Against the background of historic and global violence, the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords by Jared Lee Loughner, in which 7 other people were killed, including federal judge John M. Roll, is of significance only because it was unexpected and local. The event will probably be remembered as an embarrassment to ultra-conservative Republicans like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and John Boehner, and to the gun lobby. It probably did not involve an organization, just a confused young man acting on impulse.
It is, nevertheless, an occasion to reflect on violence, both political and social. Representative Giffords was a member of the Democratic Party, a war crimes organization, and the U.S. Congress, a war crimes government. Those labels shock most Americans, but they are factual, not rhetorical. War crimes and crimes against humanity are very clearly defined. Both the U.S. government and the Democratic Party (and the Republican Party, too) have long histories of committing war crimes. They are committing war crimes in Afghanistan as I write.
It is the nature of governments to want a monopoly on violence. In a representative democracy, in theory, this violence is then used to achieve public goals. If the United States is considered to be the test case, in reality a fairly small elite sets most of the goals of government and derives the greatest benefit from the (attempted) monopoly on violence.
I don't know much about Gabrielle Giffords' record. Apparently she consistently voted for money for the war against the people of Afghanistan.
Limited political violence says a lot about the American system, in which the elite rule, but in which there are safety valves to allow the ambitious to better themselves by serving, perhaps even becoming, that elite. There are many ostensibly violent political groups in the United States, but they are all small. Today they are mostly ultra-conservative, but as late as the 1980's there were plenty of ultra-leftist, mainly Leninist groups around. It also says a lot about the police-state strategy in America. Free speech is encouraged, people are watched, and confidential informants developed. It is hard to have a radical political group of any size in the U.S. that does not have an FBI agent or confidential informant as a member. So groups get broken up before they can accomplish much. We have seen that with both right-wing militia groups and Islamic groups of late.
Jared Lee Loughner was under the radar. Apparently he read up on things, mostly on the Internet, but acted alone. Representative Giffords was just a convenient target. If bigger fish had been in town, he might have tried for one of them.
Politics without violence is a good goal, but it creates dilemmas. How can the American people stop war crimes by our government when the money of the corporate security state determines the outcomes of almost all federal elections? The American people apparently voted against the Afghan war both in 2006 and 2008, to no avail. In 2010 they turned their attention to the sorry state of the economy, now resigned to the crookedness of the Democratic Party's continued funding of the war.
The Democratic Party was the creation of the ultra-violent General (later President) Andrew Jackson. Jackson was an-equal opportunity maniac who liked to challenge men less skilled with pistols to duels (he killed several), who once had a volunteer child-soldier under his command shot for not obeying an order, who killed native American Indians, whipped slaves, and even profited from staging dog fights and chicken fights. Not everybody in the Democratic Party has been as evil as its founder, but just joining that party, or running for office under its banner, shows a lack of ethical integrity.
Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party richly deserve destruction, but that won't happen by shooting individual elected officials. When it comes to violence, the corporate security state will come out the winner every time. Difficult as it might be, the only non-violent alternative is to win elections with candidates who show they can be elected without the corrupt machinery of the war-crimes political parties.
See also:
A Brief History of the Democratic Party
A Brief History of the Republican Party
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Get Down Moses, With the U.S. Constitution
When the U.S. Constitution was forced on the American people in 1788 religion was not very different than it is today. There were no Mormons yet, but most of the major Christian sects had made an appearance. The educated ruling class studied the Greek and Roman classics, meaning they were exposed to both pagan beliefs and skepticism. Many Americans, possibly a majority were agnostics, atheists, materialists, or deists.
Politics was already a highly developed art and craft. So was its camp follower, corruption. I would argue that the first Congress under the new Constitution was the most corrupt in American history, but then there is a lot of competition, and records of corruption are incomplete, so I can't be sure. The U.S. Constitution was largely based on the British Constitution, but also borrowed from the Iroquois confederation, ancient Greek and Roman forms, and the various states, notably the State of Virginia.
Science, on the other hand, was just beginning its climb up Mount Sinai. Isaac Newton had invented calculus and outlined what is now called classical physics; he had died in 1727. But electricity was still something created by friction or lightning. Charles Darwin would not be born until 1809. Atoms would remain basically undifferentiated blobs until the 1890's.
For a document designed to centralize the power of the ruling elite, with just enough democracy included to keep the rabble from revolting too often, the U.S. Constitution is a pretty good basis for government. Its most obvious flaws, like the structure of the Senate, are a result of political compromise, not planning or wisdom. Amendments have, on the whole, improved it over the centuries. Most importantly, even the early ruling elite had their moments of working for the public good.
Largely because of Tea Party agitation, many Americans are taking a good look at their Constitution. Like any complex object, it can be looked at from many different angles. A citizen might like one part and dislike another. Throw in the often-mythologized stories about the (white) men who wrote the damned thing, and you have a lot of room for principled disagreements. Need more room, and you can just desert principles, which is a rather common (and often successful) political strategy.
Religious people, I mean the truly religious, project their religion into almost everything. It is almost a truism in certain circles that the U.S. Constitution was written by God. Now you and I know that is not true: God writes in Latin, not English. But the God-smitten won't have it any other way.
Which creates its own issues. Were Amendments to the Constitution written by God, or just the Original Constitution? Did God also write the Articles of Confederation? Why exactly did God give Congress the power to "promote the progress of science" [Article I, Section VIII, paragraph 8]?
You know why. He was preparing the way for his greatest prophets. Charles Darwin, James Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and Francis Crick, among others.
Politics was already a highly developed art and craft. So was its camp follower, corruption. I would argue that the first Congress under the new Constitution was the most corrupt in American history, but then there is a lot of competition, and records of corruption are incomplete, so I can't be sure. The U.S. Constitution was largely based on the British Constitution, but also borrowed from the Iroquois confederation, ancient Greek and Roman forms, and the various states, notably the State of Virginia.
Science, on the other hand, was just beginning its climb up Mount Sinai. Isaac Newton had invented calculus and outlined what is now called classical physics; he had died in 1727. But electricity was still something created by friction or lightning. Charles Darwin would not be born until 1809. Atoms would remain basically undifferentiated blobs until the 1890's.
For a document designed to centralize the power of the ruling elite, with just enough democracy included to keep the rabble from revolting too often, the U.S. Constitution is a pretty good basis for government. Its most obvious flaws, like the structure of the Senate, are a result of political compromise, not planning or wisdom. Amendments have, on the whole, improved it over the centuries. Most importantly, even the early ruling elite had their moments of working for the public good.
Largely because of Tea Party agitation, many Americans are taking a good look at their Constitution. Like any complex object, it can be looked at from many different angles. A citizen might like one part and dislike another. Throw in the often-mythologized stories about the (white) men who wrote the damned thing, and you have a lot of room for principled disagreements. Need more room, and you can just desert principles, which is a rather common (and often successful) political strategy.
Religious people, I mean the truly religious, project their religion into almost everything. It is almost a truism in certain circles that the U.S. Constitution was written by God. Now you and I know that is not true: God writes in Latin, not English. But the God-smitten won't have it any other way.
Which creates its own issues. Were Amendments to the Constitution written by God, or just the Original Constitution? Did God also write the Articles of Confederation? Why exactly did God give Congress the power to "promote the progress of science" [Article I, Section VIII, paragraph 8]?
You know why. He was preparing the way for his greatest prophets. Charles Darwin, James Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and Francis Crick, among others.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
2011: Wild Year Ahead
Some predictions are easy to make. It did not take much looking at Barack Obama in 2008 to see that he did not have the spine to take on the corporate military state in any meaningful way. Some predictions are well-nigh impossible to make, either because they involve incredible levels of complexity (predicting the paths of all 2011 hurricanes, today) or because we simply have limited knowledge of specifics that give birth to them.
The chances of peace, or of a military victory, in Afghanistan are pretty near zero for 2011. The United States and allies will spend another half trillion dollars, the Taliban and allies will spend somewhere south of half a billion dollars (that is a thousand to one ratio), and the year will end in stalemate. Without advanced weapons and training the Taliban cannot defeat the U.S. No one is going to loan them jets or even cruise missiles. Yet the people of Afghanistan aren't going to suddenly like being bossed around by a bunch of militant Christians from the U.S. and their local puppets. Killing Taliban fighters (and Afghan civilians) just creates more orphans that grow up to be Taliban process.
If anything happens in Congress this year, it won't be for the good of the American people, if by people you mean those earning less than the national median. Or for that manner, the lower 80%. Any Republican measures can be blocked by Obama or by Democrats in the Senate; any Democratic measures can be blocked by Republicans in the House of Representatives. So the only measures that will pass will be those that help industries that contributed campaign funds to both Republicans and Democrats.
The economy will improve in 2011 [See also 2011 Economic Analysis]; I predict both Republican and Democratic Party politicians will take responsibilities for any improvements, while continuing to deny any responsibility for the Great Regression.
I predict that in 2011 fundamentalist christians will Praise Jesus for anything good that happens, and blame Satan for anything that goes wrong.
The environment, on the whole, will continue to deteriorate. This is largely a function of the growth of the American and global economies. However, deterioration will continue at such a slow rate that most people, especially politicians, will be able to deny reality or deprioritize doing something about it. The exception is the State of California. Here politicians have written laws such that in-state cement factories will not contribute to global warming (cement = limestone + heat, releasing carbon dioxide in the process). Cement will be brought in from Mexico, so in addition to the greenhouse gasses needed to create it, more will be created transporting it. But since the emissions will go into Mexican air, I suppose they won't warm up California.
In other words, life will go on in 2011. Apocalypse may be just around the corner, or at the end of the tunnel, or sitting waiting for you in the Texas School Book Depository or the jungle or the next traffic jam, but before then we all must muddle through 2011.
The good old rules still apply. Practice charity, love the Earth and its occupants, and don't be too gullible. Humans are mortal; that is why life is precious. Enjoy it while you can.
The chances of peace, or of a military victory, in Afghanistan are pretty near zero for 2011. The United States and allies will spend another half trillion dollars, the Taliban and allies will spend somewhere south of half a billion dollars (that is a thousand to one ratio), and the year will end in stalemate. Without advanced weapons and training the Taliban cannot defeat the U.S. No one is going to loan them jets or even cruise missiles. Yet the people of Afghanistan aren't going to suddenly like being bossed around by a bunch of militant Christians from the U.S. and their local puppets. Killing Taliban fighters (and Afghan civilians) just creates more orphans that grow up to be Taliban process.
If anything happens in Congress this year, it won't be for the good of the American people, if by people you mean those earning less than the national median. Or for that manner, the lower 80%. Any Republican measures can be blocked by Obama or by Democrats in the Senate; any Democratic measures can be blocked by Republicans in the House of Representatives. So the only measures that will pass will be those that help industries that contributed campaign funds to both Republicans and Democrats.
The economy will improve in 2011 [See also 2011 Economic Analysis]; I predict both Republican and Democratic Party politicians will take responsibilities for any improvements, while continuing to deny any responsibility for the Great Regression.
I predict that in 2011 fundamentalist christians will Praise Jesus for anything good that happens, and blame Satan for anything that goes wrong.
The environment, on the whole, will continue to deteriorate. This is largely a function of the growth of the American and global economies. However, deterioration will continue at such a slow rate that most people, especially politicians, will be able to deny reality or deprioritize doing something about it. The exception is the State of California. Here politicians have written laws such that in-state cement factories will not contribute to global warming (cement = limestone + heat, releasing carbon dioxide in the process). Cement will be brought in from Mexico, so in addition to the greenhouse gasses needed to create it, more will be created transporting it. But since the emissions will go into Mexican air, I suppose they won't warm up California.
In other words, life will go on in 2011. Apocalypse may be just around the corner, or at the end of the tunnel, or sitting waiting for you in the Texas School Book Depository or the jungle or the next traffic jam, but before then we all must muddle through 2011.
The good old rules still apply. Practice charity, love the Earth and its occupants, and don't be too gullible. Humans are mortal; that is why life is precious. Enjoy it while you can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
