"Renaissance Thinking About the Issues of Our Day"
Will 2012 be a Year of Paradigm Shift?
A Capital Idea Part 100: Will 2012 be a Year of Paradigm Shift?
Since my political predictions in the past have turned out to be quite accurate, though usually unwritten, I thought I would write my inutitive feelings about what is in store for the world politically in the coming year and in some cases, years. Actually, I have a special reason for making predictions this year, because my gut feeling is that we are at the cusp of a tangible paradigm shift worldwide, something which will shape humanity's future.
The basic paradigm shift I am referring to is one from a more business, oligarchy-oriented approach to government, to a more people-oriented approach to government -- in other words, a populist, progressive worldwide revolution, an extension of the Occupy Wall Street movement which has already begun. Perhaps I am being too optimistic, but to me, all the signs are there -- the "Arab Spring," OWS, and extremely dissatisfied and volatile electorates, whom I have noticed worldwide have tended to vote whomever is in office, out of office. Where there were liberals, conservatives were voted into office, and where there were conservatives, liberals were voted into office. I noticed this trend over and over again throughout the year, although I don't have an encyclopedic memory for all of the elections around the world. Nonetheless, anybody could google it, and find that people voted for regime change at a much higher rate than usual. I feel that this represents an early, naive stage of populist revolt at the democratic level. Over time, people on the whole, will realize that only progressive politics will take them where they need to go. California where I live, is ahead of the curve, and has already been through this process and concluded that conservatism has nothing worthwhile to offer, only further degradation of our condition. The rest of the United States will come along in the coming years, I believe, as will the rest of the world for the most part.
In the preceding days, I read a couple of things which also indicate to me that observant people are sensing a paradigm shift. Valley Life Today is a local magazine delivered to my mailbox for free, which seems to focus on education in Moreno Valley. In an interview, Dr. Gregory Gray, the Chancellor of the Riverside Community College District (the one I teach for) says "We are not in the midst of a crisis. We are attending a wake!" He then argues for more local control of community colleges, and says that community colleges are in the process of putting "the old system to rest." What is replacing "the old system?" Estate gifts, donations with no strings attached from wealthy businessowners -- Moreno Valley College was just given a 5 acre parcel of land valued at $5.3 million -- and perhaps increased local sales taxes. Frankly, this talk by Dr. Gray about "public-private" partnerships makes me nervous, and seems far too much like the insidious influence of big business that the California Teachers Association has been decrying, with good reason. However, Gray is talking about kindly donations with no ulterior motives, or local businesses partnering with the colleges. The larger point is that we are seeing a localization of the community college economy.
Even more to the point, I picked up a local Japanese American free magazine when I took my step-daughter Isabella and her friend Wendy to a Japanese restaurant a few days ago, and found some interesting comments in an editorial by Masato Ochi, an author and television producer in Japan. In his words: "Japan last year was probably the darkest year in all 46 years of my life. Expressing it in one word, it was the darkness in downward spiral of defeat called Wazawai (catastrophe)." Next, he describes the situation in Japan including Japanese peoples' reluctance to change, and notes the ending of the Mayan calender on December 23, 2012 as well as the major political changes likely to occur. Then he goes on to say: "I believe the highlight of 2012 in Japan is, if Japan realizes the world's paradigm shift and has enough courage to change and develop." Okay, that is where I got the idea for today's post, I admit. I think that the term "paradigm shift" is a good way to put what is happening in this "Fourth Turning" period of revolution.
When Obama was elected in 2008, it was a turning point, no doubt. However, it only set the stage for later change, moreso than causing instant change. This lack of instant change is what has gotten many progressives so upset. Instead, Obama has been a firm believer in compromise, even with uncompromising foes, and has wound up capitulating far too often to the other side. However, I would argue that this was to some extent made necessary by the political realities of the time. In due time, the shackles will come off. I believe that Obama will be re-elected in 2012, bucking the trend seen in so many nations, and -- having experienced four years of horrible, callous obstructionism by Republicans -- will give them less credence in his second term, and focus more on the will of the people and helping the average citizen. I think it will be a pretty good election for progressives around the United States in general, as well, and a bad one for conservatives, with the failure of the "Tea Party" movement and the growing success of the OWS movement becoming increasingly evident. In Taiwan, my wife's homeland, Ma Ying-Jeoh is up for re-election soon. According to Eunice, he has been a very good President and it looks like he will be re-elected, also bucking the general trend. I don't know very much about him, but he seems to be an empathetic, democratic socialist type, which I believe is mainly where world politics is heading. With Taiwan's extensive and intensive experience regarding the development of a more democratic society in the face of opposition from mainland China, Taiwan is ahead of the curve in terms of democracy just as California is. In North Korea, I expect that young Kim Jong-Un will turn out to be a very different type of leader than his father or grandfather were, or his elders want him to be. I think Kim Jong-Un will want to modernize and open up to the outside world, creating a power struggle between his side and the existing power structure which will want him to be their puppet. Perhaps the people of North Korea will actually find some courage and strength to stand up for their rights, at long last.
Aside from these elections, I believe that populist revolts around the world will continue to accelerate, including the continuation and extension of OWS. I don't believe that we will see very many big, immediate changes in the coming year as a result of such populism, but it will be setting the stage for much bigger changes to come. Such revolts will occur both in the more autocratic nations, where "freedom" from oppressive governments will be the call, and in ostensible democracies, where something to the effect of "freedom from the financial oligarchs" will be the cry of the Occupiers. Leaders will change in many nations, and regimes will topple, but it will mostly be a time of regrouping (much as this winter is for OWS) and trying to answer the question "where do we go from here." Expect much larger changes in political structure in the decade or so to come after 2012. When we look back upon 2012, it will be as a pivotal year in terms of paradigm shift, preceding the realization of the radical changes which will follow, I expect.
A general point about change is that we tend not to notice it while it happens. We think that the world is fairly stable, and for most of us, the changes we would like to see either are not happening as far as we can tell, or do not happen "fast enough." In reality, however, the rate of change in human society, as well as in our environment, has accelerated drastically. This is a natural consequence of the creation of a global, technological society. Changes that happen in one part of the world, are quickly transmitted to other parts of the world, whether those changes be technological, economic, political, educational, cultural or whatever. Modern culture acts as a catalyst to enact change. A well-connected populace, cannot help but direct that change, whatever opposition it may encounter.
As a caller to a progressive talk show (hosted by Nicole Sandler, I think) said a few days ago, "What do we do when the Monopoly game is over? We toss the pieces back in the box and play a different game." We are getting to that point in terms of the world economy as well. The people of the world are getting ready to toss the pieces of the world's financial monopoly back into the box -- or the trash. The next game that the people decide to play, will be not one of competition, but one of global cooperation -- a game in which everybody is a winner, and in which the public as a whole is the main beneficiary, I expect. The coming years will see, I think, calls for either an extension of the United Nations to create a global economic framework, or the creation of a new body to do the same. This will be a populist, progressive-style framework, not the economic cooperative councils that we have heard about, which consist of rich people plotting their eventual conquering of the world and winning their game of "Monopoly." This will be the real thing, with documents such as a global economic constitution or bill of rights. At the same time, there will be economic reforms at the national, regional and local levels around the world. The year 2012, I expect, will be the year when all of this change begins -- a year of paradigm shift.
Of course, I could be wrong -- the changes I predict could occur even faster than I expect, or not at all. I never predicted that I would reach 100 "Capital Ideas" posts. By the way, I think I am probably nearing the end of this series, finally. Thus, here is another prediction for 2012: I will finish my Capital Ideas series (at least for the time being) and yet, at the same time, we will begin to see more of the ideas discussed in this series, actually be implemented, or steps being taken toward their implementation.
Comments
Here's to #100 reaching fruition in 2012 Lefty. My glass is always half full ..... Cheers!
Happy New Year!!!
Thank You, Laborisgood. Happy New Year to you as well!
My glass is always half full too. Maybe I am trying for a self-fulfilling prophecy of good developments.
I don't know about my glass, but my tummy is way past half-full. This is no way to start the new year, believe me—fatter than last year. Well, it's not that bad. I still only have about 10 pounds I'd like to drop.
Today I ate my first Mandarin orange from the little tree I planted in my yard a couple of months ago. Oh so tasty! Now I want to plant one of those apple trees Mucky has in his yard. Then I have to put soil in a large planter I'm in the process of building, so I can plant some more veggies. It's going to be a good year for my garden. I can feel it.
Everybody feels positive today, it seems. I don't know what to do. Usually I prefer to wallow in doom and gloom, but you guys —and a talk I watched today by a filmmaker (Connected)— have me considering the possibility it might not be all that bad. Imagine, somehow maybe the human race has gone organic, that is, we're an organism now, all connected up and ready to move forward toward peace and justice. Such a deal.
Happy New Year to all! And don't forget to eat your spinach.
Happy New Year, Zenzoe! Yes, I feel that the forces of the Universe are alining in our favor, but then, if you believe the McLaughlin Group show I just watched, Republicans will control everything after next year's election. Fortunately, they are largely a bunch of corporate shills (except for Eleanor Clift) who almost never get their predictions right, but they are paid a whole lot of money for doing so, while my typically much more accurate predictions are gratis.
About that Apple tree -- it didn't produce any Apples this year, but I guess it may have needed fertilizer and it may be getting old. It always had a lot of Apples, in 2 crops every year from 1994 until last year. I didn't have anybody to talk to today, and nothing special to eat, so I am not too full. I was supposed to call Eunice, but when I called, she wasn't there. I called another number at Tung Hong, Duo-Duo answered, and told me that Eunice went shopping and to call back after an hour (8 p.m. here), so here I am. It's already 2012 in Taiwan, of course, so I can say Happy New Year to my beautiful wife.
I have oranges on 2 trees in my yard that are ripe, as a matter of fact. I plan to pick a bunch of them tomorrow. There are more oranges on those trees than we have ever had before. They are in the only part of the yard where Citrus trees do well. The rest of our yard is a graveyard for Citrus trees, despite this area being a Citrus growing area. (I think they do better where the soil is deeper such as the Santa Ana River flood plain; the soil on this mountainside is too shallow and rocky.)
Maybe you got the approximately 10 pounds I have dropped since returning from Taiwan, Zenzoe. Actually, I am eating well; it's just that Eunice loves to stuff me with her food, and I was constantly being stuffed with quality Chinese food when I was in Taiwan. Yes, I complain about the "stuffing Mucky" process, but changes in that area are slow to come.
My geneticist brother says we brothers should not eat Spinach due to the other brother's hemochromatosis (genetic inability to excrete iron from his blood). However, I do eat my Spinach anyway in moderation and I do not suffer excess iron levels in my blood.
Happy New Year to all as well!
And you are capitalizing spinach because....? ;-)
Actually, I haven't gained weight this year. In fact, I was making steady progress downward @ under 140 pounds, until the holidays hit. So now I'm slightly above that, because I ate bigger portions than usual lately, out of pure self-indulgence. I think my best weight will be at 130 pounds. I find the best way to lose weight is to eat small meals every 2 hours, rather than larger meals 3 times a day with snacks in between meals.
Speaking of fat, I just saw a portion of a program on TV about super fat people. Yeah, I know, what am I doing watching a crappy show like that, one of those "See the Fat Lady," sensationalist, tabloid reality shows—disgusting, but true and oh-so satisfying to one's lower tastes? Well, I don't know, but in this case, the fat person was a 19 year-old male—I think he was over 400 pounds and about to have his stomach surgically stapled to a smaller size, in a last ditch effort to rescue him from his mother's enabling of his addiction to huge portions of fatty junk food. They said that over 200,000 Americans fit into this obese category.
If this sort of programming is designed to turn Americans into cruel, hardhearted conservatives, I must admit it's effective, for I have just discovered the limits of my compassion for "vulnerable," sick people, as well as the limits to my approval of the notion that a single-payer health system should be responsible for their care. Help! I think I know what it feels like to be a Republican now!
But really, here's this mother whose idea of a nutritional lunch for her son looks like fat on a platter—that is, two monster hamburgers, with fries she cooked all by herself in deep fat. Does it occur to anybody to lock this woman up in a room, so she can't get to her son? I mean, she's obese too, though less so, but there she is, free to fulfill his every food desire, without anybody ever saying one word of criticism to her, like, "What's the matter with you, you stupid, stupid woman!"
See what I mean? I have no compassion for these people. To my mind, it's not enough to blame our food system and advertising, though there's plenty to criticize there. At a certain point, people can only blame themselves for their poor health. And I'm not convinced that the prevalence of fat human beings all over the planet speaks well for our species. I realize my attitude is politically incorrect and probably comes across as smug superiority, but, darn—I can't help it. I'm disgusted.
Another segment of the same show featured a man who weighed 900 pounds, believe it or not. He too had the stomach surgery. I knew three people from work who had the same surgery. Though in the beginning they lost some weight after their stomachs were stapled smaller, each one eventually violated the rules for meals and exercise, and so re-gained the weight, stretching their stomachs again. (I admit, though, I don't know exactly what happened to their stomachs, but I know they didn't lose the weight in the end.) Has anybody ever heard of self-restraint? I know, I know, they're addicts. Really? I think they're gluttons.
So much for positivity to start the new year. ;-) But, yes, this is my mean side. Better to admit to it, yes?
I am sure that you have heard the progressive side of the government fight against obesity while using a single payer system, but here is my summary:
1. Because of past food shortages during evolution, people are wired to different degrees, to eat as much of the highest calorie foods as they can find. Some people are more wired that way than others, and some people respond to high calorie foods by storing the substances they ingest as fat, more than others. My eldest brother is into this area of genetics research. Ironically, his former wife had her stomach stapled, after which things really went downhill for her, although I don't think she gained all of her weight back. Nonetheless, putting on the pounds when fatty and sugary foods are readily available, isn't all the fault of the weight gainee;
2. The wrong kinds of food have been made all-too-available, probably due to demand for them. It would help a great deal if we reworked our food-production and delivery system to give us a healthier selection of foods, but I am sure you know all about that, Government intervention and educational programs could be very helpful here;
3. Speaking of education, we need to educate people in a variety of ways which will help them to be healthier physically and psychologically, and maintain a healthy weight. Such forms of education could include nutritional information, genetic information, and even sociology and psychology courses which deal with cultural and mental aspects of eating. Again, government intervention could be very helpful here. If these things were done, we wouldn't have so many morbidly obese persons, and their moms wouldn't consider perversely fattening meals to be healthy nutrition. In other words, the problem of grossly irresponsible self-feeding or other-feeding which conservatives would focus on as a reason to avoid government intervention, would actually be solved by government intervention.
Seeing ugly, fat Americans does tend to make us a bit grouchy, though, myself included.
My ideal weight probably is 130 pounds, but I haven;t weighed that little since a long time ago, like when I was a teenager. I can honestly say that I am not obese, though, and am pretty healthy and physically fit. Oh, and I am thinner than the other members of my immediate family, other than my newly thin father. I spent over an hour yesterday digging large holes in the yard and "burying" (as my slightly eccentric, dear wife puts it) 3 langushing plants that had been in large pots -- 2 fruiting passion vines, and a camellia. No, the exercise didn't bother me one bit, at least not afterward, although I was groaning in misery while moving the largest pot. We Mudskippers are used to digging in the dirt, after all, but not so much to hauling large objects around. I was expecting to plant the passion vines at some point, because as I told Eunice, they need more space in order to grow to full size and bear fruit. I am not sure whether or not they will survive though. We had a Frederick Passion Fruit before which I planted in a corner of the yard with fences going in every direction, and it loved that place. It produced quite a few fruit in fact, for something like 7 years, but then it suddenly died. I think it contracted a fatal root disease. At least that is my best guess. We have been trying to replace that plant with another fruiting passion vine, so far unsuccessfully, but I think they need a spot like that original one to grow in. My maternal grandfather was quite a camellia expert. He had many camellias in his backyard, planted in the ground, I think, that did quite well, and he helped build Descanso Gardens' Camellia population. I am sure all of that information is simply fascinating to anyone who reads this; well, maybe it is of some interest at least.
I capitalized Spinach because it is a proper noun, and also a very important vegetable, according to Popeye.
Oh, we have another passion vine that is planted fairly close to where the fruiting one was (our "hybridizer), and it remains healthy unlike the one that died, and produces lots of beautiful purple flowers, but no fruit since it is not a fruiting variety. That one is even having "babies" -- probably from its roots. I cannot figure out why that plant remains so healthy, while the fruiting one suddenly dropped dead. Perhaps this flowering variety is not susceptible to whatever disease killed the fruiting one.
I did want to add, now that I've calmed down, that I do believe an obese child is an abused child. And apparently, I'm not alone:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57331936-10391704/obese-third-gra...
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/14/news/la-heb-child-obesity-foster...
A few experts claim that some childhood obesity, and obesity in general, stems from a gene that fails to regulate appetite, that is, as the theory goes, some people have an appetite that isn't satiated by a normal meal and normal amounts of food during the day. I have my doubts about this as an overwhelming factor: How many obese people do you see in Afghanistan, for example? Clearly, it's a case of an overabundance of cheap, junky food in our diets, and a choice to eat too much of it.
Oops, I didn't see your lengthy response to my fat tirade, when I posted those links.
Actually, without wishing to annoy the hell out of you, I do not believe spinach is a proper noun, Mucky. Its scientific name may be such, but not the word spinach. For example, a sentence from Wikipedia: "A distinction can be made between older varieties of spinach and more modern ones." From WH Foods: "Bright, vibrant-looking spinach leaves are not only more appealing to the eye but more nourishing as well"
I see your points about the obesity thing, and, sure, genetics, education, poverty and our insane food system all play a role in America's obesity epidemic. I agree government could play a role in solving the problem, and I wish it would, rather than subsidizing agribusiness. However, the cases I saw on the telly were not poor folks without access to information. They chose their diets, plain and simple. With some people, no amount of information will budge them off their preferred diets, and don't anybody try to educate them, because they're not listening. It's as if they feel an entitlement to eat junk food and resist the very notion of healthy eating, in the same way that smokers resist the notion of giving up smoking for the sake of their health. It's almost a matter of pride, this obstinacy. You've never seen this in action?
Of course, they visit their doctors, because of all the health issues that result from a fatty diet, but do those doctors tell them to change their diet? Not that I am aware of. Doctors would rather prescribe pills. (I suppose you could say the pharmaceutical industry plays a part in all of this too.)
I see what you mean about evolution/genetics being a factor, but I don't think that explanation covers it entirely. I knew an obese guy at work —the sweetest guy in the world— who lost his job (quite unfairly) and had to go on unemployment for awhile. He returned to visit us after several months of living without a job, looking like quite a different, trim person. I mentioned his weight loss to him— "What happened, Joe?" and he said, "I don't eat." Well, that's the saddest story in the world, if he truly wasn't eating anything; however, he didn't look starved, and my guess is he just wasn't eating as much as he used to eat. Well, I suppose that doesn't disprove the evolution/genetics theory; he may have had a propensity to overeat, and as long as the food was available, he'd have a bigger problem than others, perhaps, because of his genes—who knows?
My cat Zoë's fat problem supports the genetics explanation, for sure. I have three cats, but only Zoë is fat. The plain truth is that she has a bigger appetite than the others, and she sleeps nearly constantly, that is, when she isn't sitting under my chair, whining for attention. But she's adorable, and sweet, so I love her. Part of it is my fault, I suppose. I keep their kibble bowls well stocked and available. Do you think I should stop that? (See, I'm as bad as any indulgent mom.)
I do want you to know I wouldn't ever want to see any person denied health care, no matter how obese they were.
Here is an interesting article about Taiwan's Presidential race. It seems distressing at first, but actually, it shows increasing openness in the political dialogue, and in the press. The article also mentions that Taiwan has become "one of Asia's most dynamic democracies." Also, note that the primary opponent of the current President, Ma Ying-jeou, is a woman, Tsai Ing-wen.
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/int?guid=20120102/11704f8b-1c85-4932-9f5c-3790a87a6443
I think that overfeeding children could be a kind of abuse, too. Binge eating is also considered a psychological disorder, and it is fairly common. As usual, there is an interaction of biological and other factors in obesity. People do not become obese where fattening food is unavailable, no matter what their genetics are, but some people don't become obese no matter what they eat, due to their genetics. Also, some people crave the wrong kinds of food more than others do, due to genetics. However, people can train themselves to eat more healthily, no matter what their propensities. Nature, nurture and free will are inextricably intertwined. Some people insist upon eating a lousy diet, but that fits into the free will part of the picture.
By the way, I just saw by chance yesterday that Barack Obama loves arugula, just after I discovered a bunch of it (or what seems to be arugula) growing in my greenhouse that seemed to have popped up out of nowhere. I ate a bunch of arugula from the pot yesterday, imagining I was having dinner with Obama. Actually, it seems similar to the mizuna I bought today, but I think it's arugula. I will check more closely tomorrow. I had an auspicious beginning to this year in which I expect lots of progress to happen. The first person I spoke with was a student who had been in my class over 10 years ago, who was an excellent student. We recognized each other at Winco. Her name is Bridget O'Malley, which rhymes with Moreno Valley, so I remembered it. She thought I was a math teacher, though... oops. Bridget is finishing her master's degree in English at Cal. State San Bernardino. She mentioned that the "father of her girls" is Korean. I didn't ask about their marital status, but she asked about my wife. Anyway, I always thought highly of Bridget O'Malley and her appearance in my life seemed rather auspicious.
Yesterday evening, I went to the Mission Inn with Isabella and a friend of hers to see the Festival of Lights. However, while I was there, I saw that the Occupy Riverside encampment was no longer there, so there was a downside yesterday too. I think they will be back though.
I will take your word for it regarding spinach, but I always thought that the names of species were supposed to be capitalized, as in Blue Footed Booby, Galapagos Tortoise, or Giant Mudskipper. I guess I will have to demote spinach to lower case now.
So Zoe eats a lot and sleep almost constantly. No wonder she is fat. One of my family's cats we got when I was a teenager, Purrina, grew overweight, so my father put her on a diet, which worked. I guess he limited her food, she lost weight, and never gained it back -- perhaps because she became hyperthyroid and overactive after that. But that experience did show me that cats can successfully lose weight after being put on a diet. Purrina was the longest lived cat that we have had. She lived to be almost 19 years old, although her hyperthyroidism eventually killed her.
Speaking of "paradigm shifts," consider the case of this boy who, at 4 years of age was at 187 pounds and living with his mother, and who, two years later, after living with his father had dropped the extra weight to become a normal-sized kid. The difference? Diet!!! (Not dieting.) The mother fed him nothing but fatty and processed, sugary foods, and lots of it; the father fed him nutritious meals and got him to exercise. So much for genetics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=5WdsKZe0p0E (yeah, I know—Dr. Phil, blah blah blah...)
You may have seen a bit about how I feel about "Dr. Phil." The media took one of the probably mere 5% or so of clinical psychologists who are Republicans -- Dr. Phil is one of those "Texas Republicans," you know -- and give him his own show and make him a star. I agree with the student who, when I asked if anybody had seen his show, said, "Yeah, he's a bully." I have come to believe that most Republicans are basically bullies. Anyway, I used his show as an example of what rational-emotive therapy is like, which is basically the one form of psychotherapy that seems to rely on bullying people.
That's amazing about the little boy. So much for genetics, indeed. I think my diet is healthier than that of my brothers and I probably exercise more, too; otherwise, I would probably look like a blimp.
Yes, there is a paradigm shift or three in this story. One is the shift from being obsessed with medical science and genetics, to environmental factors. Of course, another is the shift in diet suggested by such stories, and a possible third one is the shift from insisting on children be raised by their mothers, to giving equal consideration to fathers.
One thing missing from this portrayal is the long shadow of 9/11, the event that "changed everything" for the people of the United States and hence the world in the 21st century (although I would put the Supreme Court appointment of George W. Bush as president of the United States on equal footing). Until people start taking seriously the real implications of this event (c.f. my "blog" Is it child abuse to perpetuate the official narrative about how the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001?), a voice inside of me keeps saying "You don't know the power of the Dark Side...".
Kodowdus, there are a lot of events which have been suspicious politically in recent U.S. history. I think the sudden difference between exit polls and official results in favor of Republicans in recent years is the most damaging of these to our democracy. However, I am not in a position to offer proof of what is really going on with regard to 9/11, anthrax attacks, election fraud, or whatever. The general public is left to speculate that something is going on or not going on. A good point made in your thread is that one form of cognitive dissonance reduction is to deny the reality of a cognition. I think Zenzoe was behind that one. I know that 9/11 is still casting long shadows, but with all due respect, I don't quite see how that relates to the current social momentum for a paradigm shift. The large majority of us have gotten over 9/11, if it ever really had traumatized us in the first place, and are definitely not willing to let the need for "security" overcome our desire for democracy or to take care of our other needs as a people. Personally, I think that relatively few Americans were traumatized by 9/11 itself. Most of us viewed it as a crime and a tragedy, and an excuse for the Bushies to pursue their bellicose anti-Muslim campaign. The reaction to 9/11 by the Bush administration is more likely what traumatized us.
I would add as a qualifier to my own post, that this paradigm shift has probably already begun. I was just projecting it into the current year and predicting that this would be a year when the shift will become more readily evident.
there are a lot of events which have been suspicious politically in recent U.S. history.
?
I would say the fact that that no one mentions the "untimely" death of MIke Connell even in this context lends strong support to my argument, which is not that people have been "traumatized", but that they have been completely blinded to what's going on in front of their noses.
Common sense tells you (or should tell you) what did not happen, and that has profound implications in and of itself...
Do you really see a lot of people protesting the shredding of the Constitution by officials at all levels of government?
I believe this, from Naomi Wolf's Wikipedia bio, shows that 9/11 & beyond were just the first steps for the big picture that has been long planned for us :
"In The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Wolf takes a historical look at the rise of fascism, outlining the 10 steps necessary for a fascist group (or government) to destroy the democratic character of a nation-state and subvert the social/political liberty previously exercised by its citizens:
The book details how this pattern was implemented in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and elsewhere, and analyzes its emergence and application in American political affairs since the September 11 attacks.
Obviously, I truly hope that Natural Lefty's view of the future is right and Naomi Wolf's is wrong, but I also truly believe that no fundamental paradigm shift such as the one that Natural Lefty is describing can take root until there is a widespread realization that the so-called "War on Terror", like the so-called "War on Drugs", etc., was a scam from the beginning.
Kudos kododus. ( I just had to say that.)
Also the "Cold War" which is what the people on Wall Street & on Downing Street are trying to start again, except in not a "cold" but instead a "thermo-nuclear" way. And Mr. Obama is the smiling monkey with his finger on the red button.
I very much hope that all of this is already being realized by the world-wide 99%, that action is immediately being taken, and that Natural Lefty's paradigm will be able to be happening ASAP.....
I think the majority of us know that the "war on terror" was a scam from the beginning. Why do you think so many people protested George W. Bush's wars and he was so unpopular in the end? The percentage who have realized that has only risen over time, moreover. I am not sure whether the so-called "war on drugs" was motivated by a scam from the beginning, but that is what it has turned out to be, and most of us realize that too, I think. I agree that these are prerequisites in order for the paradigm shift I described, and I think we are probably there as a nation. Of course, that is an optimistic take on things, but I think there is cause for optimism finally, after 30 years of Reaganomic, increasing fascism and a growing military/induistrial empire.
Kodowdus, I have never heard of Mike Connell. What was his story? I assume that your references to 9/11 are meant to imply that it was a production of the Bush administration, not foreign terrorists. I don't know what to think of that. I wouldn't put that motivation beyond that administration, but I have to remain undecided about what really happened, unless irrevocable proof is found one way or the other. I don't find it very productive to mull over things which, no matter how much I think about them, remain unresolved, but real evidence would be of interest. There must be people who know out there, but I they have not been talking as far as I know. If the Bush administration did produce the entire thing, one would have to explain why 19 middle eastern muslims carried the project out and died in the process. They surely weren't sacrificing their lives for the Bush administration. Since nothing like that had ever happened before, I don't think anyone really knew how these large buildings would respond.
Your larger point is well taken that we are up against a very powerful forces which have had enormous, unwarranted influence on the political process, and have badly compromised our democracy. I have been writing about that in many of my posts, so didn't feel the need to repeat that in this post.
Karolina, I have seen the characteristics of fascism before. To me, it describes the Republican Party quite well. It probably describes the Democratic Party pretty well too, but mostly to the extent that they are being dragged into the quagmire by the forces of fascism. I don't think that fascism is the inclination of most Democrats, including Obama. To the contrary, I think they would like to end such practices, but they seem weak-willed and seem to feel that they must keep up with the fearful, authoritarian element in society which would threaten them were they to act against their interests, plus there is a great deal of money to be made through fascism, and politicians feel they need their money -- wrongly I believe.
People who promote fascism are people who have no sense of empathy or compassion. They are either the bullies on the playground of life, or the narcissists who believe themselves entitled to unconditional power. I can't help feeling that Obama is the second type of fascism-promoter, and he is so expert at passive-aggressive abuse, doing unbelievable destruction to the democracy from the position of absoloute power which he created for himself, then throwing a little nurturing drama toward us to show us how much he loves us, like the consumer protection exec he assigned to the job while the Republicans weren't watching—after, by signing the NDAA last week, he had completely taking away our civil liberties.
I certainly have no love for any of the horrific Republicans in the primaries now, but I feel no safer with Obama than with them. My hopes for seeing the tide change in the direction toward saving the democracy and rebuilding a new, strong economy with Glass-Stegall reinstatement and with bringing production back, all died when Hillary lost in 08. Now no one with a spine and intelligence wants this mess.
My hopes for seeing the tide change in the direction toward saving the democracy and rebuilding a new, strong economy with Glass-Stegall reinstatement and with bringing production back, all died when Hillary lost in 08.
As Thom has pointed out many times, "fascism" in its strictest definition is a form of authoritarianism that involves the merger of state and corporate interests. As a died-in-the-wool corporatist like her husband, I don't see where Hillary represents a serious threat to the fascist elements in our society who will fight to the death against Natural Lefty's vision of the future.
I think the majority of us know that the "war on terror" was a scam from the beginning. Why do you think so many people protested George W. Bush's wars and he was so unpopular in the end?
I have never heard of Mike Connell. What was his story?
Is it child abuse to perpetuate the official narrative about how the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001?:
"www.thomhartmann.com/users/kodowdus/blog/2011/08/it-child-abuse-perpetuate-official-narrative-about-how-united-states-was"
Mysterious Death of Mike Connell—Karl Rove’s Election Thief:
"www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/12-mysterious-death-of-mike-connell%E2%80%94karl-roves-election-thief/"
Item: Graphical Refutations of the "Official" 9/11 Narrative That Even a Child (or At Least a High School Student) Could Understand:
"www.thomhartmann.com/users/kodowdus/blog/2011/08/it-child-abuse-perpetuate-official-narrative-about-how-united-states-was#comment-97722"
Occupy the Police State:
"www.truth-out.org/occupy-police-state/1323354633"
I have to remain undecided about what really happened, unless irrevocable proof is found one way or the other. I don't find it very productive to mull over things which, no matter how much I think about them, remain unresolved, but real evidence would be of interest.
If the Bush administration did produce the entire thing, one would have to explain why 19 middle eastern muslims carried the project out and died in the process.
Since nothing like that had ever happened before, I don't think anyone really knew how these large buildings would respond.
Your larger point is well taken that we are up against a very powerful forces which have had enormous, unwarranted influence on the political process, and have badly compromised our democracy. I have been writing about that in many of my posts, so didn't feel the need to repeat that in this post.
First of all, I seriously doubt that Hillary is the kind of woman who would let a husband tell her what her opinions, principles & loyalties are. That is an absurd argument. She was my senator & her work there was not about merging state & corporate interests. I do agree that Bill Clinton made some bad mistakes, though.
Secondly, if Hillary wasn't a threat to the fascist "secret police" why did secretly fascist 1%ers secretly throw huge money on Obama & help make him a demi-god candidate? Because they knew that with Obama they could ride out the anti-Republican stink that the Bush administration had left, while still moving forward with their plans for America even though a "so-called" democrat was in the White House, AND while creating an anti-Democratic stink with Obama like had been done with the Clinton administration.
I ended life-long friendships because I couldn't understand why my friends didn't want to see the truth and they couldn't believe that for the first time in my life I decided not to vote.
I absolutely believe that with Hillary in 2008 we had a much better chance. But I also believe that she might well have been assassinated if she had been elected president and I think that she was aware of that too. Where big money & power are threatened there are no morals, as we all know.
Don’t you think it would be good to return to the subject of fat? After all, crystal-gazing lacks scientific footing, whereas fat has substance and form, something easily subjected to scientific and objective analysis. Everything else leads to arguments; but the subject of fat leads to agreement, that is, nobody likes it, even fat people, unless they’re presented with a large, steaming, juicy slab of steak, of course.
If you must speculate, the question for the New Year should be, “Will the population be fatter or thinner in 2012?”
We should not underestimate the implications of fatness as a societal indicator. If you imagine society as a plump organism, it’s not difficult to go from there to the metaphorical notion we’re being fattened up for the kill. If the 1% is slim, healthy and well-nourished, imagine how an obese 99% might seem deserving of sacrificial cow status. “Let them eat shit and die” then becomes the easy mantra for the elites.
You think I’m kidding?
Moi?
Zenzoe, if you are speaking to me.....fatness is not something that have any expertise in. Neither is crystal gazing. :—)
As I am sure you are aware, Zenzoe, there is a conspiracy to fatten America being perpetrated by the food industry. That is one conspiracy I can be confident of.
As for crystal ball gazing, I am more of an educated guesser than a crystal ball gazer, which is why I don't spend a lot of time usually worrying about conspiracies. I think their are influential people who are trying to influence events though -- the way I see it is that it is our job to do what we can to make them irrelevant, to consign them to the dustbin of history. I don't see why we, the 99%, couldn't achieve this if we work together. Maybe this is my psychologist side speaking. A lot of people seem to think that psychologists are annointed with some sort of crystal ball, but I never got mine. A lot of people also seem to assume that we are all clinical psychologists, which is again far from being true. However, psychology helps me with the educated guessing and the scientific/rational approach to understanding human behavior.
Karolina, I am not from New York, but my impression of Hillary is that she is more of a corporatist than Obama, and also more warlike, both of which, along with my very strong aversion to voting for people based upon family ties -- look how "W" turned out, after all, not to mention my idiot congresswoman who is Sonny Bono's widow -- have turned me off to her as a candidate. There is a woman who I would like to see as Obama's successor in 2016, and that woman is Elizabeth Warren, but first, she needs to focus on winning her Senate race. I think you need to reassess how you feel about Obama. He creates a branch of government to protect consumers, and fills the post with a recess appointment even though Republicans claim that they are not in recess, but you still call him a fascist. He just announced that he wishes to downsize our military, but you still seem convinced that he is a military industrial complex guy. All of this was just this week alone. Not long before, he disavowed trickle down economics and said that he wishes to rebuild the middle class with a bottom up approach. As a personal example, Obama's stimulus policy is modernizing our energy industry and creating new jobs and benefiting well-educated, technologically sophisticated persons who participate in such industries as solar energy. My family has been a huge beneficiary of this policy as we are selling a tract of land to become a solar farm -- and yes, the use of solar energy is a public good, which makes me proud to be a contributor in my own way. A general comment about Presidents is that I don't think they are nearly as powerful as you imply. They are subject to many restraints and influences -- awash in the currents of politics, so to speak. We need to change the direction that the political current is flowing, and our leaders will follow along.
Kodowdus, I did read your child abuse thread. If Mike Connell was mentioned in it, I must have forgotten. I tend to forget a lot of stuff. So, he was Karl Rove's election thief? Election theft is the sort of thing that really angers me greatly. I guess somebody, like Karl Rove, didn't want him to talk. I have long felt that it is pretty obvious that American Presidents use events to justify war. Whether those events are manufactured by our government or not, is another question. I wouldn't rule that out, as I said -- I just don't really know although it would be great to know the answers. How powerful these forces of corporate and political hegemony are, is a very relevant question. I think we might be in the process of finding this out as the 99% engage in demanding their rights.
Zenzoe, if you are speaking to me.....fatness is not something that have any expertise in. Neither is crystal gazing. :—)
No Karolina, I wasn't speaking to you in particular. Anybody would do.
I suppose I don't have much expertise in fat or crystal-gazing, either. Lead balloons are my specialty. ;-)
I don't need to reassess my feelings, because I know how I feel about Obama and I can't change that. I am not a paranoid person, and I am not a racist, but from he minute that I saw him enter the race for the White House in 2008 (I never paid any attention to him before) my distrust was rampant. He seemed very superficial, though he had charisma when he was the center of attention, and he knew how to please audiences. I was also extremely wary of his effect on people, particularly people who had known me for years. They were so hypnotized by him that they would immediately accuse me of not being on his team because of his skin color. Some of those people were black friends of mine. It was eerie. Nothing that he has done in the past 3 yrs. has convinced me otherwise.
I was certain in 2008 that there was a financial crash coming soon, and I felt that Hillary was the only one who would get us through that successfully. I didn't believe Obama had the experience, knowledge or strength to steer the economy in a way that would not bring poverty & collapse to the people.
Zenzoe, your lead balloons are magnificent, especially in post #28!
Karolina, I think that Obama definitely took the wrong economic approach at first, too, but I think Hillary would have done pretty much the same thing. Obama seems to be coming around recently, perhaps as a result of the coming election plus OWS catching his attention, and the economy also seems to be coming around. Even my step-daughter just found a new accounting job. Let's hope this one lasts longer than the usual 3 months, and she enjoys working there. It's some sort of security equipment company, which definitely isn't one of my favored industries, but perhaps they reduce crimes such as shoplifting. Isabella usually works for Chinese computer companies, including the infamous FOXCONN where she worked for several years and said she and her co-employees were mistreated as well. The new job has a middle eastern muslim man and a russian woman running the place, which is something really different for Isabella. It should be interesting.
Zenzoe, I am not seeing any lead balloons. Maybe I am missing something, or don't know my lead balloons. I thought your reply in #25 was very insightful.
Natural Lefty, Obama signed the NDAA making it so that anybody—you, me, a family member, your doctor, my mailman, etc, etc, etc—can be detained for no reason, then put and tortured in a prison for the rest of their living days. Of course he's coming around. He just turned us into an authoritarian third world nation—so now he needs to make sure we're not mad and defensive. That's what abusive relationships are all about—emotional roller-coasters!
Good to hear that your stepdaughter got a new job, though.
Zenzoe, are the lead balloons "lead" as rhymes with head, or "lead" as rhymes with read? I thought the second "lead" balloon was a name for the quotation blocks like the one in which you quoted me! Ooops. Oh well. My bad.
Zenzoe, your lead balloons are magnificent, especially in post #28!
Thanks, Karolina, but that wasn't a joke which, without my intention, landed with a thud. I was serious that time. I guess I'm funniest when not intending to be so.
Zenzoe, are the lead balloons "lead" as rhymes with head, or "lead" as rhymes with read? I thought the second "lead" balloon was a name for the quotation blocks like the one in which you quoted me! Ooops. Oh well. My bad.
I don't know of the cliché, "lead balloon" that rhymes with reed balloon. Do you? I don't remember where I quoted you on this thread, but I would have to guess you're thinking of a trial balloon, as in, "to suggest something and see how people respond to it; to test public opinion." A lead balloon (prn: led balloon) is "to fail completely; to go over badly," as in, "Your joke went over like a lead balloon. If that play was supposed to be a comedy, it went over like a lead balloon. Her suggestion went over like a lead balloon," which was pretty much how my goofy meander into the realm of fat went over.
Chock it up to a sorry attempt to channel Stephen Colbert. His influence has lasted now nearly 24 hours, since his last show. (Only two hours more to wait for the next one!)
I mean, do you want a happy new year, or not?
Chock it up to a sorry attempt to channel Stephen Colbert. His influence has lasted now nearly 24 hours, since his last show. (Only two hours more to wait for the next one!)
I mean, do you want a happy new year, or not?
Zenzoe, I was laughing out loud by the time I had read all and realized that you had clearly simply insulted yourself by saying that your specialty was lead balloons and I just didn't get it. My confusion was vast but my misunderstanding was overwhelming.
I would say that you are Tina Fey here, while I am a bungling Detective Clouseau.
Kaorlina, Obama had the choice of either signing or vetoing the bill, that's all. That stuff was McCain's idea, not Obama's. Imagine what our nation would be like now if we were talking about "President McCain." I heard on NPR that Obama signed it reluctantly with a signing statement which made explicit that the bill would only be used to detain suspected terrorists caught overseas, regardless of their nationality, or something to that effect. I am very leery of those provisions in the bill too, but I am leery of the United States' entire military empire. Nonetheless, I am fairly certain that it will not be used to persecute protesting Americans such as OWS protesters, or people the government simply doesn't like, and if it is, the outcry will result in overthrowing the law. I believe this law will most likely be undone in the next few years in any case. I certainly hope so. But Obama didn't write the bill nor would he ever write such a thing I think; this was an omnibus military budget bill with many provisions -- a real morass of military spending which I am sure our government feels pressured to produce and pass.
I got Zenzoe's modesty with her "lead balloon" joke. I just didn't see what the actual joke that went over like a "lead balloon" was. Zenzoe, you are funny whenever you want to be. None of your jokes have ever been lead balloons to me.
Karolina, you are a good sport and modest, too. A lot of people in your position would be refusing to talk to me by now, I suppose.
Of course I'm still speaking to you, Natural Lefty, this is a discussion pursuing truth, not a contest of wit or ego. Right?
Anyway, on Dec. 20, I put a blog post up under the title Do Not Be Lulled into Complacence About The National Defence Authorization Act—Be Aware! with excerpts from an article "Obama Broke His Promise" the URL to which is:
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/275-42/8936-focus-obama-broke-hi...
And here are 2 articles here Al Fraken explains NDAA:
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/sen-franken-on-voting-against-the...
http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/al-franken-voted-agains...
Obama should have vetoed it. If you don't like some provisions of a bill then you should force them to rewrite it or veto it. Obama does not give me much worry about abusing this bill but that doesn't make me feel very comfortable about future presidents. Hopefully it will be dismantled soon but I wouldn't count on it. It is a tool for the future.
Bushwhacker, the award winning journalist lady who was talking about the bill on radio said basically the same thing as you did. Obama has promised not to abuse the NDAA bill, but that does prevent future Presidents from doing so -- all the more reason to see Obama re-elected and to dismantle such odious provisions before future Presidents come along, as well as electing future Presidents who believe in upholding peoples' civil liberties. I thought Obama was going to veto the bill, but he changed his mind, I think because there were actually enough votes for the bill in Congress to override the veto, in which case the veto wouldn't have worked anyway. That has to make me wonder about these people we elect to Congress, moreso than the President, but I agree that Obama should have vetoed the bill and gone from there. At least that would have forced Congress to vote on it again to override the veto, or else re-write the bill to get rid of the police state provisions.
Karolina, some people seem to take these discussions as contests of wit or ego, unfortunately, but not me and not you either. Some people just don't like to argue, either; I don't, but I feel compelled to do so sometimes. I am a truth seeker by nature and a social scientist; in fact, my entire family (birth family) is full of scientists.
Speaking of truth, who is "Al Fraken?" I heard of someone named Al Franken, but not "Al Fraken" -- just a little kidding about your typo.
And Zenzoe, I asked Mucky Mudskipper about the quote you attributed to him, and he said that Karolina wrote that, not him.
Once again, Bush Wacker & Natural Lefty ...... he PROMISED to veto the bill, then "THE WHITE HOUSE" insisted, without notifying the representatives & senators, on changing the bill in such a way that all US citizens, in the country & abroad, will now be able to be arrested for nothing, & will now be able to be kept in prison for the rest of their lives for nothing. And then he quietly signed the bill on New Years Eve day, on the one day when everybody in the world is focused on being in a celebratory mood—while he was isolated in Hawaii.
Face it—it is very creepy and he lied to us. Not the first time, no doubt not the last. He has put all of us in grave DANGER. We should all be writing and calling our Congress people all of the time to get that horrible piece-of-sheet bill revoked.
If you would like to know what Naomi Wolf said about this, here is an article of hers, entitled "NDAA: Congress Signed Its Own Arrest Warrent."
And Zenzoe, I asked Mucky Mudskipper about the quote you attributed to him, and he said that Karolina wrote that, not him.
Which was that? Please show quotes.
In number 33:
Mucky Mudskipper wrote:
Zenzoe, are the lead balloons "lead" as rhymes with head, or "lead" as rhymes with read? I thought the second "lead" balloon was a name for the quotation blocks like the one in which you quoted me! Ooops. Oh well. My bad.
I might write something under the moniker Mucky Mudskipper, but I am definitely not Karolina.
Speaking of Karolina, I would like to have the time to research the NDAA bill, but that seems a bit much to expect, when I heard on a couple of radio shows, something to the contrary of what you stated about the administration and the bill, or maybe I just wasn't catching the subtleties of what happened, but I heard that Obama didn't want the police state provisions in the bill, both on Thom's show and the NPR show, and maybe a few other places. If a person changes his/her mind, it isn't necessarily lying, either.
It seems to me that your assertion that we are in "grave DANGER" is a form of threat escalation in the same manner that the warhawks use to justify the so-called "war on terrorism" in the first place, only directed toward our government rather than on a foreign threat. Isnt' that ironic? As I mentioned before, if Americans start disappearing just because our government doesn't like their political opinions, all hell will break loose. That is the sort of thing that the public would not stand for, and the politicians know that.
NL, I don't know what you're talking about. Is this the post (mine) you're referring to: http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/natural-lefty/blog/2011/12/will-2012-b... ?? If so, you will note that the quote block did not say Karolina wrote your words; it says Mucky Mudskipper did, i.e., you. Perhaps I missed something, but, huh?
Oops, nevermind. You're right. Karolina said that! Sorry!
NL, since you did not go to the URLs that I offered you to check out, I bring to you what I had in my blog post about NDAA on Dec. 20:
Excerpts from article entitled Obama Broke His Promise:
"...The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial..."
"...At least Senator Lindsey Graham was honest when he said on the Senate floor that “...1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland."..."
"...Even more distressing is the statement from sponsor Senator Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee that “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved … and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section."..."
And I would like to ask you—do you really want to wait until people start dissappearing to start protests about it so more people can be arrested and dissappear, or would it be better for this bill to be repealed? Do you think with keeping people incarcerated with no legal representation available as an answer to, say, Occupy activities, it will be not used because the President promised he wouldn't use it? I mean...he could easily change his mind....
And I am sure that you realize that more & more prisons are being privatized. Well, that may also be a reason for sneaky details on new bills—making those prisons more & more profitable for the owners! In December on RSN was an article that there have already been arrests of people for owing money, even though debtors prisons have been illegal in the USA for over a century. Apparently, or should I say 'Maybe', that has been changed somewhere on something that went through... in the fine print.....
Zenzoe, Karolina wrote that in post #32, which I think you saw finally.
Karolina, privatization is one of the biggest enemies of the people, one of the main things that OWS is fighting against. Prisons are a part of the privatization picture, which has the insidious effect of promoting more arrests and incarcerations. Yes, people have become more and more aware of this, so the fight against privatization has begun. Even on the fishing website for California which I go to, and which attracts more than its share of conservatives, the potential privatization of oceans and shorelines has angered people across the political spectrum. Only the 1% see anything worthwhile to be gained by privatizing the oceans and shorelines; the rest of us see it as a horrible idea and violation of the public trust.
I am sure that some bills have sneaky privatization details in them, principally bills written by ALEC, but people are wising up. This is just the sort of thing we need to fight. I agree that people should be speaking out against the police state aspects of the NDAA bill too. I don't see much chance of OWS protesters being detained as terrorism suspects, however, or Obama changing his mind to decide to detain people for non-terrorism reasons; to do so would be very damaging politically, and I don't see any reason for the administration to do that anyway.
If what Carl Levin said is true, then I don't understand why the administration would do that.
On the other hand, things such as debtors prisons and laws which selectively persecute and prosecute the poor are things which can and will happen if we don't stop the tide of corporate hegemony. If people in the USA are already being put in debtors prisons, that is disturbing and tragic.
Natural Lefty everything that you said here I already know, but it is encouraging to me that you do too. The only part that you don't seem to get yet is that there is a world-wide bigger picture, and the US part of that picture is that we are, unconsciously for the most part, being changed into a fascist totalitarian state and a dictatorship, much like what was done to Germany in the 30s. Just like then in Germany, it is being done without us even wondering who the real enemy is that is promoting this destruction. 9/11 was our first Reichstag fire.
But about NDAA, here are some quotes from Jonathan Turley's article Senate Votes Overhelmingly To Allow Indefinite Detention of Citizens published on 12/02/11:
"...While some members of Congress like Ron Paul (R., Texas) have denounced the bill, the measure passed at the same time that Administration lawyers publicly declared that the military and intelligence agencies alone should decide whether a citizen should be killed without a charge or hearing (including killing citizens on U.S. soil) — a position supported by President Obama who has ordered the killing of U.S. citizens under his claim of inherent authority..."
"...It is unclear whether the President will have the integrity and courage to carry through on this pledge to veto this pernicious bill..."
"...Virtually all Democrats and Republicans voted to strip citizens of their rights in a vote of 93-7..."
"...What is fascinating is the Senators insisted on passing the provision despite the fact that the Directors of the FBI and CIA, the secretary of defense, and the director of national intelligence have all opposed it on national security and legal grounds. Nevertheless, people like McCaskill who are running for reelection want to prove that they are tough on terrorism by stripping citizens to the right to basic due process rights. The fact that the Democratic and Republican Senators took this step without even holding a hearing is a testament to the state of civil liberties in the United States..."
"...The Congress has long been indifferent if not hostile to civil liberties, but as discussed in an earlier column (and here), civil liberties has reached one of the lowest ebbs in both politics and policy in this country’s history. Such measures are now met with a gigantic and collective shrug from an indifferent populace..."
"...As the Senate set about rolling back civil liberties, Administration lawyers — CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson — publicly explained to an audience this week that the decision whether to kill a U.S. citizens anywhere and anytime must be left solely to the discretion of the military and intelligence branches. President Obama has supported this view and claims the right to kill any citizen on his unilateral and unchecked executive authority. I discussed this horrific policy in aprior column (and here)..."
"...How did we come to this place? Well, it took the joint efforts of both parties and a country that has been lured into a dangerous passivity by years of war rhetoric. We now appear to define ourselves by our lifestyle rather than our rights. Being American appears to be treated as conclusory and self-evident — untethered to our defining principles. So in comes to this. The loss of the most basic right of citizens met not by applause but, even worse, a collective yawn..."
And here are a couple of quotes from Naomi Wolf's article NDAA: Congress Signed Its Own Arrest Warrent published on 12/12/11:
"I never thought I would have to write this: but - incredibly - Congress has now passed the National Defense Appropriations Act, with Amendment 1031, which allows for the military detention of American citizens. The amendment is so loosely worded that any American citizen could be held without due process. The language of this bill can be read to assure Americans that they can challenge their detention - but most people do not realize what this means: at Guantanamo and in other military prisons, one's lawyer's calls are monitored, witnesses for one's defense are not allowed to testify, and one can be forced into nudity and isolation. Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and now most of Congress: a roster of names that will live in infamy in the history of our nation, and never be expunged from the dark column of the history books.
They may have supported this bill because - although it's hard to believe - they think the military will only arrest active members of Al Qaida; or maybe, less naively, they believe that 'at most', low-level dissenting figures, activists, or troublesome protesters might be subjected to military arrest. But they are forgetting something critical: history shows that those who signed this bill will soon be subject to arrest themselves.
Our leaders appear to be supporting this bill thinking that they will always be what they are now, in the fading light of a once-great democracy - those civilian leaders who safely and securely sit in freedom and DIRECT the military. In inhabiting this bubble, which their own actions are about to destroy, they are cocooned by an arrogance of power, placing their own security in jeopardy by their own hands, and ignoring history and its inevitable laws. The moment this bill becomes law, though Congress is accustomed, in a weak democracy, to being the ones who direct and control the military, the power roles will reverse: Congress will no longer be directing and in charge of the military: rather, the military will be directing and in charge of individual Congressional leaders, as well as in charge of everyone else - as any Parliamentarian in any society who handed this power over to the military can attest..."
"...Mussolini, who created the modern template for fascism, was a duly elected official when he started to direct paramilitary forces against Italian citizens: yes, he sent the Blackshirts to beat up journalists, editors, and union leaders; but where did these militarized groups appear most dramatically and terrifyingly, snapping at last the fragile hold of Italian democracy? In the halls of the Italian Parliament. Whom did they physically attack and intimidate? Mussolini's former colleagues in Parliament - as they sat, just as our Congress is doing, peacefully deliberating and debating the laws. Whom did Hitler's Brownshirts arrest in the first wave of mass arrests in 1933? Yes, journalists, union leaders and editors; but they also targeted local and regional political leaders and dragged them off to secret prisons and to torture that the rest of society had turned a blind eye to when it had been directed at the 'other.' Who was most at risk from assassination or arrest and torture, after show trials, in Stalin's Russia? Yes, journalists, editors and dissidents: but also physically endangered, and often arrested by militarized police and tortured or worse, were senior members of the Politburo who had fallen out of favor..."
And then there is this last quote, which is why I believe the Republicans were getting so hysterical about Obama's bold move of proclaiming them "in recess" and making a political move on his own. They are realizing that he feels so very dictatorial, that they have been had, and that their goose is juuust about cooked:
"US Congresspeople and Senators may think that their power protects them from the treacherous wording of Amendments 1031 and 1032: but their arrogance is leading them to a blindness that is suicidal. The moment they sign this NDAA into law, history shows that they themselves and their staff are the most physically endangered by it. They will immediately become, not the masters of the great might of the United States military, but its subjects and even, if history is any guide - and every single outcome of ramping up police state powers, unfortunately, that I have warned for years that history points to, has come to pass - sadly but inevitably, its very first targets."
Karolina, if anybody views a larger worldwide picture, it is me. Just check for posts on international cultural issues; they are most often by me. In my view, dententions such as in Guantanamo are immoral too and a violation of human rights. When it comes to human rights, a person's nationaliity makes no difference whatsoever. By the way, I am married to a Tawanese Chinese, and spent almost the entire month of August in her hometown, and many of my friends have usually been foreign born as well.
I think with regard to our government, a good analogy would be to an alcoholic. Our government -- people in it, actually -- are addicted to power, money, war, occupations, American exceptionalism, etc. -- putting a new person at the top of our government doesn't change the chorus of people clamoring for money, favors, power, wars or occupations to enrich them and make them feel self-important, and so on. Guantanamo was begun under George W. Bush, as well as the way we have been going down the path of using a so-called "war on terrorism" to feed the addiction of people in our government. Obama has been gradually dismantling Guantanamo, I understand, but how much he really can do about it without horrible repercussions from the addicts, I really don't know. The in-recess appointment was because Republicans were playing a very dishonest game by pretending to be in session when they really weren't. They needed to be called on it, and we need a director for the consumer protection agency. It seems to me that it is the bully Republicans in Congress who are being dictatorial, not Obama.
Why isn't there more outcry by the public about the NDAA bill? I think it's because it has not affected us personally. I doubt it will either, but to reiterate, if it does, the reaction will make OWS look like a picnic. Reading Naomi Wolfe's comments gives me the distinct impression that she is in paranoia-land. We are not 1930s Germany, Italy or Japan, fortunately. The world has evolved, and while much of the population may seem complacent much of the time, we are not as sheep-like or lemming-like as past generations, who lacked the ability to communicate and coordinate their actions that we now enjoy. I think OWS, among other things including what we are doing now on this TH site, demonstrate that.
However, I agree that the United States' military power, and its government's addiction to power, is a very dangerous thing. This is something we the 99%ers need to fight tooth and nail until we declaw this monster.
No, the problem is that the American public is very demoralized, and doesn't have the courage to face what is happening. Guantanamo was a horrible example of how, though the world has evolved technologically—it really has not evolved mentally at all. There are just as many mentally deranged people as at any other time in history, and as you spoke about in your "Narcissists" post, fascism is how those people become fully self-realized. They are the reason why the oligarchical system, as opposed to true democracy, has survived for thousands of years in many cultures.
Those people need to get mental help, and we need to have a healthy nation and a healthy world, with healthy democracies everywhere, with healthy credit economies—as was written into our own Constitution—and with mentally healthy people in leadership positions.
We certainly don't have that now.
BTW, I am a child of immigrants who lived through WW2 in Europe. English was not my first language, though I was born in the USA.
The demoralization problem is another aspect of what is going on, I agree. I wrote a post about a year ago about how Americans seem to be suffering from what we psychologists call "learned helplessness," but that was before the public started finding some courage and OWS emerged. I just checked the local Occupy site yesterday, Occupy Riverside, and although I didn't see the actual encampment where it had been before during New Years, I see that the site is very active indeed. (Perhaps the encampment moved; I need to find out.) I think we as a people are starting to feel our power, and that will only grow over time. But you are correct that a lot of demoralization has been occuring as we feel increasingly oppressed over time. This is the way of oppressed peoples everywhere; they become demoralized, and the demoralization can last over many generations in some cases, even when the source of oppression is removed (as when slaves were "freed").
I think when one looks at evolution, it seems to be occuring at a slower pace than it actually is, or not at all, when in fact, big changes are taking place. However, moral and psychological evolution lag behind technological evolution big time, so we still as a society suffer many psychopathic individuals who cause great harm. Geneticist Simon Wells actually says that biological evolution in humans has accelerated. Cultural, spiritual, moral and psychological evolution are probably proceeding even faster, along with technological evolution.
"as you spoke about in your "Narcissists" post, fascism is how those people become fully self-realized. They are the reason why the oligarchical system, as opposed to true democracy, has survived for thousands of years in many cultures.
Those people need to get mental help, and we need to have a healthy nation and a healthy world, with healthy democracies everywhere, with healthy credit economies, as was written into our own Constitution, and with mentally healthy people in leadership positions."
Well stated, Karolina! I will reserve judgment about the mental health of people in power, since some of them seem mentally healthy to me, but others, not so.
Would you be of German extraction? Polish perhaps? My best friend in undergraduate school was a son of Polish immigrants.
Myself, I am a highly evolved Giant Mudskipper (a fish that runs around in the sand and mud). LOL See my avatar. Actually, I am a garden variety anglo and my family has been in the U.S. for a long time, but most people think I look mediterranean unlike my other family members.
Karolina I went to your homepage here and saw this entry among other interesting ones: http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/karolina/blog/2011/11/lets-regulate-banksters-w-hr1489 You know, if you post these on the discussion boards they might get more attention?
Hillary Clinton is a very impressive person but I'm not sure she shares our perspective on these things. Am I not remembering correctly when I recall that she willingly supported the Patriot Act?
Our politicians don't necessarilly know very much about what their masters are up to, thus I don't necessarilly suspect any one of them of complicity in events such as 9/11. Clearly, there is a dynamic going on within the global arena that the general public is unable to perceive or understand.
These politicians on the left seem to follow the same pattern in regard to all types of legislation. If they can get elected using leftist rhetoric then they will use leftist rhetoric, but make as few promises as possible. Thom has named a few who had been thought of as trustworthy by "our" side but who then threw their weight behind the agenda of the corporatocracy and retired from political life to take up cush positions at think-tanks and so forth. It's the lobbyists who are the nerves of the corporatocracy, linking the government to the massive institutions controlled by the global aristocracy. Certainly, the transnational corporations are constantly pursuing a strategy of campaign financing, civil campaigns, public relations, influence of the media, and so forth using a very sophisticated intellegence apparatus of their own. They obviously have their feet planted firmly in both the world of legal and illegal activities and everything in between. After 9/11, for example, oil companies had to cut their ties to muslim militant groups in the Phillipines who they had employed to protect their physical assets.
There is some good news I came here to share after perusing this intriguing conversation. I am exhilerated to learn that California has joined the twenty-some states in the union which allow for something called a "public benefits corporation." http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/04/business/la-fi-benefit-corporations-20120104
Happy New Year to all I haven't wished Happy New Year yet! You've all seen "Hair," right?