbert Report" are actually a couple of the best news sources available nowadays, IMHO.