Generations

My generation, the Babyboomers, began with the idealism of John F. Kennedy. Granted, Kennedy wasn't a great president. Some would argue that he wasn't even a good president. Some make the claim that Kennedy was only starting to hit his stride and it would have taken a second term to test his true potential for greatness. But, of course, we will never know. When he was murdered in Dallas on that November day in 1963, the man died and the legend, or rather, the myth of Camelot began to take shape. His brother, Bobby, did much to create that myth. His death too added to it. It was a traumatic time, with the death of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, the Civil Rights movement, the "Freedom Riders" and the murder of three young men in Mississippi, the Watts riot (and countless others), not to mention the war in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and our government's efforts to "contain communism" through not just wars and insurrections, but manufactured coups and assassinations.

Of course, like to many wars, the one which began in Vietnam was started on the basis of a manufactured event; a lie. "The Tonkin Gulf Incident" as it was called. The story, as it was originally told, was that a US ship was in international waters when it was deliberately attacked by ships from those nasty godless Communists, the North Vietnamese. In really, there was no attack. We were told too that we were "protecting" the Vietnamese People from Communism. In truth, this was a Civil War which had its beginnings in the 1920's against the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and finally, us. We installed the Vietnamese president (after approving the overthrow and assassination on his predecessor) and continued to prop him up throughout the war. We were lied to about the progress of the war, and the determination of our enemy that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen faced daily.

Sadly for my generation, we witnessed soldiers murdering college students at a university in Ohio named Kent State. My generation gave birth to Hippies, Yippies, and Flower Children; the SDS--Students for a Democratic Society, the Gray Panthers which sought to treat seniors with dignity, and more militant groups like the Weathermen, the Black Panthers with Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver, and the Symbionese Liberation Army or SLA which was made famous by heiress Patty Heart. We endured America's first defeat, not on the battlefield, but in the halls of Congress, the Office of the President, and at the negotiation table. We also witnessed governmental betrayal again with Watergate. We also saw the rise and later perversion of the "Feminist Movement", the Gay Pride Movement, Cesar Chavez and the Migrant Workers Movement for better wages and work conditions, the Ecology Movement and legislation to reduce pollution, the "Back to Nature" and the Commune Movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM) and efforts to right centuries old wrongs. We worked to bring more equality in the workplace between gender in terms of wage equality and breaking through the "glass ceiling". It should also be pointed out that we were the most materially spoiled and richest generation in history in terms of disposable income. We would go on to produce self-adsorbed materialistic Yuppies and "Soccer Moms". We became what we loathed the most.

orld stage. We have gone from the John and Bobby Kennedy, MLK, Chavez to the likes of Bill "Cigar" Clinton, George W Bush, with Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush filling in the highs and lows in between. Finally, we capped it all off with Hillary Clinton. My how we've fallen. In many respects, Hillary represents the ideals of my generation. First and foremost, she was the first woman to run for president...of a major party (there have been others, most notably Shirley Chisholm who was also black). She served as Secretary of State (but, again, she wasn't the first, and, again, most notably and more successfully, was Condoleezza Rice...and she was also black). She was the first wife of a former president to run for office, although one could make a serious argument for Eleanor Roosevelt serving as a co-President or for Woodrow Wilson's wife, Edith, serving as the defacto President following Wilson's stroke during the latter part of his second term.

There's no questioning Hillary's public persona. She comes across as someone who cares about families, women, and social justice. However, the private Hillary---as revealed by the testimonies of those close to her---plus the thousands of private emails, as shown her to be just as hard drinking, hot tempered, and foul-mouthed as any of her male colleagues, and such as conniving. There are still unanswered questions regarding illegal gunrunning deals, use of unsecured cell phones and the release of classified information, possible acts of treason, repeatedly lying to Congress, the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi which resulting in the murder of four Americans, including the ambassador, the "pay-to-play" channeling of millions to the Clinton Foundation while she was the SoS, not to mention the curious coincidences of deaths associated with the Clintons going back decades.

Hillary Clinton claims that if the election had been held on October 27th, before the FBI Director James Comey's press conference regarding her emails, she would be president today. I beg to differ. Hillary lost because she proved to a poor candidate. She showed that, as a person, she is hollow. It wasn't one particular email or instance which did Hillary in. It was the culmination of numerous instances; of numerous emails; of numerous questionable behavior that couldn't be hidden. Not every actor can maintain their mask for long. Hers repeatedly slipped when examined closely. The American People, despite her cheerleading supporters in the corporate controlled media, weren't fools after all.

The Millennials, however, are the new generation on the block. Theirs is the largest generation in terms of numbers since the Babyboomers. They are new to the political game. They haven't learned to become cynical yet. Their first taste of politics came with Barack Obama. They bought the act. They thought they had the whole political game figured out, just as we did back in the early 60's. If they were disappointed with Obama's first term, they were stunned by his second. Perhaps that's why most Millennials have turned their backs on party politics in the first place. Most are Independents (which is America's largest political "party"), followed by Democrats and trailing in third place, Republican. They are predisposed to focus on issues and move on. Perhaps that explains their disillusionment with the outcome of the election, and their (for lack of a better term), temper tantrum. They saw Hillary Clinton as perhaps the "New Hope" to borrow from Star Wars. Another chance to do what Obama couldn't or wouldn't do. Maybe it was the sense of history and electing America's first woman as president.

So, what we've seen is a generation behaving badly. They show up at events intent on destroying property and picking fights. Whereas universities and colleges were once the bastions of free speech (thanks in part to groups like the SDS), people who may disagree with them are boycotted, shouted down, harassed, while the school's administration finds itself threatened. We find some of the Millennials demanding "safe places" where they cry in seclusion. It reminds me of spoiled kindergartners or first graders. There is an old saying which goes like this, "What the grandparent seeks to overcome, the child seeks to forget, and grandchild seeks to learn". If these Millennials are seeking to imitate us, their Babyboomer grandparents, with their militant-esque behavior, they are doing a sorry job of it. Instead of trying to run away from what they dislike (or are afraid of), or trying to bully individuals or institutions into silence, they need to examine what it is that they don't like, and that means looking at the facts of each issue, which is something that Millennials are suppose to be good at; ignoring the BS and getting to the core issue, then solving the problem.

Meanwhile, we have the corporate media not wasting a single opportunity to take a swipe at Trump or his administration. It's like the first piece on every newscast or the lead article in every newspaper has to be a concocted piece designed to discredit Trump and Company in some way. We see former Republican presidents chumming it up with their former Democrat "rivals" in bashing Trump, which only goes to show how phony the party divide really is, as if we didn't already know. I have no doubt that it's intentional. It's specifically aimed at delegitimizing Trump and to set the stage to ensure "The Donald" is a one term president, and, perhaps, to prepare Americans for an Obama third term featuring Chelsea Clinton in some capacity. After all, she is the heir apparent.

So, where do we go from here? For all our faults (and there were many), my generation of Babyboomers were (and are) idealists. To paraphrase Kennedy, we saw wrongs and sought to right them however we could. But we didn't deny people the opportunity to speak, even if we disagreed with them. We did question and challenge the system. We fought for equality...for everyone, not just one or two groups. We opposed conformity, but understood too that wherever we came from or however we got here, we were Americans, and that meant speaking a commonly understood language, English, if we were to function as a society. Racism has become a bigger issue now than it was in the 70's, and it's largely not coming from whites. We sought new ways of doing things. Perhaps we went too far in some matters and not far enough in others.

However, I think there needs to be a new emphasis on education, especially trade schools, to overcome poverty, discrimination, crime, violence, and incarceration. People should be hired and promoted based on their abilities, not on a quota system. Unfortunately, education was a key area where my generation failed. It dumbed down the quality of our education out of fear of hurting feelings along with an overemphasis on "group equality" while forgetting the individual. A well educated population would have solved many of our problems then and will solve many of our problems now. Besides, it's what the political class and the Oligarchs who control them fear the most, so it has to be a good thing right? These are things the Millennials, our successors, will need to figure out.

Trying to Unravel the Future

As a "Babyboomer" (1946 to 1964), I've always been interested in the impact of groups on trends and politics. I suppose it's because of how the two waves of 'boomers have behaved politically down through the decades. As it is well known, the earliest segment of the wave was the "Beatniks" from the late 1950's and early 1960's (think "Maynard Krebs" for the TV series "The Many Love of Dobie Gillis") which melded into the Flower Children and Hippies of the mid to late 1960's and to the Yippies of early 1970's. The second wave of 'boomers were more militant and aggressive that their immediate predecessors.

Of interest too is that the Beatnik and first wave Babyboomers were mostly liberal (free love, drugs, reading poetry, folk music, etc). They came to support John F. Kennedy, and later, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. The second wave of 'boomer kids (1956-1954) were more the protestors, antiwar activists, Watergate, acid rock which eventually bled into the disco era (for which we eternally apologize). Peace, love, drugs, contemplation, and rock 'n' roll became drugs, sex, and dance, glam, and polyester (no wonder we ended up with the punk and grunge rock of their GenX children). However, this second wave, interestingly, became more conservative. In their adulthood, they would largely support Reagan while some would go on to support Bill Clinton. Now, we're starting to feel the effects of the next big wave, the Millennials. Maynard's Beatniks became Hippies who changed into Yippies which eventually morphed into Yuppies.

I've always been intrigued by the Millennials (ages 19 to 34). They are the largest cohort since the Babyboomers. In fact, they are actually larger in terms of sheer numbers than the Babyboomers, though as a group, much less financially well off (they are the most debt ridden generation in our history, mostly due to college debt). While the Flower Power generation seemed to inherit much from their Flapper Era grandparents, the Millennials seem to be mimicking some of their Hippie grandparents. How this will pan out over time is anyone's guess, but how they are currently trending certainly bears some consideration.

Most Millennials are very anti-government, at least in its present form. As a group, they support a big government, which they believe is more capable of solving some of society's ills than a smaller decentralized government. They distain both political parties for being corrupt, inept and in the pockets of the same corporate interests (true enough). However, they are very team and issue oriented. If there's a particular project which they're interested in, they can be counted on creating an ad hoc groups of friends and likeminded individuals to go out and deal with it. That being said, Millennials are what can be accurately described as the first truly digitalized generation. They were born into a world where laptops, cells phones, the internet, and, well, pretty all social media is as natural as TV was to the 'boomers. Without question, Millennials are the most technologically connected generation, and like their grandparents, not afraid to show their militant side, especially if it can be combined with technology.

The recent revolutions in the Middle East were instigated primarily by Millennials using Twitter, Facebook, and other e-platforms. This was supported globally by other, again mainly, Millennials who made use of their social media connections and a rather advanced use of available technology to get around attempts by various governments to stifle communication with the outside world. In the US, we got a taste of their capability with the Occupy Movement which petered out due to a lack of leadership and direction. While researching this, I was struck with an interesting thought---how and where do Millennials get most of the news? There had to some sort of commonality in order for them to have been so successful with the political uprisings.

It turns out that Millennials get most of their news (not surprisingly) through social media---68%---with the majority of it coming from Facebook, followed Twitter, YouTube, and political blogs (only 55% comes from TV and 33% from newspapers). In additional, Millennials also seem to be more open minded (or untrusting) in that they routinely check out opposing positions on issues in order to arrive at something approaching what they consider to be the truth. To put it another way, Millennials aren't blind followers. They don't follow just one ideological perspective, but seek a balanced approached to their news gathering and information (and they are also most likely to check sources).

As a group, Millennials are the most diverse of all the generational groups. While the Babyboomers are mostly White and came from middle class families, Millennials are a mixed bag racially (43% are non-white) with large numbers of blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. Overall, most come from middle to lower income families (they are also the least religiously affiliated generation ever and most likely to delay marriage). Most are college educated, yet overwhelmingly debt ridden and it's not uncommon for many to move back home and/or to be underemployed. Politically, the majority of Millennials are left of center; actually, far left of center; the majority are registered as Independents (just over 50%), which is the single largest political group in the US and is expected to soon surpassed Democrats and Republicans combined. Politically, most regard themselves as "socialist leaning" while a significant number are libertarian. So, on the ideological map, Millennials are mostly Left Libertarians.

As stated previously, Millennials don't support either political party (though they did support Obama by large numbers in his first presidential bid, and in significantly few numbers in his re-election). While they will vote for Democrats, very few vote Republicans (and among those who have or who consider themselves Republican. they remain overwhelmingly liberal on social issues which continues to put the GOP generationally out of touch). I fully expect this to be the generation to first election an independent or third party candidate to president. Who knows, given the sustained and dismal ratings of Congress (irrespective of party), I wouldn't be the least surprised to see Millennials electing indies and third party candidates despite a rigged system. But on the other hand, given their socialist leaning majority and contempt for the political structure, I could see them simply kicking the rotten door of the Washington Establishment down and starting over; something their more radical grandparents would applaud.

So, what can we expect? Well, I guess that all depends on your perspective. Neither political party have exactly of comfortable future, especially the Republicans. The GOP ranks a distant last when it comes to voter preference among Millennials. Democrats are more of a "hold your nose" first choice. However, the further Left the better. Their preference is, of course, independents. In the near term, I wouldn't be too surprised to see Republicans become a regionalized political party with a near absence from the national scene (especially if we consider that Hispanics, while not a political force as of yet since even those here legally aren't registered to vote. Nevertheless, Hispanics and Asians, another growing demographic, lean Left, could spell the end of GOP unless they totally overhaul their position on social issues). Democrats are seen as largely inept and corrupt and not ideologically equipped when it comes to economics and financial issues.

Millennials want a socially liberal party and one that's support of bridging the income gulf, term limits, real campaign finance reform (including overturning Citizens United), ending gerrymandering, and encouraging entrepreneurism. Of course, doing something about debt reform, the environment, a tax code overhaul, and social security are on the list too. I suspect that when they do come fully into their own, their collective wrath on those perceived to have mismanaged their future will be terrible. Then again, like every generation which has preceded it, mistakes will be made and until we can reign in human nature and can curtail greedy and the quest for power over others, we will continue to make the same mistakes over and over with ever greater consequences.


68% of Millennials Get Their News From Social Media
http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/millennial-news/485350

Pew Research: Millennials in Adulthood
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/millennials-in-adulthood/

Thoughts on Liberty
http://thoughtsonliberty.com/millennials-and-left-libertarianism-part-1-they-need-community

Millennials can really shake of the political and policy world
http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20141015/EDITORIAL/141019819

The Game Plan

Let's assume illegal immigration and the blatant refusal of the US government to secure the border, is simply part of a secret agreement--an addendum if you will--to NAFTA, which at its heart was designed to create an open border between Canada, the US, and Mexico, was extended to some of other nations south of border. Suppose further that the Latin American nations have chosen either to enact that portion of the agreement that allows its citizens unrestrained access to the US either directly or indirectly through Mexico, and because Washington was unable to "sell" NAFTA (though it passed, it has remained unpopular)---for whatever reasons such as a downturn in the economy, job outsourcing, union opposition, crime, unexpected prolonged wars or especially open immigration, decided to "dump" their children on our border, perhaps as a pointed reminder, or frustration over Washington's foot dragging? If true, does the hidden terms work both ways? What if Americans or Canadians decided to "invade" Mexico or South America in droves? How would their governments react? One or two, or even a few dozen would likely be imprisoned since they have (ironically) a no tolerance policy for illegals or those who aide them in anyway. But what about a few hundred or even thousands? What if these illegal Americans or Canadians demanded access to public services--such as health care or education, and in English? If Mexico's refusal to release a single US citizen, US Marine Andrew Tahmooreisi, is any indication, neither the US or its Latin American neighbors are prepared to deal with reverse illegal immigration, but I think they'd certainly be willing to discuss the situation with us.

There seems to be a global interest in the concept of "democratic liberalism", or as it's sometimes referred to, "friendly capitalism without borders". Think of it as democratic socialism as practiced by, say, Germany as opposed to Scandinavia. Social services, now paid for by States or a federal government, would instead be paid for through a transnational organization of some sort, perhaps the UN or one of its agencies. There has been, after all, much interest in expanding its role along with the influence of the UN, WTO, and/or World Bank, which collectively already controls much of the world's finances (along with the Federal Reserve) and dispersal of capital.

How could this be accomplished? The simplest tool would be a tax levied on a federal government and thus either directly or indirectly on the public. State specific programs would of course remain in place. This transnational "public welfare" tax would detail its own unique qualifications, which would be resident neutral and administered by each host country (notice "host" as opposed to "sovereign"). Since this would eliminate all or most other federal programs, administrative costs should be generally cheaper. The formula for taxation could be based on GDP, which would mean poorer countries would pay the least while richer countries would pay the most. While one could argue against this loss of sovereignty, it could increase the globalization of the commerce and through its concept of "open borders", enhance the development of worker movements since movement of workers would be unimpeded; something I'm sure would be unintended by the powers that be.

But as alluded to earlier, something happened. The US isn't playing the game as it's supposed to. There's the fact that America is becoming more fascist; certainly more "police state" like. To be more precise, corporations are behaving more feudalistic. In keeping with the concept, our national government is assuming the role of a dukedom; that, they are acting like overlords or administrators serving their lieges and lords. There is nothing "democratic" or "socialistic" here since we are not becoming more democratic by seceding more power to the People, nor are the People more in control of their own collective destinies, while government serves less our needs and more the needs of K Street and the 1%. States are increasingly losing powers guaranteed under the Constitution as well and must beg with hat-in-hand on bended knee for the funds to keep local governments going.

Meanwhile, threats to the expanding modern feudal State continues. Putin's Russia, and to a lesser degree, China and India (which tends to hedge its bets thanks to job outsourcing), have resisted dominance by the global "McState" and are threatening to undermine the US dollar as the defacto global currency; a currency backed solely on the "faith and trust" of a bankrupt government--economically, politically, and morally. Should they succeed, it would collapse the US economy as our unsustainable debts become due but it would have dire consequences worldwide in this interconnected world economy, eventually collapse the economies of the rest of the world like a house of cards. As the saying goes, when the US sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold, and this cold would be terminal.

Then there's the situation in the Middle East, which appears, at least to yours truly, to have been initally an attempt to increase control of oil reserves and oil production, by these feudalistic corporations and away from these artificially created nation-states, and now appears to have spunned out of control. We are now faced with brutal terror organizations which we helped to create, arm, train, and finance, to deal with the last terroristic organization which we created, armed, trained, and financed ad nauseam.

These terrorist groups, which are being portrayed by the corporate media, to operate virtually at will, could, in truth, be easily snuffed out by the power of the US military. But what's the point in that? At present, "terror" is a useful tool in the arsenal of the Corporate State. It inspires fear at home, and thus in the name of security, increases the "demand" for security, or to call a spade a spade, a police state. After all, businesses require stability in order to operate. People require a sense of safety in order to feel comfortable to go about their daily affairs, which just so happens to includes spending money, so what's the loss of freedom among friends...or big brothers? By the way, this "necessary evil" for the care and grooming of a fascist or feudalistic society is never a requirement for either a democratic or socialistic State. So much for the notion we're becoming "socialist".

So, there you have it folks; "the plan" as I've termed it, and an explanation in a nutshell. An addendum to an agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the US to do away with borders, and an apparent reaction by Latin American leaders to Washington's delay in implementing their portion of the agreement due to their (perhaps chagrin) inability to sell it to the US People. Russia, China, and to a lesser extent, India, resisting this latest variation of the game of Risk by the WTO among others while holding a gun at our heads and one at their own. A spiraling problem in the Middle East as the result of failed plans to secure oil reserves by destabilizing resistant governments with the use manufactured "terrorists" who aren't following the playbook. You would think that after Watergate, they would have stopped using amateurs. But, on the upside, using terrorists as sort of the all purpose bogeyman behind every lamppost, an opportunity to expand government monitoring and police power under the auspices of "security" while corporate control of Washington not only increases, but emerges from the shadows. So my fellow Americans, what are you prepared to do? And then what are you prepared to do?

Are You a Conservative?

In a conversation recently, someone whom I had just meet asked me if I was a conservative. Nothing unusual about that I suppose, especially considering this chance meeting was at a political event with some 3500 presumably likeminded individuals. Naturally, rather than give the perfunctory response, I paused and asked exactly what they meant by the term "conservative"? If it was intended to mean whether I was in favor of "conserving" our present political regime or our present form of government, then my answer was a decidedly "no". There was nothing about the present occupant of the White House or his retinue that I was especially proud of, nor could I think of anything about the current direction our government was taking that especially excited me. 

I mean, was I a supporter of our current gerrymandering system which has, in effect, perfected a professional political class, created for the benefit of a political party that I may or may not support, help me? And if I happened to be an opponent of that individual; their policies, or that of their political party, it meant that I, in effect, was unrepresented for the duration of their term, which could be for near perpetuity. Obviously, the answer was nope, I don't.

Well then, did I want to preserve a system which has created a surveillance system akin to a police state; one where I am constantly monitored, recorded, or tracked "for my own good"? Certainly not, and it doesn't stop there. It extends to a commercial world where every key stoke, every selection, every site I visit, every purchase---from books to dinner---goes somewhere; to keep track of my personal preferences without my permission, then again, I have to say no. My personal life is just that---my personal life. What I like today, I may not like tomorrow. There's no need to keep track of it or send me a reminder. And while I'm at, who I call a friend or significant other is no body's business either. 

Along the same vein, what about a government that wants to monitor what say or write (especially about my government, and of course, assuming I'm not threatening to punch someone in the nose); or try to curtail my right to own a gun or my choice, especially when I'm a veteran and trained in its care and usage? What I decide to do with it is pretty much my business. Or what if I want to get together with some friends? Once again, that's my business too. Government also has no right kicking in my door without a warrant, or deny me the right to know the charges, or provide me with either the opportunity to face, and I mean face, my accusers or to speedy trial. None of this sneaking around garbage. And why do I "think" I have these "rights"? Because the Founders of this country said so, and they enshrined it in the Bill of Rights, which was attached to a thing called a Constitution; neither one of which does it appear that those elected to represent us are familiar.

But, perhaps that's not entirely true since these same people seem to believe that artificial entities called "corporations" have many of the very same rights that I, as a person, do. In fact, they believe corporations actually have more rights than I do. Case in point: freedom of speech. It seems that some of these...ahem..."honorable" men and women think that money and the free spending of such is one and the same as free speech. Well, I don't quite see it that way, but here it goes. You see, by giving money to the person, party, or cause of your choice is the same as expressing your personal preference, i.e.: "free speech". 

However, this would imply that the poor have less to "freedom" than someone who is middle class. And, to give the appearance at least of some measure of equality, everyone is capped in the amount they give (assuming the poor can scrape enough money together to donate). Well, while that sucked even in theory, two recent misrulings by the US Supreme Court (FEC v Citizens United and FEC v McCutchan's), said that while you and I are still limited in our "free speech", corporations weren't. They can give what they want. In effect, we got snubbed and the very rich get to openly buy elections. Do I want to conserve this kind of mentality? Absolutely not!

Thankfully, we've wised up some. We've learned to see wars or "conflicts" for what they are; not spreading democracy or protecting America, but acquiring or securing assets and making certain companies and their stockholders very rich at the cost of the lives of mostly ordinary men and women who likely were otherwise unable to find a job in an artificially depressed economic market. Did anyone really believe that invading Kuwait was anything more than liberating oilfields? Human rights were the cover story to get the populace to go along. Same was true with Iraq, and has been true with efforts to become engaged in places like Libya, Syria, and the Ukraine, or for that matter, overthrowing duly elected governments in Latin America or Southeast Asia because big business didn't like their politics.

We send billions in aid overseas to countries who hate us, while we have thousands here without enough to eat. Nothing about this concept I want to save. But on the other hand, despite demands made loud and clear, nothing has been done to secure our southern border. We have some 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. ICE and border patrol agents are told to do nothing; do not engage; do not enforce existing immigration laws. Not even states are allowed to enforce existing immigration laws. Employers of illegal immigrants don't even rate a hand smacking. Unions are, contrary to common sense, pushing for amnesty alongside big business. So what gives?

Simple economics really. More labor, more competition for the few jobs out there. That drives down wages and cuts benefits. Businesses get to pick and choose from the available talent, which they can pick up for less. Unions, who are cash/members strapped, are hoping to pick up workers and thus, more union dues to keep them afloat. All this also helps to keep and maintain a docile workforce---everyone is scared of losing their jobs by rocking the boat. Meanwhile, those not working continue to use taxpayers based services which are already starting to fail. The wealthy? Don't worry about them. The disparity between the top 1% and everyone else is greater than it's ever been and they're not affected by the drain on the system. In fact, they are safe and secure behind gated communities, so crime really isn't much of problem, and neither is the price of meat, eggs, bread, or gas. So, from their perspective, all is well, and if it isn't, they have the offending policies changed. Nope, this isn't a system I want to conserve.

We asked to reformed healthcare to one that most Americans could afford, especially the poor. What we got was a system no one wants and no one can afford. We demanded better schools, and we got a dumbed down curriculum and no discipline. And when the economy tanked because of poor monetary policy, those who promoted it; encouraged it; and got slap happy rich off of it, were the ones who were bailed out with taxpayer money---they were "too big to fail" despite the public's outcry---while the average working class family lost everything. They were too poor to save I guess. Frankly, I can't see anything worth keeping here either. So, where does that leave us?

We are nothing more than liabilities on a balance sheet---to enhance the bottom line and then to be discarded. We are no longer proud citizens, but consumers whose loyalties are measured by market share and brand names, not personal sacrifice. I guess we should count ourselves lucky that we aren't forced to wear barcodes with expiration dates, at least not yet anyway. We are told what we should want; how we should look; what we should think and how we should act, all while amassing massive debt to the tune of advertising pipers to keep up with the imaginary Jones. 

Mediocrity, especially in education, has become the acceptable. And to keep people from questioning the corporate-government duopoly, we're given the illusion of choice through two "competing" political parties while the serious decisions are made elsewhere, and if that fails, we're preoccupied with bread and circuses, only now they're video games, TV shows, and fashion magazines. Am I a conservative? Well, if that means do I want to conserve or protect any of this, the answer is an emphatic no.

A Star Lit Night

If you ever stare up into clear night's sky, especially during the Fall, for any length of time you tend to get a sense of the magnificence of the cosmos. When you contemplate that every flickering light in the sky is a distant planet, off somewhere in the vastness of the universe; it's light already tens of millions of years old by the time it reaches our eyes, may in fact, no longer even exist. What we now see as light may be nothing more than a memory; its originator perhaps long burned out around the time of the dinosaurs, if not before. But beyond that, one gets a sense that there is a unique beauty to the cosmos; a profound order, and out of that order, an logic; an intelligence which has created a balance whereby that order can reign.

When we watch the news, we see the power and fury; the utter destruction nature can bring, yet we often fail to realize that geologically speaking, we are living in one of the earth's more quite epochs. The earth has, for most of its existence, been a far more brutal and violent place. Even our earliest ancestors who survived numerous volcanic eruptions, bitter cold and immense ice expansions, or long droughts, still lived in a rather stable climatic period.

It's really amazing that life ever evolved at all, but evolved it did. Out of the primordial muck, life developed in fits and starts, often followed by mass extinctions and new forms of life. It is almost as if Creation was experimenting with a cosmic chemistry set. In time, after countless ages, Man, or what we would consider "Man", emerged; more brute than anything. But we evolved; we changed rapidly. Man soon learned the value of mutual cooperation, be it for hunting or protection or for simple survival. We learned to think critically. We learned to analyze our environment and how to manipulate it. That's how we were able to transform the night by harnessing fire, and with fire we were able to see in the darkness. We had stolen light itself from the heavens and we no longer afraid. We made tools and used fire to refine them. We were able to cook meat, and thereby improve our quality of nutrition. That make us healthier and stronger. And we were even able to use its charcoal and smoke to create; to express ourselves outside of ourselves. No other creature had even been able to that before.

We also learned to communicate. Other animals communicated, but what made us unique is that we were able to think abstractly; to conceive ideas, and then express those ideas, and as our communication skills improved, we were soon able to retain those ideas and to pass them on, where they were kept as a community memory. Communal memory allowed us to learn from pass mistakes and to make improvements almost exponentially. It provided us with a sense of continuity. Soon, through our collective abilities to grasp concepts of cause and effect, and from that, agriculture, animal husbandry, medicine and the other sciences. By studying the stars and understanding seasonal cycles, we began to comprehend changes in weather patterns, tides, planting cycles and improve crop development.

Modern Man is some 10,000 years old. Civilization is but 5000 years old. In that time we've come up from the savannas, out of the caves, into small settlements of huts by lakes and streams, later to build ziggurats, pyramids, cannels, and dams. Our villages are now vast multi-complex hives with vast global communication networks connecting to more people in a year than existed on the entire planet a mere 5 millennia ago. We're able to prevent most diseases; to feed ourselves year round. We've examined the most finite molecules which makes up the fabric of our very existence and we've harnessed the power of the atom. We've reached back into the heavens seeking to know more, but especially needing to know if we're alone. Were we a fluke; a happenstance, or was there an intent? And if there was an intent, what is it and is there a meaning to our collective being? And if there is a meaning to our collective being, is there a unique meaning for us individually?

We've created myths and religions to try and answer those questions, for they are the ultimate questions we need to be answered as a species and individually; they are as old as Man. Many adhere to some form of belief system. They seem to derive a sense of reassurance and order. However, many do not. A few believe it's all randomness. Some think there is an intelligence, but it is barely aware of us, its creation, if at all, and in that, they gain perhaps a cold comfort. And there are those who see us a part of the whole; part of the cosmos itself and inseparable from it. For them, they see a connectedness to the very stars that flicker in the night as much as to all life around us. For them, they walk in Creation itself. This seems to be something that has engaged us since we first gazed up into the heavens all those generations ago, perhaps on a clear Fall night like this one, and wondered out loud who we really are.

That Sense of Uneasiness

Do you sense it? That feeling of uneasiness which seems as if it's soaked into everything like a faintly discernable odor, from the nightly news to random conversations with strangers while standing in line at the grocery store or sitting at the doctor's office. Nothing feels safe or secure. Very little, if anything, has that sense of familiarity or comfort to it any more. You subconsciously find yourself on guard every time you go out, or when your children go out to play or even go to school, or something as innocent as when you let your pets out at night. You're not sure what or who is safe anymore. Even the sacred has a sense of hollowness about it.

Corruption, crime, violence in government, schools, the courts, and even our places of worship has almost become commonplace and almost brazen; we barely take time to even register it unless it reaches a new level depravity. How often to do hear of a teacher raping one of their students? Now ask yourself how common that was when you were in school. Or what about the trusted pastor who has for decades used their religious authority to abuse children, only to see them moved to a new state or new church where they can continue while the victims are threaten and intimidated for saying anything. Or politicians sending naked pictures of themselves and showing remorse; no humility when found out. We see or hear practically every day about deeper levels of the debauchery that would have made Genghis Khan flinch so often we've almost become numb.

Society seems to be decaying. Our so-called political leaders are more concerned about their careers and pleasing the new crowners of power---transnational corporations while "We the People" have been stunned into apathy. We need to rebuild; to regenerate a society based on the traditional values or norms which have stood the test of the ages; which can provide the foundation to create a stable new society; norms like the family unit (and by extension, close friends), neighborhoods, and community.

We must find ways, large or small, to become less dependent on governmental institutions and the corporatization of society; to break the chain of control. We need to take only what works the best and leave the rest to rot in the wastelands of history. By that, I mean accepting from government only those things society can't do alone. We need to look to ourselves by volunteering, developing local networks for mutual support, shopping and buying local whenever possible, grow as much as we possibility, start our own cottage business if possible, and even barter.

The time has come when we need to circumvent a dying system; to ignore it; to refuse to acknowledge its authority over us. This is the same technique that other passive revolutionaries such as Gandhi used. Gandhi defeated the British Empire at its imperial height by convincing the Indian People to ignore it. After years of violence, the Irish employed similar techniques. Sergey Nechayev, the Russian anarchist, employed these techniques too, shaking the Czarist regime to its core so much so that Nechayev was declared the most dangerous man in all of Imperial Russia (Sergey was even denied his name. After being sentenced, he was henceforth referred to simply as "the prisoner in cell number 5". Nechayev also wrote the treatise, "The Revolutionary Catechism" which has been employed by nearly every group bent on societal change since its publication in 1869 ).

To refuse to accept the dominance of the system is to deny its power, and denying acceptance of this power is to deny its authority. Thus, to deny its authority is perhaps the ultimate act of non-violent revolution an individual can offer, though perhaps the word "revolution" should more properly be rendered as "devolution" since we're talking about return to our collective roots of community through acts of citizen activism.

President Bush Doesn't Speak For Me

I read the following article on Alternet, and found it very interesting. Charles Evers is a long time community activist. He is Black. His brother was murdered by racists. And he is a Republican. Check out his story and find out what it means to be apart the "Big Tent":

President Bush Doesn't Speak For Me
By Rose Aguilar,
AlterNetPosted on July 22, 2005, Printed on July 30, 2005 http://www.alternet.org/story/23600/

In 1963, Charles Evers' older brother, Medgar Evers, was shot and killed by white supremacist Byron De La Beckwith. Beckwith stood trial twice, but in both cases the all-white jury could not reach a verdict. He was finally convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1994, 31 years after the murder. Before his murder, Medgar established local chapters of the NAACP throughout the Mississippi Delta and organized boycotts of businesses that refused to allow blacks to use their restrooms. After an unsuccessful attempt to get into the University of Mississippi Law School, Medgar was appointed as the NAACP's first field secretary in Mississippi.
After his brother's death, Charles Evers took over at the NAACP and began black voter registration drives. Six years later, he was elected mayor of Fayette, Mississippi, the first black to hold elected office in the state since Reconstruction. Evers, who became a Republican during the Nixon years, also served as an advisor to a diverse group of politicians, including Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Reagan.
Today the 82-year-old Evers is the general manager of WMPR, a community radio station in Jackson, Mississippi. He hosts a radio show on Wednesday nights called, "Let's Talk," and is the author of "Have No Fear: The Charles Evers Story." He proudly displays a number of framed photos of himself shaking hands with a wide array of mostly Republican politicians and civil rights leaders in his office.
ROSE AGUILAR: How did you feel about the Killen ruling? [On June 22, Edgar Ray Killen, a former Ku Klux Klan leader, was sentenced to 60 years in prison for orchestrating the murder of black Mississippian James Chaney and white New Yorkers Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner in 1964.]
CHARLES EVERS: I'm elated. I almost shed tears knowing that they convicted an old racist. It's unbelievable. We've begun to get justice. We've begun to put fear into those whites who think they can do anything they want to a black person and get away with it. Now we got white powerful Mississippians who say, no, you can't do that anymore, and I'm proud of that.
I've been talking to a lot of people about politics and it's interesting to talk to young people. I went to the Jubilee Jam the other night and I interviewed a number of young black men who said, blacks vote Democrat. Whites vote Republican. I told them I've met a lot of whites who vote Democrat and they were shocked by that. Then I spoke to young white men and they said the same thing. They also said they have no black friends. Is that a common opinion?
I'm against an all-white anything or an all-black anything. I'm a Republican, by the way. I feel there should be blacks in every Party. I believe in most of the things Republicans stand for.
Like what?
I'm against abortion. I'm for prayer in schools. I'm for economic independence. I don't believe in welfare. I think it's a joke. I believe welfare makes you lazy and unproductive. The only thing I don't agree with is the war. I think the war is wrong. I think the President is wrong on this. The main thing I believe in is freedom. I don't think the Republicans say it as much as Democrats, but I think the Democrats say one thing and do another. Most of them are white.
There are a lot of black Democrats in Congress. Clinton appointed a lot of blacks.
Clinton was our number one President. I loved Clinton; not as a Democrat, but as a person.
Did you vote for Clinton?
No I didn't. I'm a Republican. I voted for my party.
So you're a party-line voter?
Not all the time, but that time I did.
How do you feel about the Senate's apology for failing to make lynching a federal crime? The majority of the people who haven't signed on are Republican.
I ripped them apart on my radio show last night. It hurts me and it hurts every Mississippian and makes us look bad. I meet with them quite often and I'll tell them they're wrong. The least they could have done was say, "I'm sorry."
What was your turning point? Why did you become a Republican?
I have nothing against the Democratic Party. When I became mayor, I had to run as an independent because the Democrats wouldn't allow us to run as a Democrat back in those days. But once we broke the Democrats down and took over the seat, I was a national committee member, went to Chicago and took the Party away from the old Democrats. And what did they do? They ran to the Republican Party. So my thinking was, once we got blacks into the Democratic Party, let's do the same in the Republican Party and make damn sure they don't get away with nothin'.
That's why I'm with the Republican Party. I want to make sure we have blacks who will stand up in each Party and that's me. I don't bow to none of 'em and my folks can trust me. I will never sell out to them. I tell them what they gotta do for our folk and that's to make sure we're included; not superior, but equal.
So you're basically working to change the Republican Party from within rather than criticize it from the outside.
I can do more destructive things inside than I can out there throwing rocks. So I'm in the Republican Party for the same reason I was in the Democratic Party: to make sure blacks are included, along with everyone else. It's not like I jumped parties. I feel like both parties are not what they used to be or should be. I'll tell them when they're wrong. I couldn't do that as a Democrat.
I'm on the executive committee of the Mississippi Republican Party and I will tell Senator Lott that he's wrong for not apologizing for something his great grandparents did to us. Their excuse is, well, we didn't have anything to do with it. The hell you didn't. You didn't personally, but your great grandparents did. You should apologize. I have no problem telling them that and I'm a Republican. I pay my dues so they can't kick me out.
What changes have you made within the Republican Party for blacks specifically?
They got a Republican that's not gonna let them run over blacks and get behind closed doors and pass laws that he's not gonna go out and tell people about. They know that.
How do you feel about the state of the national Republican Party today?
I think President Bush is way out of line and I don't think he speaks for all Republicans. He doesn't speak for me.
I read the article you wrote opposing the war in the Jackson Free Press. There weren't many Republicans who broke ranks over the war at that time. There were very few Democrats who publicly opposed the war at that time.
I have a radio talk show on Wednesday night and that was my whole show. I'm opposed to the war. I let the President know. I let all my Senators and Congressmen know. It's wrong to kill. We had no more right to go to the war against Iraq than I have to go to war against you. Iraq did nothing to us. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11.
Sure 9/11 was bad. Sure they killed thousands of us, but how many have we killed of them? How much suffering have we caused them? Two wrongs don't make a right. We are just as wrong -- and I want to be quoted on that -- for going in and destroying innocent people as they were coming over here on 9/11. 9/11 is no comparison to what we've done over there and how we've destroyed the old world with our bombs and how we spread hate and how we took Saddam. I was totally against that. When we took Saddam's sons and showed them all over the world. It's just like they used to do to us black folks. They hung us from trees and let them take pictures of us. Same damn thing.
Did you have any reservations about voting for Bush, especially given your strong opposition to the war?
It bothers me. I feel like he's not telling the truth. How can he sleep knowing that he just got hundreds of people killed or destroyed everyday? He is responsible for them being killed. He's responsible for destroying all of those beautiful buildings. That was the founding of a civilization. He destroyed them. Come on, Mr. President. How can you sleep? I'd ask him that point blank. Why don't you end this war? I pray all the time. "Lord, please, let our president bring this war to an end." The United States Senate is just as guilty as Bush. They went right along with him and gave him billions to continue the war.
Come on; your gas and my gas is two or three dollars a gallon. We got poor folks, white and black, who need boxes of aspirins. I'm a veteran of two wars: World War II and the Korean War and guess what? If I need a box of aspirin today from the VA, I'd go through hell to get it. The veteran who comes home with no legs and no arms is pushed aside and can't get waited on. It's crazy. No one will say the truth. Democrats or Republicans. Reid speaks out once in a while, but they chop him up right away.
When I interview people, I bring up some of these issues, but they don't seem to care. Essentially, the facts don't matter. Do you encounter that?
Oh yeah. My thing is, I don't give a damn what people think about me or what I say. To hell with what anybody thinks about me. White, black or polka dot. I'm against the war. I'm against killing. I've lost two brothers on some stupid murder by some crazy racist.
How do the Republicans respond to you when you raise these issues?
They don't really respond. They ignore me, but I'll keep saying it and they know they got one darkie that ain't gonna change. And that's me.
What do you think about the Republicans who say, "We're so inclusive now. We have Condoleezza Rice and many high-ranking black officials."
Bullshit. That's bullshit. We're not inclusive. The Republican Party is not inclusive. The Republican Party does not reach out. We're fighting for them to do that. I'll admit that President Bush did appoint Condoleezza Rice. He appointed Powell, but that wasn't enough. What about the local Republicans? Did he go around the country and campaign for blacks who were running for office? No. They're not inclusive. The Democrats aren't either. Don't get me wrong. I'm a Republican and I'm gonna stay a Republican because they need somebody like me to stay in the Party and keep hammering away.
You feel like you have your issues and priorities and you want to bring them to the Party. Do you ever get a response?
They won't listen to me. Others feel the same way but won't say it. What are you afraid of? I'd rather be dead and in heaven than afraid to do what I think is right. This war is wrong and I'm not afraid to say it. See the picture of me with Bush? His dad and I were very close. I don't think his father wanted him to go to war. The problem is, the Republican Party hasn't done anything to make this country better and I speak as a Republican. I think they're creating so much division among the country. Any time the country is split 50/50, the leader is wrong. What about the other 50 percent? We need a change. I hope the next president unifies the country.
How did you feel about the 2004 election and all the mudslinging? It was pretty ugly.
First of all, I knew that a Democrat was not going to win. I knew that. You know why? This is a racist country. Anybody who runs for president in this country and comes out as strong as the Democrats were about helping the poor folks and black folks is not going to win. It's that simple. Not in America. Two people will never be President in my lifetime. A woman and a black. They can run Mrs. Clinton if they want to. She'll be beaten. America is still a bigoted country. Mark my words. I guarantee I won't live to see it. I would love to, but it won't happen. I told Colin Powell, don't you be a fool. You want to be embarrassed? Run.
Don't you think a black candidate would get a lot more blacks out to vote?
Yeah, but we can't elect a president. If Democrats want to win, talk them into electing a black man for vice president.
Voter turnout is so low all over the country. How do you encourage blacks to vote?
I usually take Medgar and Martin and say, do you care what they fought for? If you don't vote, you show disrespect for them. That's what I say. I don't know if it does any good or not. The least I can do is show Medgar I still care. And Martin. They all were my friends and we all fought for the same thing. Some of the youngsters say, "My vote doesn't count." If your vote doesn't count, how do you think you got where you are? Somebody voted for you.
I came back the other night from Washington and guess what? A young black man flew me back here. He's a pilot on Delta Airlines. We're flying planes. We couldn't even get on a plane forty years ago. When Megdar was killed, I came back from Chicago and couldn't go inside the airport in Jackson, Mississippi. I had to wait outside for my bag. Now we have blacks flying on Delta. We got blacks running airports. We can't forget that. We gotta keep saying that. That's why I hope reporters like you will say that. Show both sides. The negative and the positive.
Today was a historical thing. Can you imagine? A white judge born in Neshoba county gave another white man 60 years for killing a black and two whites. Can you believe that? They'll say a little bit about it. Then it's all over. Now if you came in here and shot me, oh god, every damn press in the country would be here. White woman shoots black man! NBC. CBS. CNN. All of 'em. You couldn't get rid of 'em, 'cause it involves some nigger.
In terms of the media, a lot conservative radio shows have been talking about Senator Byrd and his beginnings with the KKK. How do you feel about that?
That was the thing to do then. I'm not justifying it, don't get me wrong, but that was the popular thing to do to get what you wanted. In order to get elected, you had to talk about niggers. If you vote for Charles Evers, he goin' take your daughter and marry her. We gotta forgive white people, but never forget.
What other issues are important to you? What have Republicans done well in the past four years?
Have they done anything? Our gasoline is three times what it was a few years ago. Unemployment is about four times what it was a few years ago. Hatred is getting worse for both blacks and whites. The Christians are trying to take over everything. We have a mess going and we need to straighten up our act.
One of the major differences between the Republicans and the Democrats I've met is this: Republicans emphasize personal responsibility. They say, "We don't like social programs. Everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps." Democrats say people need help.
I partially agree with that. Partially. Give us a chance to pull ourselves up. I don't like a lot of social programs either because it makes you non-productive. Speaking as a black person, welfare is the worst thing that's ever happened to us. My dad always told us, and I'll never forget this, before I get commodities, I'll kill all of you and then kill myself. I was totally against them giving me commodities like meal, sugar and flour. I always want to be able to work and take care of y'all. That's my job. I don't want you ever asking me about welfare. Welfare makes you dependent upon someone to take care of you. Republicans say, "No, we're not giving you nothin'." I like that. My problem is, don't block me. Republicans say, "Go do it yourself," and I say, "Give me a chance to do it for myself."
That's the main point, right? Go to any poor neighborhood, black or white. You'll find old books, run-down buildings, and teachers who have to buy their own school supplies. So at that point, where's the hope? Especially if someone comes from a broken family that's not emotionally available.
My whole thing is if Bush wants to leave no child behind, then prove it. What you're afraid to do Mr. Bush, is to go to the poorest neighborhoods in all the states and find out what district needs the most. And don't worry about the affluent neighborhood. We need to bring up those communities that need it the most. It ain't gotta be black folks. There are a lot of poor white folks now.
Why is it that people tend to not identify with those basic economic interests? They identify with conservative social issues like gay marriage and abortion, but not issues like education and poverty.
They're not popular issues. We need to take responsibility and educate people. That's why black folks don't like me. I always say it's our responsibility to make safe neighborhoods. It's our job to get them cleaned up.
I notice one of the few Democrats on your wall is Robert F. Kennedy.
I was with Bobby the night he was killed. If any Kennedy ran for president, I'd vote for him. The Kennedy's and the Rockefeller's, before anybody else gave a damn about black folks, they did what they could. I took Bobby Kennedy through the delta and he cried like a baby. He said, I didn't know anybody could live like this. He said he just didn't know any colored folks. We were colored back then. He just didn't know.
After having this conversation with you, it's clear that you're a Republican to change the Party from within, but the media makes you sound like you're a hardcore black loyal Republican from Mississippi.
They don't know a thing about me. I am a black Republican by choice and I do it to make sure the Republicans straighten up.
But that should be included in the story.
They won't do that. Go down to the Republican headquarters. They ain't got a single black working there. Not one. I've been giving them hell about that. I gotta keep hammering away. I'm on the executive committee and I keep repeating, "What about a black? It's getting pretty lonely here with all you white folks. I'm the only darkie here." I can say darkie and I can say nigger. I can say what I want about my own folks. And they look at me real funny. They whisper, "Charles you're right." And I say, "Tell the chairman that."
Sounds like you enjoy the challenge.
I love the life I live. The Lord blessed me to be independent. I am independent.
Rose Aguilar is a San Francisco-based journalist gathering stories from people living in states that voted overwhelmingly for George W. Bush. Track her journey at Stories in America.
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/23600/