Tuesday, March 19, 2024

#79 / We're Afraid Of What?




Christopher Bader, pictured, is a professor of sociology at Chapman University. According to a biography online at Amazon.com, Bader "specializes in ... deviant behavior." Among other things! Click that link to Bader's name to learn more.

On January 30, 2024, Bader was featured in a New York Times' "Conversation" that focused on the following pertinent question: "What Are We So Afraid Of?"

Well, of course, if we are honest, we surely each know, from our personal experience, that we are afraid of a lot of things! While I am partial, myself, to that good advice coming from the Bible, which quotes Jesus' direction to "Fear Not," I think that I, like most of us, still continue to be afraid. 

According to Bader (he's a specialist), the thing that Americans are most afraid of, right now, is: 

GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION

I was pretty surprised by this. What about nuclear war; or worldwide pandemics; or droughts; or earthquakes; or floods; or shool shooters; or auto theft...? What about a windstorm dropping a big tree right on top of your house? Well, the list goes on, just to prove my earlier point. We are afraid of lots of things. "Government corruption," however, appears to be the thing that Americans are most afraid of, right now, at least according to Bader. He says that "sixty percent of Americans are afraid of corrupt government officials."

I think it would be worthwhile for us to analyze why this might be so. The things that I tend to be most afraid of are things over which I have very little, if any, control (there is a partial list in the paragraph just above). Maybe I am unusual, but I kind of doubt it. If others are like me, and tend to be afraid, mostly, of things over which they have no control (again, check that partial list of my real fears, as presented above), then Bader's research indicates that Americans believe that they have little or no control over their government. 

Actually, now that I think about it, that isn't so surprising. We are supposed to have "self-government," but people, more and more, tend to think that they are subject to the government, rather than the government being subject to them. They tend to "observe" government, and what it does, rather than "direct" government to do what the people want. For many of us, "government" goes into the category of things over which we have very little, or no control.

Those who feel this way are, I would argue, being seduced by a misapprehension. I frequently urge us to remember that our government only works when it is "of, by, and for" the people, and making sure our government is "by" the people is the most important thing. That means that we each should be engaging with politics and government all the time. If we did, we'd be working on the issues and concerns that now we're just afraid of. 

So, where government is concerned, "Fear Not." 

Engage!

Monday, March 18, 2024

#78 / One More Acronym - EWD

 


Back in January, I tried to poke a little fun at the "richest person in the world," Elon Musk. Musk was very much bothered by what he identified as WMV, or "Woke Mind Virus." You can click the link I have provided if you'd like to revisit my blog post.

Since the time I published my reaction to Musk's campaign against WMV, I have learned about another acronym. The acronym is, as follows: EWD. I think Musk is almost certainly infected - or more properly phrased, is almost certainly a "carrier," and is infecting others. EWD, translated from its acronym form, means "Excessive Wealth Disorder." 

Most people who will read this blog posting are affected by EWD, and as it turns out, efforts are being made to respond. 

If you'd like to get more information, contact the Excessive Wealth Disorder Institute!




And don't let anyone tell you that "everything will be alright." EWD can kill! Prompt treatment is required.


Sunday, March 17, 2024

#77 / A Mighty Oak




The website where I found the picture above identifies the oak tree it commemorates as "Nature's Greatest Survivor." I have been thinking about oak trees quite a bit! 

Why is that? Well, this is partly due to the fact that I see oak trees not unlike the one pictured above as I walk through Arana Gulch - which I do quite frequently. Additionally, that Holly Near song I wrote about on January 7th has stuck with me. I started that January 7th blog posting with this verse of her song:
 
I am open and I am willing
To be hopeless would seem so strange
It dishonors those who go before us
So lift me up to the light of change

Near's song ends with the following, which is where she references "a mighty oak."

Give me a mighty oak to hold my confusion
Give me a desert to hold my fears
Give me a sunset to hold my wonder
Give me an ocean to hold my tears

Even more than Near's song, though, and even more than my actual communion with the oak trees I encounter on my walks, I have been thinking about oak trees because a wonderful reference to oak trees suddenly appeared during my recent birthday celebration. My last birthday, you may remember, if you have been "singing along" with my daily blog postings, was one of those "big" ones. 

My daughter, in a perfect response to this "big birthday," denoting a daunting eighty years of life, discovered a poem about oak trees, and read it to me before I blew out the candles. The author of the poem was a singer, whom some have said was a link between Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley. I had never heard of him. Click this link if you'd like to see what Johnny Ray Ryder, Jr. was doing as a popular singer. The poem, below, is what has got me thinking about oak trees. 

You don't have to be eighty to appreciate the truth of what this poem tells us: 

Johnny Ray Ryder Jr.

A mighty wind blew night and day.

It stole the Oak Tree’s leaves away.

Then snapped its boughs

and pulled its bark

until the Oak was tired and stark.

But still the Oak Tree held its ground

while other trees fell all around.

The weary wind gave up and spoke,

How can you still be standing Oak?”

The Oak Tree said, I know that you

can break each branch of mine in two,

carry every leaf away,

shake my limbs and make me sway.

But I have roots stretched in the earth,

growing stronger since my birth.

You’ll never touch them, for you see

they are the deepest part of me.

Until today, I wasn’t sure

of just how much I could endure.

But now I’ve found with thanks to you,

I’m stronger than I ever knew.



Saturday, March 16, 2024

#76 / Cruel And Unusual

 


The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution - one of the ten statements that comprise our "Bill of Rights" - is pretty clear. There is not a lot of excess verbiage: 

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

A little over a year ago, the United Nations passed a resolution urging a moratorium on any future executions, worldwide. The United States joined with North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Iran in voting against that resolution. 

The execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith, on Saturday, January 27, 2024, which took place in Alabama, was, objectively speaking, "unusual." There were only twenty-four death penalty executions in the United States last year. The execution of Smith was also, as an Associated Press news report makes clear, "cruel." 

Marshall, the attorney general, gave prison officials the OK to begin the execution at 7:56 p.m. That was the final confirmation from his office that there were no court orders preventing it from going forward. 
A corrections officer in the chamber approached Smith and checked the side of the mask. 
The Rev. Jeff Hood, Smith’s spiritual advisor took a few steps toward Smith, touched him on the leg and they appeared to pray. 
The Department of Corrections had required Hood to sign a waiver agreeing to stay 3 feet (0.9 meters) away from Smith’s gas mask in case the hose supplying the nitrogen came loose. 
Smith began to shake and writhe violently, in thrashing spasms and seizure-like movements, at about 7:58 p.m. The force of his movements caused the gurney to visibly move at least once. Smith’s arms pulled against the straps holding him to the gurney. He lifted his head off the gurney and then fell back. 
The shaking went on for at least two minutes. Hood repeatedly made the sign of the cross toward Smith. Smith’s wife, who was watching, cried out. 
Smith began to take a series of deep gasping breaths, his chest rising noticeably. His breathing was no longer visible at about 8:08 p.m. The corrections officer who had checked the mask before walked over to Smith and looked at him. 
The curtains were closed to the viewing room at about 8:15.

I think it can be pretty helpful to remember those Bible verses we might have heard in the past - or even those we might be encountering in the present. There are those who believe that what the Bible says is even more important than what the Constitution says - and whether this is someone's personal opinion, or not - many people are familiar with Romans 12:19

 Vengeance Is Mine, Saith The Lord

That line from the Bible does not mean that the Lord wants vengeance, when people do bad things, and that we get a gold star or two when we wreak vengeance ourselves, feeling ourselves quite righteous as we do that. Romans 12:19 means just the opposite. Human vengeance is neither called for nor desired. Let the Lord take care of that. No need for any human intervention. 

Whether you are a Bible-reader, or someone who might more likely look to the Constitution as a guide to what we should do, let's admit that the picture at the very top of this blog posting outlines the policy we should be following. My apologies to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea for dragging them into a commentary based on provisions in the United States Constitution. The Constitution does not, of course, apply to them. They, too, however, in being associated with the United States of America in voting at the United Nations to perpetuate the death penalty, are on the wrong side.

If you'd like to sign a petition urging an end to the use of nitrogen asphyxiation as a way to put prisoners to death, click right here. If you'd like to know which state executes the most people, it's not Alabama. It's Texas.

Friday, March 15, 2024

#75 / An Academy Of Civic Heroes




The 96th Annual Academy Awards ceremonies are now over. The Oscars have been distributed, and comments recorded. I didn't watch the ceremonies, but I did read all about them, and all that reading reminded me of a bulletin that I had received from Ralph Nader, back in January. I have pasted Nader's bulletin into this blog posting, right at the end. 

What about a set of annual awards for "Civic Heroes"? That is an idea that Nader is putting out for discussion, and is sounds pretty good to me, at least conceptually. 

We spend a lot of time entertaining ourselves (including by watching the Academy Awards ceremonies). In fact, if we got the idea that it would be valuable to do so, we could redirect our energies from self-entertainment to self-government, making our government work, including right in our local communities. Nader is right. That could be heroic work!

So, just a thought. Keep reading to see what Ralph Nader is suggesting.

oooOOOooo

What If Our Society Valued Civics As Much As It Does Entertainment?

A teacher once said to me: “A society pays for what it values.” If so, our society values commercial entertainment, including spectator sports, orders of magnitude more than it values civics defined as the rights and duties exercised by citizens in a democracy.

What if we lived in a society that valued both equally?

1. Possibly the most visible event would be an annual Academy of Civic Heroes Awards viewed by tens of millions of people. The glitter would shine not on the winner’s wardrobes, but on their victories of justice and on their groundbreaking documentaries, books and features. The acceptance remarks would not be gushing flurries of thank yous, but concise evocations of their hard-earned struggles for, and portrayals of, a just society.

2. The school curriculum in our elementary, secondary and higher education institutions would provide academic parity for civics and civic skills with courses on business and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

3. The media would provide significant space and time for citizen activities as they do for sports and the arts/movies. Presently the New York Times has a daily special Arts Section but not a special civic activity section. You know how much space is devoted to sports in the Times. Even NPR and PBS networks are heavy on entertainment and hardly feature any civic leaders or doers, whether to interview (they prefer to interview themselves or academics) or to report local or national civic actions.

4. Celebrities attract audiences and supporters. The media creates entertainment and sports celebrities. Except for a few years in the 1960s and 1970s, the media rarely highlights emerging civic leaders’ or their proven achievements. Therefore, these priceless advocates have difficulty attracting audiences or supporters.

5. We would celebrate anniversaries, in a broader fashion, beyond those remembering wars or other major acts of violence, natural disasters or revered presidents. Apart from the holiday in honor of citizen Martin Luther King Jr., little is formally remembered of the citizen leaders who built the edifices of justice for our country—for instance in the abolition of slavery, voting rights for women, and livelihoods and dignity rights for workers and farmers. Sure, they are sometimes mentioned in textbooks without much context or drama—but how many national civic leaders do you know in America today? They’re not covered on the degraded television/radio evening news.

6. The number of civic lobbyists would far outnumber those pressing for corporate privileges. Instead, companies from the drug, oil & gas and Silicon Valley businesses swarm over Capitol Hill with their promises of campaign money.

7. Parity would mean that big radio stations like WTOP in Washington, D.C. (news, weather and sports) could devote time to local civic activities as it does by giving free advertisements to opening businesses or movies. Business and entertainment have their slots by the hour or day while civic conferences and marches (as with ‘Poor People’s Campaign’) are regularly ignored.

As is routine with these stations, WTOP declined to mention or report the most expansive convention in American history of civic leaders, doers and thinkers over six days at the Constitution Hall in 2016. None of the 161 stalwart presenters, except Patti Smith, were athletes or entertainers.

8. Just as there is regular data on the number of engineers, scientists, accountants and others, there would be data on how many full-time citizens there are and how many are graduating with a major in “civil practice” (which does not exist, with very few exceptions).

9. Just as famous athletes’ and other entertainers’ clothing, equipment and autographs are selling for big money in the collectibles market, societal parity would have similar markets for citizen advocacy memorabilia which could help raise needed funds.

10 Parity of fund-raising or investment would mean hundreds of billions of dollars raised to fund tens of thousands of full-time civic groups—local, state and national—having a seat at the table where important decisions are now being made unilaterally, often in secret, by the few for the many. Civic society monies would pay for democracy’s own media—TV, radio/newspapers, magazines, and social media, owned and used by the people, not beholden to commercial advertisers.

There would be legions of knowledgeable full-time civic communicators and advocates taking knowledge to action that addresses the many serious perils—some rising to Omnicidal levels (see my January 12, 2024 column: Five Omnicides Facing Our Unprepared World)—that are now worsening and being ignored by a plutocratic/oligarchic corporate state.

As they do now for Wall Street and Silicon Valley riches, the young would rush to strengthen and lift up the structures of justice—“Justice is the great interest of man on earth” as Daniel Webster asserted. Regular civic engagement makes a democracy function productively and presciently for its citizenry and its posterity. Markets would be our servants, not our masters.

Alas, growing up corporate conditioned by the omnipresent values of aggressive commercialism over civic/democratic values is the lot of people indentured to choiceless lives shaped by merciless corporatism.

As corporations are increasingly raising our screen-addicted children by harmful direct marketing undermining parental authority and knowledge day after day, more and more people, regardless of their political labels, are realizing that this can no longer be tolerated. The people of good will and the tools of democratic transformation are available or attainable but mostly latent in our existing civic institutions.



Thursday, March 14, 2024

#74 / Answering An Important Question

 


For a long time, I have had a kind of "mess" in my home office, primarily consisting of piles of books that I have not read, or perhaps, to be a little more accurate, books that I have not finished reading. 

My "mess," partly pictured below, is a testimony to my unfulfilled good intentions. I am happy to report, though, that I have actually been making some progress. For instance, a blog posting soon to be published was based on a book that I found extremely interesting, The Darkest Year. That is a book that I began to read way back in August 2023, when I was in Minnesota, but which I more recently pulled out of that pictured pile, and just finished reading in early January. 


Out of that pile has also come a now somewhat faded section of The New York Times, dated July 5, 2020. Archeologists would probably find this date quite helpful in getting some idea of how long it has taken for me to accumulate the piles shown. This special section from that long-ago edition of The Times is titled, "The Economy We Need," and I unearthed it in one of the strata near the "top," not the "bottom," of the pile displayed above. 

The first page of that special section not only presents the image I have reproduced at the top of this blog posting; it also provides the following explanation of what is inside that special section of The Times

How to save democracy from capitalism and save capitalism from itself

I undoubtedly set this section of The Times aside because I think that both of the objectives highlighted by The Times need to be pursued. The articles that comprise this section of the newspaper are listed and linked below, which does not mean that anyone reading this blog will, automatically, be able to read them, just by clicking on one of the links. I have no certain insight into how The Times manages its paywall, but non-subscribers may be shut out. Subscribers, certainly, should be able to see what The Times has to say, but even non-subscribers can probably get a pretty good idea of what is being suggested, just from reading the titles themselves: 


The overriding theme of these articles is clear. The Times is telling us that income inequality is causing most of the problems, coupled with continuing racial and gender discrimination. The solutions proposed include "taxing the rich," having the bosses "share their profits," and making sure that everyone with a job gets health care, paid for by the employers. As you can guess, "the rich" are not favorably inclined to implement these solutions, and The Times addresses that fact directly, in the article titled, "Why do the rich have so much power?"

Why the rich have so much power is a pretty important question, and I want to suggest an answer. 

The rich have so much power because the rest of us don't use our own.

Wednesday, March 13, 2024

#73 / Billionaire Cage Match? Shuffle The Cards!

 


Some may remember that there was, last year - once upon a time - the thought that Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk would square off in an actual, real life "cage match." It came to nothing, unfortunately. Ah, well! 

I was reminded of this episode by Evan Osnos' excellent article in the January 29, 2024, edition of The New Yorker, because Osnos mentioned it. Osnos' article was titled, "Ruling-Class Rules." That is the hardcopy version. Online, where that link, above, will take you, the article's title is perhaps a bit clearer. Online, the title is, "Rules For The Ruling Class." 

Osnos' article is definitely worth reading, if you are at all interested in searching out how best to understand and/or navigate our current political situation. Osnos cites to a book by Peter Turchin, an emeritus professor at the University of Connecticut. Turchin calls our times an "age of intraelite conflict," and suggests that politics, in the end, is mostly about how elites scramble, among themselves, for political, social, and economic dominance. Turchin's book is titled, End Times, Elites, Counter-Elites and the Path of Political Disintegration." 

"Political disintegration" just about sums it up, and captures our moment, don't you think? One of the personalities that figures prominently in what Osnos has to say - an exemplar of "political disintegration" - is the former Fox News personality, Tucker Carlson. Carlson is, according to Osnos' reckoning, essentially a "failure" among elites scrambling for success and prominence. Prime example? He lost his position at Fox. Now, apparently, Carlson is a serious contender to become a candidate for Vice President on the Donald J. Trump Fascist/Oligarch ticket. Osnos, however, is not really spooked. Here is how he ends his article: 

Carlson is not just overlooking his history of falling short; he is trying to rebrand it as righteousness. In his broadcasts, first on Fox and now on X, he specializes in giving voice to fellow frustrated Ă©lite aspirants: former general Michael Flynn, former Representative Tulsi Gabbard, and, of course, former President Trump, the last of whom is toying with naming Carlson as his running mate. (“I would, because he’s got great common sense,” he said in November.)

Together, these counter-Ă©lites conjure a pervasive conspiracy—of immigrants, experts, journalists, and the F.B.I. It’s a narrative of vengeful self-pity, a pining for the wonderful times gone by. Carlson’s old friends in the ruling class occasionally wonder how much of his shtick he really believes, and how much he simply grieves for having lost the game of musical chairs to faster, shrewder, more capable Ă©lites. The latter, at least, would make his desperation understandable: he is being replaced.

That's what I like about Osnos' article - and about his analysis. As he tells the story, the United States has dealt, before, with the kind of politics we are currently facing. And what happened? The elites got shuffled off the stage. They got replaced. It was called "The New Deal." 

I think it's time. What do you think? Time to shuffle the cards!



Tuesday, March 12, 2024

#72 / Renewing Our Revolution - An Invocation

  


Thinking about "renewing our revolution," as I frequently do, has led me to thinking about the task of "Invocation," the calling forth of new efforts and attempts to change the world. Leonard Cohen, it struck me, has already sounded that call, as I noted in one of my blog postings a little while ago:

Ring the bells
That still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in
     Leonard Cohen, Anthem

Cohen's "Anthem" contains this observation: “There is a crack, a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in.” These are the lines that bring a huge roar from the crowd, as Coehn introduces the song. These are the lines that are first remembered - those powerful lines that acknowledge the imperfections in the world in which we live, and that remind us (once again) that we live in a flawed and fatal world - and that while its flaws are manifest, we are actually called upon to celebrate that fact. It is true, no matter what might tempt us to a different thought, that it is a blessing to be alive. The very flaws in all we know are exactly how the light gets in.

But let us listen to some other lines, as well. As I listen to Cohen sing this song, this “Anthem,” here are the lines that capture me, the lines that I hope will capture us all:

Ring the bells
That still can ring
Forget Your perfect offering
The line that tells us that there is "a crack in everything" makes an observation. It is an accurate observation,  an observation that is powerfully true. But the lines about ringing the bells call out a command. More than an observation, those lines tell us what we must do. Those are the lines that can serve as an Invocation, the lines that call us to action in a time of crisis.

We need to stop delaying our action, until we can act with perfection. We are called, always and forever, to ring the bells we can. Whatever we can do, that is what we are commanded to do – to try to do. However hopeless it might seem. However “imperfect” our actions might be. 

Those bells - the bells that we can ring.... Whatever bells those are, it is our job to ring them!

Now.

oooOOOooo

Monday, March 11, 2024

#71 / Is You Is Or Is You Ain't My Baby?




I am not really sure I ever heard that song before right now: "Is You Is Or Is You Ain't My Baby?" Somehow, though, that song has just come to mind. It may be, at some deep level, down where the music penetrates, I am pondering the results of our local elections, here in Santa Cruz County, and especially in the City of Santa Cruz. It may also be that I am worrying myself ahead, about the national elections still to come, in November of this year. 

If you want to review the lyrics, you can see them printed out, below, and if you click on that link to the title, above, or hit that arrow in the image at the top of this blog posting, you can listen to  Louis Jordan sing the song. 

I find, from Wikipedia, that "Is You Is Or Is You Ain't My Baby?" was first recorded in 1943, a couple of months before I was even born. It is not impossible that my parents may have been singing that song around my crib. Somehow, the words of the title, in particular, have stuck with me, right from the start: "Is you is, or is you ain't," my baby?" 

Why would those lyrics come to mind right now, I ask myself - right out of nowhere, too. 

Well, in politics, just as in love, nothing can be taken for granted. As I review the lyrics, it strikes me that while the singer feels that love might be slipping away, and that the singer's "baby" might be tending to the "Ain't" side, the remedy isn't just to wait around, to get the answer to the question that is now preoccupying the singer's mind. 

In the song, it seems, the answer to the question may well depend on what the singer does. That's the way I'm reading it. At the very least, the singer is going to pursue that question directly. The singer is going to track down and confront the singer's beloved. 

That sounds like good advice to me.

In both politics and love, you're not going to get the answer you want by staying home and waiting for a message. You had better move your bones and press your fate from door to door and gate to gate!

oooOOOooo

Is You or Is You Ain't My Baby
Song by Louis Jordan and His Tympany Five

I gotta a girl who's always late
Anytime we have a date
But I love her
Yes I love her
I'm gonna walk up to her gate
And see if I can get it straight
'Cause I want her
I'm gonna ask her
Is you is, or is you ain't, my baby
The way you're acting lately makes me doubt
You is still my baby, baby
Seems my flame in your heart's done gone out
A woman is a creature
That has always been strange
Just when you're sure of one you find
She's gone and made a change
Is you is, or is you ain't my baby
Maybe baby's found somebody new
Or is my baby still my baby true

https://youtu.be/m7M4thNT_EY?si=evJBsbLneL43COL0
 

Sunday, March 10, 2024

#70 / Notes From A Train Ride




Many years back, I took a train ride. Recently, I came across some notes I made. These notes were intended, I suppose, to prove to some future self that I really did take that train ride, and to remind me what I was thinking, way back then. 

Here is what I wrote: 

Green fields flash by. I see some cows. Woodlots and the river disappear behind. The train rocks. I look at the country. We are moving fast. 
Too fast. 
When the smokestacks and the dirty junk piles start showing in the window, I know this trip will be ending soon. I feel like I slept through most of it. 
But I am awake now. Maybe I should write down what I know. 
I am pretty sure I know some things. 

Saturday, March 9, 2024

#69 / When Ordinary Citizens Engage



I am always pleased when columnists for the "mainstream media" say the exact same things that I am saying right here, in this daily blog. Just to be clear, the "mainstream media" will cost you money. You can get my thoughts for free.

I am doubtful that The Washington Post is going to let non-subscribers read a December 21, 2023, column by Dan Balz, which was titled, "American democracy is cracking." Still, I encourage non-subscribers to give that link a click, just to see how strongly The Post's paywall protections will operate to keep you away from what The Post has published. I do think that what Balz has to say is worth reading. He advances a number of specific suggestions for reform in the way our politics works, and they are all worth thinking about. 

The basic message that Balz sends, though, which came to me in an email alert, last Christmas, is pretty simple. Here it is, as encapsulated in that email alert, which popped into my email inbox on Christmas last year. That email bulletin, which has a link to Balz' column, says this: 

The problems with the U.S. political system can, at times, feel overwhelming and intractable. But solutions can become reality when ordinary citizens engage.

As far as I am concerned, the four key words are these: "when ordinary citizens engage." 

The Balz column tells the story of how Katie Fahey, a young woman with very little political experience, led a successful grassroots campaign to ban partisan gerrymandering in Michigan:

On the morning of Nov. 10, 2016, Katie Fahey posted a short message on her Facebook page. It read: “I’d like to take on gerrymandering in Michigan, if you’re interested in doing this as well, please let me know.” She ended it with a smiley face emoji. 
Fahey was then 27 years old, with little experience in politics. Her message was born of general frustration that the system wasn’t working for most people, including her. She thought that gerrymandering — the manipulation of legislative and congressional districts for political gain — was a major contributor to the problem of lack of representation. 
Fahey wasn’t by any stretch a social media influencer, but by lunchtime, she realized she had struck a nerve. Many people “liked” the posting, others responded with comments, still others sent her personal messages asking how to help. To that question, she had no answer. “Oh, crap,” she thought to herself. And then she Googled, “How do you end gerrymandering?” 
Today, because of the grass-roots campaign that Fahey launched, Michigan’s district lines are drawn by an independent commission of citizens. 
As an example of the power of an individual to change the system, the movement started by Fahey’s Facebook post stands out at a time when so many Americans distrust politicians and political institutions, feel their voices are not heard and are angry at one another.

Huge, postive changes to our political and economic system are actually possible. But if we are waiting for someone else to repair and replace our currently non-functional system, we will be waiting a long time. Candidly, we can't really wait! 

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote a whole book about what happens when people start understanding that if they "can't wait," then they have to stop waiting. 



Can we wait? If we can't (I don't think we can), then when are we going to stop waiting?

When ordinary citizens engage!



Friday, March 8, 2024

#68 / Fighting For The Very Soul Of The World

 


The "Letters Live" website (just click that link) describes itself as follows: 

Welcome to Letters Live: A celebration of the enduring power of literary correspondence. We organise live events where remarkable letters are read by a diverse array of outstanding performers.

My invitation, today, is for you to click the link to the YouTube video found right at the top of this blog posting (or click right here). If you do, you will hear Stephen Fry read Nick Cave's letter about ChatGPT and human creativity. The reading takes about five minutes.

Fry is an English actor, broadcaster, comedian, director, narrator and writer. Cave is an Australian musician, writer and actor, known for his baritone voice and for fronting the rock band Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds,

Cave contends that Artificial Intelligence puts us in peril of losing the very "soul of the world."

He uses Biblical arguments. 

I think he's right!

 
Image Credit:

Thursday, March 7, 2024

#67 / Advice From Joe Hill




I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
Alive as you or me
Says I, "But Joe, you're ten years dead,"
"I never died," says he
"I never died," says he

Yesterday, I was quoting Naomi Klein, who advised us that words are not enough. We have to organize, she said. I know she's right. I have said it before, not so long ago.

"Don't mourn, organize" is an expression abridged from a statement by labor activist and songwriter Joe Hill. Hill wrote the full statement in a telegram he sent to Bill Haywood: "Goodbye, Bill, I die like a true blue rebel. Don't waste any time mourning. Organize!"

You can see the full lyrics for a song about Joe Hill - "I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night" -  by clicking that link. I put one verse at the top of this blog posting. The song is based on a poem by Alfred Hayes, put to music by Earl Robinson. You can listen to Joan Baez sing the song at the 1969 Woodstock Folk Music Festival by clicking that link below. 


Self-government, should we care to keep it around, does require that we put a premium on that word that Naomi Klein highlighted in the newspaper interview I wrote about yesterday. Joe Hill - a lot earlier than that - put his finger on it, too. No use feeling sorry for ourselves. We know what we need to do!

ORGANIZE

 
Image Credit:

Wednesday, March 6, 2024

#66 / I Still Believe In Words




I still believe in words—I wouldn’t be writing books if I didn’t.... But I don’t think that what we need to do we can just do with words. I think we organize in our communities and we try to live our principles, including treating one another better.

That is Naomi Klein, pictured. Klein has published a book called Doppelgänger. The quotation is from Klein, but not from that book. It is from a New Yorker interview by Jia Tolentino, published in September of last year. In the interview, Klein describes herself as "an avatar of steadfastness and resolve for the left."

I am not exactly what I'd call an "avatar of the left," but I do think of myself as a spokesperson for what I am more comfortable calling the progressive politics of "self-government." I, too, "still believe in words." 

What Klein has said, though, is right on target. "Words" aren't enough. Words are "necessary," but they are not "sufficient." 

Awhile back, I used one of these blog postings to say that we needed to find some way to "operationalize" our thoughts about what we need to do. Words might well state some political truth, but words by themselves are not enough. "Doing" something, not just "talking about it," is what is required. Klein has rightly stated, I think, that what we need to do, beyond words alone, is to "organize in our communities." 

Writing words is something we can do (and that we usually do) by ourselves - individually. "Organizing" is something we do with others. And... when we "organize," we do it where we are. Not online. Not in the "Metaverse." We organize with others in our local communities. 

I agree with Klein. I still believe in words, but words won't be enough. We do need more than words. Klein, however, has provided us with a helpful word. This is a word we need to hear: 

Organize



Tuesday, March 5, 2024

#65 / A "Serious" Response To Dark Winter Days




The Atlantic thinks that we have been experiencing some rather "dark times," politically speaking, and that things aren't necessarily going to warm up, and get any better, now that Spring is coming our way. The title of a recent article in The Atlantic, by Tom Nichols, was titled, "Democracy's Dark Winter." Here is something that Nichols said in that article:

The cruelty and vulgarization of American politics continue apace. President Joe Biden went to Texas and invited Trump to join him in pressing for a bipartisan border-security bill. Trump, for his part, referred to California Governor Gavin Newsom as “New-Scum.” He did this at a campaign event while a two-star general in uniform—the head of the Texas National Guard—flanked him on camera, in yet another departure from U.S. civil-military traditions. And the Border Patrol union, which represents sworn officers who work for the United States of America, posted on X that President Biden should “keep our name out of your mouth today.” 

The U.S. was once a serious country, home to a serious people, and it is still a nation in which millions take seriously their responsibilities as voters and citizens. But it is also now, apparently, a place where some Americans who wear badges and carry weapons in the service of the national government feel free to engage in childish snarking at the commander in chief on social media.

It is easy to get discouraged as we observe our contemporary politics. Nichols' observations, which I do think are discouraging, aren't wrong (at least not the way I see it). However, I think that we all (or most of us, anyway) spend way too much time "observing," and "making observations," or listening to those who do. That is a good way to get discouraged. 

What we really need to do is to take some action ourselves - and I do mean to say that this should include every one of us, individually. If we are concerned about something that is going wrong, or about something that should be done, and isn't getting done, that's when we should start thinking about taking action. If any one of us finds ourselves in that situation, then such a person needs to get personally engaged in taking some action that the person believes might help. Gary, Alice, John, and Joe. Everyone. Those who want to be "serious" about what needs to be done need to do something, and to take action, and not just observe and comment. "Serious" people take action; they don't just talk about it. 

This is, of course, relatively easy to say, but what does that actually mean? 

Here's what I think it means. Anyone who has observed what's going on, and doesn't like it, should NOT think that their best and most appropriate course of action is to get on social media and to tell everyone in the world how bad things are. If we are "serious," we need to get together with some friends, try to develop a common understanding of what is wrong, and then figure out, within the group, one or two things we could do that might actually change what we have decided needs to be changed. Then, of course, we need to do those things!

Locally, a group of Santa Cruz City residents recently came together and did exactly what I just outlined, in reaction to what they thought was a bad land use planning system in the City of Santa Cruz, leading to lots of "tall" buildings that were inappropriate. Measure M, the initiative that was placed on the March 5th City ballot, was the result of the action of that small group. 

On the UCSC campus, facing the existential challenge of global warming, students, faculty, staff and others have formed a Climate Action Now group that is working to change UCSC and the entire UC system, to get the University to start taking actions that are possible, and that will cut back greenhouse gas emissions on an accelerated timeline. 

There are a lot of other problems that people care about, too. If you are reading this, I am pretty sure you have a list of your own. If I am right about that, then think about getting "serious," which means doing something about one or more of things you care about.

If a group of people get together, and then really do get "serious," then everyone in the group will need to pledge to everyone else in the group that they will actually do what they have jointly decided they think is necessary to make the changes needed. 

We do have a "precedent" and a "model." There were some "serious" Americans, once, who went through the process I just described. Here is how they put their pledge, after outlining what they had decided needed to be done, and after they had told the world they were going to try to do it:

We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Click right here if you don't recognize where that pledge comes from. That pledge - which was made at the very moment that the history of the United States began - proves that the U.S. was once a "serious country," as Tom Nichols put it in his article in The Atlantic

Let's get serious again!