Recent Posts

Again Rootsie, I ask you to please tell me how these current 'changist'/transitional affairs are ANY different from the "Fallacies of the hippie movement" that you spoke about in your article.

http://www.rootsie.com/articles/070820032.html

i think that a lot of the issues surrounding the economy, imperialism and the environment have similar solutions and i think that this is an area where a lot of people can come together and come to the same conclusions. we are realizing this global system does not work and there are some common denominators as to why and in the what we should do about it.

I have been thinking about how what we have is a spontaneous global movement all towards the same life-affirming values, and what's more that it is center-less and leader-less which makes it way more difficult to f*** with.

Great resource here for grassroots networking in local communities dealing with local economic self-sufficiency, food production and environmentally sound practices.

http://transitionus.ning.com/notes/Help_--_Who_We_Are

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/11/leahy-knocks-cheney-i-don_n_165997.html

Senator Patrick Leahy and Dick Cheney have a legendarily icy relationship, one that crested with the former Vice President telling the Judiciary Committee Chairman "go fuck yourself" on the Senate floor.

And while in a recent interview Cheney insisted that the animosity between the two has been "patched up," some, it seems, still remains.

In an interview with Leahy last night, I asked him about the former V.P.'s latest, cryptic assertion that the Obama administration was making it easier for terrorists to successfully attack the United States. The senior Senator from Vermont didn't disappoint.

"I just want to say here Bush and Cheney were in charge when the last attack happened," Leahy said. "They were warned about the last attack before it happened. On September 10th their proposal was to cut our counter-terrorism budget substantially. I don't need any lectures from him. They screwed up badly.

"They are also the same people who said the war in Iraq would be over in a couple weeks, shock and awe and we would find the weapons of mass destruction. Their policy was to let Osama bin Laden get away when we had him cornered and send the troops into a useless war in Iraq. No, no, I don't think he has a great deal of credibility."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy insisted on Monday in firm and passionate terms that a comprehensive investigation be launched into the conduct of the Bush administration, saying anything less would prevent the country from moving forward.

Speaking at a forum at Georgetown University, the Vermont Democrat suggested the creation of a truth and reconciliation commission to uncover the "misdeeds" of the past eight years.

"Many Americans feel we need to get to the bottom of what went wrong," said Leahy. "I agree. We need to be able to read the page before we turn the page."

The Senator also stated that Attorney General Eric Holder never gave assurances to Republican Senators that he would not prosecute Bush administration officials who may have been involved in illegalities such as authorizing torture or warrantless wiretapping.

"There are some who resist any effort to investigate the misdeeds of the recent past," he said. "Indeed, during the nomination hearing of Eric Holder, some of my fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle tried to extract a devil's bargain from him in exchange for the votes -- a commitment that he would not make... That is a pledge no prosecutor should give and Eric Holder did not give it. But because he did not it accounts for some of the votes against him."

At one point, Leahy slammed the lectern with his right fist, underscoring the emotion he brought to the debate. His remarks referred to claims that Holder had provided Republicans on the Judiciary Committee a pledge not to prosecute Bush officials -- claims that the Obama administration denied.

Leahy framed his commission idea -- which he had not discussed publicly prior to Monday -- as a middle ground of sorts between those who adamantly oppose investigations and those who say "we must prosecute Bush administration officials to lay down a marker."

The Senate, he proposed, would "authorize a group of people universally recognized as fair-minded and without any axe to grind" to investigate the Bush administration's actions.

"Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened," he said.

This is "not to humiliate people or punish people, but to get the truth out, so we don't make the same mistakes again," Leahy said later during the question and answer session. "We fought Revolution in this country so we could protest the actions of government. We should protect that."

After the speech, Leahy elaborated a bit on what he had just announced: The commission could, if needed, be granted subpoena power and it would investigate everything from torture to the faulty information that brought the country into war in Iraq. He had not, he acknowledged, discussed the idea with the Obama administration or Holder. After 35 years in Washington, he said, "I like being able to say what I want to say."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/09/leahy-investigate-bush-no_n_165227.html

"is it really so "under control" that we can't make a difference and anyone
who tries is just a dupe? isn't this in itself an admission of defeat and
an excuse not to get involved?"

That's why I said somewhere back there that the DEEPEST deep-cover agents may be on the extreme left. In fact I was told of one with a popular (among us) website.

The Sandinistas et. al. used the language of the Declaration in their own documents--my point was that those enlightenment ideas about the Rights of Man (sic) reach back into ancient, pre-Empire times. Tom Paine and John Locke didn't invent them. This is why they resonate--and why, I guess, they are so ripe for manipulation. I would like to think that humans are wired for freedom. For the vast majority of RECORDED human history, the poor have been under the whip. The big difference now is that the planet is understood as a whole planet, comprehensible as one because of instantaneous global communication, and it is increasingly understood that whatever our fate, it is a common one. I think that the revolutionary implications of this are just beginning to be felt.

"That is why the resonate-and why, I guess, they are so ripe for manipulation." I think that is a good point - I think this is the same with religions, etc.

Indeed while there has been a setup of this global communications by the powers that be, there is no telling what that has led to or what that will lead to - I think that is a good example of your point about "them" not having all the control. There is no telling what we collectively can and will do with access to information and how that will effect the "established order." I think the music industry is an example - with the proliferation of ability for artists to market their own music to an audience without the help of the major record labels - the recording industry has been forced to change. You no longer need to be signed to one of the traditional labels to be popular anymore. Record companies have lost revenue because they don't "own" the "means of production" so-to-speak anymore - global communication has made them more irrelevant. I think this is why they try to scoop up the means of communication once they gain momentum as is the case with MySpace and steer it in a particular direction using the cultural glue of greed/ego-tism and selfishness(as Starshyne mentioned). Whereas it could be a tool of revolutionary implication if it were utilized correctly.

"That putting Obama in the white house was a power move? To cool the masses through “a necessary good faith gesture”.  I am saying that people are not so stupid as you might like to think nor as easily duped."

* For the record, I DON'T think people are stupid for voting for Obama - I understand the many complexities and reasons why people would do so. I know many people who I have a lot of respect for voted for Obama and had very good reasons.

Look at this:

"Well lets just go to DC and get Tim McVey-ish on them?! Since the problem is within the symbols & rituals, lets go do it up alqaeda styleE!"

* I mean is this not an insinuation? I felt this was a dramatic mis-statement of where I am coming from, like a jab.

"But I have to say that my recent shift is partly due to seeing my own and others' assumption that they know all this stuff that others don't somehow places them above the fray--like using information to bludgeon people into a sense of helplessness--this won't work, that won't work because 'they' are working at this whole other level that only the super-perceptive among us can discern...

The suggestion that such thinking gives is that anyone doing any work to change things is just being naive, if not stupid..."

* I think when I started learning all this stuff I initially got fearful. I admit that - it is some heavy stuff. At the same time though - I didn't take it to start seeing people as "stupid" and people working for change as "dupes." To be honest I have thought of myself as someone who has tried to see the good in people and that has not stopped over the years - it has only intensified. I have tried to see things in different lights and that is why I am thankful and open to the views expressed in this reasoning. It honestly is very refreshing to hear and I take it to heart.

I think there are other ways to look at the ideas that I have presented.  I understand how this "mode of thought" can lead to a psychic environment of know-it-all-ism combined with a feeling of help-lessness. However - can't it also lead to getting involved on a local level, questioning our faith in the system and trying to make meaningful changes within our own lives? I think it is more about balance and recognition that we do not "know it all" - it is humility and the possibilities that blossom from this perspective. Deep down I appreciate the call to do house-cleaning in my own mind/house in regards to what delving into all this "stuff" really means and if it actually results in me seeing people as "stupid," etc. It makes me get defensive though because I KNOW that I am not coming from that place and I resent the fact that in some ways what I present is taken like that.

Ok just to add fuel to the fire--I meant to comment on your suggestion 360 that starshyne was 'insinuating' anything. I just reread what she wrote and I don't see where she suggested that you think people are stupid.

But I have to say that my recent shift is partly due to seeing my own and others' assumption that they know all this stuff that others don't somehow places them above the fray--like using information to bludgeon people into a sense of helplessness--this won't work, that won't work because 'they' are working at this whole other level that only the super-perceptive among us can discern...

The suggestion that such thinking gives is that anyone doing any work to change things is just being naive, if not stupid...

it just goes round and round, while in the meantime...

While in the meantime Obama is on the cusp of a disastrous decision to ramp up in Afghanistan. If it's time for a change, it's time to stop using the military to service corporate interests...that is the sea change that's needed.

Starshyne:

It is your assumption about how I view people as "stupid" is what I was referring by your insinuation. You do NOT know how I view people.  As soon as you make that assumption of course it is gonna turn me off, and your joking style - which I thought was just you being playful initially reveals itself to be mocking.  I also don't stick to definitions and usages of words as  you might - culture/society/common heritage, etc - I use interchangably whereas you see important differences. THAT'S why I didn't understand your question re: CULTURE and I didn't get it until you "answered it yourself" - it was not an intentional avoidance to speak more about symbolism, it was a misunderstanding of what exactly you were asking.

I didn't want to engage what I viewed as your insinuations about how I think and what my points were, because this would not have been productive to the reasoning at hand. I was speaking of my own internal process, of what might have been a typical move on my part, to focus and put energy into some long-winded reasoning trying to hash out just what I meant. I instead decided to focus on and call out your points that I thought were very good and got me moving.

Thank you for further expanding your points in your post. More to think about.