Sorry, can't help you until just the right person is killed

 The street execution of Alex Pretti has galvanized resistance to the regime's overreach from both the right and the left. This surge has added to the criticism from right and left against the regime from its first swings of the wrecking ball in Jan. 20, 2025, and merged them into calls for actual removal of at least some of the malicious, incompetent toadies placed at the head of every cabinet department.

Is it a general human thing or just an American thing that an untenable situation can persist and grow, causing harm and death until it reaches a tipping point that triggers a wave of repudiation? It takes a certain level of infection to activate a society's immune system. Just the right people have to die.

It's hard to care about people you don't know. It's even hard to care about people you do know, when acknowledging them puts you in danger. How well do you know them?

Human sacrifices pile up, each one perhaps bringing a few more recruits to whatever cause is in play. The crisis we face now is no game. And it clearly goes way beyond brown people. Some of you may recall that some of us were saying that, back while there was still time to vote against the thunderous asshole now devastating the United States from its highest office. Ah well, water under the bridge...with the corpses of the fallen floating on it.

Comfortable people won't surrender comfort. People in precarious circumstances don't want to drop into a worse predicament. People in power do their best to keep the masses divided, distracted, and weak. But eventually, the right person is killed to break the tenuous stability of the oppressor.

In the current crisis, it has taken something like the death of Alex Pretti to alert masses of complacent white men that their oppressor isn't just DEI policies and quota hires, or women with the audacity to want to live as fully free and equal citizens. Sure, from their point of view it is all of those things, but now it's also a government trying to limit the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Surprise! It wasn't the Democrats after all.

Don't be fooled that the complaints from the right indicate any softening of their traditional prejudices. Much of the objection to the regime from the right focused on how the regime hadn't been as odious as they promised to be. Hard right candidates are being primaried from even farther right. The problem will remain long after the visible pustule in the White House has been lanced and drained. In the meantime, however, the enemy of my enemy is temporarily convenient. A classic case of "right answer for the wrong reason," but the right answer nonetheless. We just have to be mindful that the next candidate the right puts forward will be trying to advance a lot of the same agenda without the conspicuous, proud offensiveness of the current reality TV cast.

ICE is living the American Dream

 Who among us has not secretly fantasized about shooting some smartass in the face for defying our authority? Seriously, what's the point of having guns if you can't use them to enforce your will?

The freedom-loving patriots of the right wing never cared about freedom for everyone, only freedom for themselves to exert force on all of the types of people they deem inferior. If you judge human value solely by the ability to dominate by physical force, they are correct. It's all about the hierarchy. You're either dishing it out or taking it. They have always only wanted the freedom to dish it out with no consequences except at the hands of someone better at dishing it out. Let every dispute be solved by combat or the threat thereof.

How many people who deplored Kristi Noem shooting her puppy for being unruly celebrate her goon shooting a lesbian in the face for being mouthy? You have to realize that a solid percentage of the voting public still thinks that gunning down people they view as deviants is a step in the right direction for this country. It's nowhere near a majority, but it's not a tiny number, either. They feel fully safe from that kind of street justice, because they are the good people, the righteous people, the true Americans. And they don't care who they have to kill to secure their dominance.

There is no shared humanity with people who don't consider you human.

Their American dream may not be your American dream, but it is as American as slavery and genocide. As such, it does not invalidate every other, more welcoming American dream, but it traces its roots back before the Mayflower. Our only power against it is the vote. Outnumber the bastards, and show up every time. We can also educate, and hope to prevail gradually in the contest for hearts and minds, but well short of that we just have to keep working the system on which we base our rights.

All you people who like to yap about revolution and starting over, remember this: you lose everything in the process. Starting from scratch in this modern, interconnected world is a far more dicey prospect than it was in the 18th Century. You don't really want to render the entire country defenseless while you haggle over the perfect constitution you will use to replace the tattered and scribbled-on document from which we currently work. Your whole concept of what rights you should have comes from those 18th Century documents.

United States unleashes the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

 Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death. The United States has become the harbinger of death, the agent of suffering and evil across the globe. Trump voters must be so proud.

We invite disease back into our own country through anti-vaccine bullshit. We facilitate its spread in the world by cutting funding for AIDS treatment and withdrawing funding from medical research.

We allow our Defense Department to strut and pose, and drop expensive bombs on regions already volatile, where the detonations will not quell the anger that dwells there. Tough guy rhetoric from the television host who was hired to portray the Secretary of Defense reinforces the bombast from the reality television character portraying the President.

The cruel tyrant, aided by greedy billionaires, cut foreign aid, throwing millions of people, including children, into deeper poverty and the certainty of famine.

This regime is centered on death. Its supporters pride themselves on their cruelty toward the people they deem inferior, in their own eyes and in the eyes of their god.  They detain and deport children with cancer, cutting them off from their treatment Everything they do is geared toward the destruction of millions, billions of people, so that the survivors can have lebensraum. They don't have allies. They have enemies and subordinates. They don't have a vision of shared humanity, they have a dream of monoculture enforced by conquest.

Would-be conquerors have had thousands of years to try to make it work. Their efforts have always ended in a tide line of dried blood where they crested and fell back, or simply dried up in place. The story of empire is ultimately one tragic failure after another. From the mid 20th Century, super power has only been held through the threat of murder suicide. It's a global abusive relationship.

The United States had a chance to be something different. There was a lot wrong in our past, but some of us were trying to make it right as best we could. Instead, the current party in power wants to return to the wrong and intensify it. Choose your world.

What's wrong with these judges?

 The right wing beef with judges makes perfect sense. It's interwoven with their misogyny and the myth of the rugged individual. It reflects their presumed virtue.

All the way up to the US Supreme Court, the only judges they like are the ones who act as servants to the ideology that has been building steadily to the current crisis. Since that ideology promotes centralized rule by a few, the judiciary is expected to be subordinate rather than equal.

The power players sell it to their base by tapping into how many of their voters -- mostly men -- have had bad experiences on the wrong side of a court judgment, whether it's domestic violence restraining orders, divorce settlements, or criminal activity of some sort. When your brand centers violence as an expression of strength, you're going to attract people who have a record of it.

All the way back to Dirty Harry and to popular written fiction for decades before that, audiences have liked characters who express their lawfulness with direct action, cutting out the cumbersome, and often disappointing, legal process of prosecution and sentencing. In fiction, the writer can establish certainty in the reader or viewer, that the bad person is a bad person, and that the good guy is fully justified. We're free to enjoy the plot as the game plays out between these adversaries. When the bad guy gets it, the audience feels jubilant.

The hero can be a deeply flawed and unhappy character. That only makes them more sympathetic. As long as they represent the frustration that we all feel when bad guys get away with their crimes and the system seems to let them slip away, we'll forgive their rough edges. They might even have marital problems or other relatable qualities that make their extrajudicial activities more satisfying as they operate outside of the suffocating constraints of red tape and procedure.

At the elite level, where billionaires buy the government that feeds their wealth at the expense of the majority of the rest of us, they're happy to undercut the power of courts. White collar criminals are still criminals. Most of them never see the inside of a cell, but pesky fines and liability settlements drain money that could be spent on bigger yachts, private space programs, and a stunning mansion on top of El Capitan, once Yosemite is privatized and sold off for development.

As frustrating as the judicial system can be, the basis of it is sound. No human system can be made immune to human frailties. Those have to be addressed by general philosophical arguments that guide our thinking overall. We’ve been at it for thousands of years. We could have consensus any day now. In the meantime, we need to shore up the structure that we have.

The task of our government is to reconcile the desires of the majority of the electorate with the rights and needs of individuals and an expertly advised assessment of the public good. Piece of cake!

Hail Mary pass incomplete

 When Joe Biden took office, his administration knew that they had a limited window in which to make noticeable improvements in the economy. People fail miserably at voting with their wallets, but they vote from them all the time.

Simultaneously, the Biden administration had to lay down social progress that would reassure the progressives who had grudgingly thrown in with them. Everyone wants a magic bullet election, regardless of how history shows that we never ever get them and never will. Government doesn't work that way, especially in a ponderous global superpower. Make up your mind: do you want to be the exceptional behemoth that steers the entire rest of the world with your economic and military might, or do you want to have a government that operates with absolute transparency and almost telepathic indulgence of your most recent hot take?

Foreign relations have always depended on public agreements and secret treaties. The general public has never known a fraction of the details of interactions with other nations. As technology evolved, the extent of the gap between public and insider knowledge has increased. You can't run a real grownup country without a bunch of things that happen out of the spotlight.

The opposition filled the news with as much distraction as they could. The media helped them immensely by taking that bait.  The senate majority failed because of Manchin and Sinema. When the House of Representatives went under Republican control in 2022, it was all over. We could pretend that it wasn't, and set our sights on 2024, but the odds of success had crashed. Ideological voters dashed away, while consumerist voters fell for the raft of lies floated by the presidential challenger and lovingly illuminated by the corporate media and the relentless right wing disinformation machine. The Biden administration was democracy's hail Mary pass, and it dropped to the field without anyone near it.

The 45th occupant of the Oval Office had packed the courts with the judges he was assigned by oligarchy's intellectual machine. He's too stupid and short-sighted to care about anything other than his own immediate pleasure. But that doesn't matter when his backers assure him that an appointment will work out in his favor. Naked corruption goes unpunished when the institutions assigned to control such behavior are already corrupted. Clarence Thomas doesn't care about the country, "his people," or anything more than his own access to luxuries. He made it, and frames his story as the American Dream written in bold Black. Y'all go out and cut your own deals to get ahead. That's how this country works. You figure out how to monetize your most prominent characteristics. Why do you think so many Black entertainers signed on for the Inaugural festivities? Money's money and a gig is a gig. They got theirs. Y'all figure out how to get yours, and ignore the losers dying all around you.

The unhappy consumers low in the food chain who make up the solid core of Republican support would have benefitted greatly from the Biden administration's policies to grow the economy "from the bottom up and the middle out," but they've been so conditioned to hate the government in general and the Democrats in particular that they will very seldom cross that line. I know a tiny few who appear to have done so, but they're unlikely to do it again soon, because it didn't work this time. They were betrayed and abandoned by the non-voters. We may not get another chance anyway. Between the damage that the oligarchy has already done, and the structural reinforcements they will build without opposition over the coming years, they may manage to make elections into the kind of meaningless shows that they are in Russia and Hungary, and other nations collapsing into right wing fantasylands.

It's tempting to check out, to disconnect completely from politics. That temptation is what got us where we are. In defense of that apathy, we could say that not much seemed to change from one party's control to the other, because both factions seemed to believe in principle in the vague generalities of the American ideal. Even the Republicans could be convinced to support some environmental protections and diversity initiatives. The environment was a slightly easier sell, because diverse people are so weird and disturbing, but we made progress all the same, until the backlash of 2016 blew it all up.

The "left" frames everything as a cooperative endeavor. The right frames everything as a war. The "left" tries to promote kindness and tolerance. The right stokes anger and promotes aggressive confrontation. There are exceptions in that Black protesters might lose their tempers after yet another deadly police encounter, and gosh that's just unforgivable, those uppity n****rs! But in general the leaders of what are referred to as leftist groups in this country try to conduct themselves as they wish that we all would. They keep advocating for ridiculously expensive things like an actual system of universal health care that would threaten the ability of anyone to amass multibillion-dollar fortunes at the expense of sick people, and environmental regulations that will assure that the children coming into the world now won't die miserably on a smog-choked, stinking rock swirling forlornly around its sun.

We might yet manage to veer toward that left exit and get on the road to the pretty planet where people realize that they're going to have to get along. We're going to need a lot more people to wake up and start leaning that way. You don't have to blossom into a full-blown commie liberal. Just vote against the anger and destruction a few times and see how it goes when you give it more than an 18-month chance.

There is no Davos for workers

It's a lot easier to organize a small number of rich people than a large population of workers. The rich have the advantage of not having to work. They may put in long hours, but those hours are devoted to  consolidating and exerting their power. The actual workers have to put in their hours at toil they mostly did not choose. Then they have to be their own servants to maintain whatever sort of home they have.

There is no Davos for workers. Organized labor needs preparations as if for nuclear war, or a famine, or a catastrophic storm: shelter and sustenance for all, ready to deploy on short notice when a collective action cuts off everyone's income.

We don't have massive strikes and demonstrations in this country because our population is so dispersed. People would have to get to the nation's capital to swarm it. We've had a few, but they require extreme provocation. Movements are hard to sustain. Swarming in your own area is only as effective as the media coverage of it. And a mess in any major city is only a mild curiosity to anyone 15 miles away. Simultaneous actions in many cities might draw notice, but would further alienate the rural populations that control the US Senate. And before too long you have to get back to gainful employment: that thing we call work.

From the standpoint of the wealthy, our greatest age was the Gilded Age, when we emerged as a global power. Only when a member of the privileged class finally came down with an advanced case of noblesse oblige did we manage to get FDR's New Deal, and its struggling descendants into the 1960s. The 1970s were the neutral moment in the swing of the pendulum, as its return began almost imperceptibly. It has been sweeping back as a wrecking ball since 1980.

Social movements develop their own internal logic. The movement back toward centralized authority controlled by the wealthy will not stop until that status is achieved. And the pendulum may stop right there as the petty kings of corporatocracy metaphorically stop the rotation of the Earth. They will have vastly more advanced weapon and surveillance technology than their ancestors had, with which to quell uprisings. Good, obedient citizens will applaud the mass murder of dissenters. Because the internal logic for this has been building for decades, we can't vote it away. Its supporters will vote their beliefs, their feelings, their desires for a strong hand. Sure, they want a small government, but that government will still have the job of crushing dissidents. Among the free and armed citizens, the plutocrats will smile indulgently as their unofficial enforcers do the wet work. Freedom is for those who conform.

This could be stopped by peaceful means if enough swing voters would realize -- and care -- where things are headed, but they don't.

The occupant of the Oval Office from January, 2017 to January, 2021 was the greatest thing to happen to the right wing since Ronald Reagan. Indeed, he is the logical heir. Along the way have been many contributors to the rise of the right. Listeners to right-wing talk radio can feel like badasses without having to do anything. The minority who do want to do things can join militias and maybe some day get to shoot some people or blow something up. But the movement is mostly supported by chickenshits who want to make lots of money, pay little in taxes, and take no real risks.

You want common ground to build a coalition? That's it right there. Those same desires have fueled corporate Democrats now labeled as neoliberal. Make lots of money. Don't get shot at.

I'm with you when it comes to not getting shot at. But we diverge over the money. The pursuit of wealth automatically destroys the environment and the well-being of the ecosystem. It tramples on the rights of indigenous peoples to live in their environmentally balanced ways. You may destroy slowly, thoughtfully, and with a measure of regret, but you will destroy. And competition -- a cornerstone of the capitalist philosophy -- guarantees that the destruction will be neither slow nor regretful. Too many people will be shoving and grabbing to get their pile.

I'll still dangle the hope that a slim majority will vote together to put the brakes on what looks like a killer avalanche. Even then, that alliance will have to hold its ground and defend its perimeter long enough for the benefits to become obvious to a more reliable majority. And every generation will have to have the same arguments over and over.

What would you do? Way beyond Quinones

As we enter what could be a period of violent upheaval in this country, you might want to think about how you would react in various scenarios.

The ABC show "What Would You Do?" plays with light versions of social issues, but the legitimization of white nationalism, sexism, LGBTQ-phobia and strong-arm tactics in general coming out of the recent presidential campaign has already spawned incidents of violence.

The wonderful Women's Marches all over the country and in the world in general made a commendable display of peaceful protest. However, the climate in authoritarian circles, and in the right wing, is not at all receptive to protest demonstrations.

What would you do if law enforcement covering a demonstration opened fire with automatic weapons? Would you back down immediately, take cover, and run? Or would you march forward to be mowed down, as a rebuke to the vestiges of conscience left in the world? If you fled on the first day, would you come back for a second day? If you fled on the first day, would you begin to organize for civil war?

What would you do if you saw a group of white people beating up a brown person? A non-heterosexual person? A Jewish person? What would you do? How would you intervene, if at all?

What would you do if Jewish businesses were vandalized and ransacked in your town? What about Muslim businesses?

What would you do if lynching began again, law enforcement did not investigate, and district attorneys did not prosecute? What would you do if perpetrators who did face token trials always went free?

The current administration drew heavily on the influence of paranoia and hatred to build momentum for their campaign. They used voters disenfranchised by corporate influence, economically burdened by overpopulation and by technological advancement, feeding the popular myths about poor people, dark people, unfamiliar religions, and government conspiracies to advance the real conspiracy, which is corporate dominance of political, social, and economic life.

What would you do if oligarchy took over your country and you still had to look the word up every time you heard it, or just ignore it and hope it goes away?

It will start so slowly that you can easily tell yourself it's going nowhere. And it may really simmer down. But if it doesn't, you should have some idea what you would do.

November 2014; a haiku

Flags of fall decay
foretell a brutal winter:
right-wing campaign signs.

Reshaping the Political Debate

Listening to some political analysis of the fall of Eric Cantor on NPR, I realized that the only way to get the debate away from partisan squabbling is to disband the Democratic Party and have everyone register as a Republican. Instantly the people who only look for the (R) or automatically vote against the Democrats will either have to start figuring out where they stand on each and every issue or quit voting.

Such a move would completely change the familiar election process that has been letting us down so consistently. Why have a primary and a general election when everyone's in the same party? There would be no us and them. It would render the brand name of the politician meaningless and turn the focus instead to the individual's fitness to meet the needs of voters.

It will never happen, of course. Some people can't live without their group identification. Within the greater Republican Party would develop subcultures that would name themselves and publish their separate ideals in party platforms ranging from Communublican to Libertublican. There would be secret handshakes and coded necktie patterns. Next thing you know one or more of these groups would feel the need to declare their discrete identity. But it would still be hilarious to see what happens in the first weeks or months after every voter joins the R Party