Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 12, 2005
One Strike, They’re out

[There was a funny satiric comment here a few days ago. I asked the super patriotic author for some other stuff. Today he did send this piece – not that funny, but some interesting thoughts.]

by Highlander

Back a while, Billmon had an entry analyzing what he referred to as The Liberal Disease

As with anything Billmon writes, the whole entry is well worth reading. The money shot, however, came in the following paragraph:

the classically liberal approach to politics, in which the
struggle for power is treated like some kind of glorified courtroom debate, with strict rules of evidence, an impartial umpire (the judge) and 12 jurors, straight and true, to render a verdict.

That’s pretty much the last ten years of American political history in a nutshell. While liberals sift and weigh the evidence, debate alternative points of view, and reach for that ever elusive "fairness," the conservative machine sifts and weighs alternative propaganda points, debates the best way to manipulate public opinion, and reaches for power — first, last and always.

There’s more, and it’s all worth reading.

Billmon’s conclusion comes a few very lucid paragraphs further down, when he says:

This is the world we live in. No one is going to hand out brownie points to
progressives for being "fair"

This leads, eventually, in later posts, to Billmon’s growing belief that the liberal left has to get down and roll in the dirt with those crazies on the right wing, if it is to have any chance whatsoever of taking power back away from them again. And while Billmon prefers to make Godfather allusions, I think his point, and the point of many liberal, left wing pundits, can be summed up by a colorful quote from another well known mob movie:

If they pull a knife, you pull a gun.  If they send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue.  THAT’s the Chicago way .. and that’s how you’ll beat Capone.

Or, in Billmon’s world view, that’s the way the political game is currently played in America, and that’s the way the left will beat the right.

Other movie quotes also immediately occur .. something about "Give in to your anger, Luke" .. but let’s stay away from that morass. 

I don’t necessarily subscribe to Billmon’s call to action, although I certainly can’t find any flaws in his analysis. As a liberal, I do try to be fair and see all sides of every issue and point out the merits of every argument, whether I agree with it or not. And certainly the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, O’Reilly, Hannity, DeLay, etc ad nauseum, feel no such ethical constraints when they are stringing together their own specious and toxic agendas of talking points. It is precisely as Billmon states on the right: they reach for power, first, last, and always.

They have, in fact, achieved their wildest wet dreams. Conservatives are firmly in power here in America. They dominate not only every branch of government, but every ‘center of strength’ (to lapse briefly in Mao-speak), such as the media, the military, the public education system, our religious infrastructure, the electoral process, and the legal system – from courts to cops to prisons – as well. Conservatives may make up slightly less than a complete majority of Americans, but by either co-opting or effectively neutralizing the undecided swing voters in nearly every election for the last decade (not to mention their outright illegal electioneering), they have managed to take great steps towards imposing their hardline right wing agenda on the entire populace (whether they vote or not) in this great nation. 

A digression cries out to be inserted here about how anyone with two brain cells should be able to see exactly what we get when conservatives govern – a collapsing economy, an increasingly corrupt government increasingly dominated by an entirely self serving corporate hegemony, and an illegal, immoral war on foreign soil that increases the danger of every American from terrorist attack with every second it continues.. but I’m going to try to stay on point here, and if memories of Sean Hannity smirking as he opines "You can be friends with liberals, you can like them, but you simply cannot under any circumstances let them govern" make me long to see him airlifted to Iraq and dropped into any insurgent hotbed our intelligence can pinpoint at the time (or, you know, just doing time in a lockdown cell at Gitmo), well, let’s move on from that and try, for the moment at least, to stick to the high road.

I mean, somebody should, right?

Given that conservatives are firmly in power, and given that I absolutely agree with Billmon when he points out that the conservative approach to governing (or doing anything) is the exact opposite of the liberal perspective – which is to say, it is unreasonable, irrational, unfair, deceptive, and, as we are increasingly seeing, absolutely contrary to anything any remotely sane person could reasonably refer to as "the common good"… well, the conclusion one has to reach is that our current government, which is utterly dominated by conservatives from top to bottom, is every one of those things – unreasonable, irrational, unfair, deceptive, and not working for the common good. 

Now, if your government is all of those things, then, clearly, if you have anything functioning at all between your ears, you would have to admit that it’s really time for a new government.

Now, I’m not calling for armed revolution in the streets, because that would be essentially futile: conservatives have all the guns. Besides, it would be treasonous, and I might get arrested, and anyway, the last thing in the world I want is to see any kind of half assed civilian putsch in this country. We’re supposed to be better than that; supposedly, we can work out our problems without getting grandpa’s shotgun down from the attic and shootin’ us some tax collectors. 

I am also not wild about the idea of getting as down and dirty, politically, as the conservatives do. I still cherish a few ideas, and one of them is that the far right wing is not a majority in this country, and will never be a majority in a free country that has even the rudiments of a tolerant, liberal public education system. The conservatives rely on blatant election fraud and employing the lowest kind of demagoguery to keep their base in line and sway a few percentage points in the perpetually undecided voter category… and let me repeat right now what I said several times during the 2004 election season: when the country is as polarized as it towards ideological extremes, with each extreme making up around 40% of the electorate, any election is going to depend on the undecideds, and in any election where the choice is between the left, which wants to tolerate all points of view, help those who need it, and, you know, not kill anyone that our government doesn’t absolutely have to kill, and, well, those wild eyed insane "bomb/gas/torture/electrocute/kill kill kill KILL THE GODDAM HEATHENS" on the right, any voter who is undecided at any point in the campaign is a moron. So we are currently living in a country that has, for the last decade or so, had its leadership ultimately decided by morons. And it shows. 

When the crazies and the morons have taken over your government, what do you do? Billmon says we rational, reasonable folks on the left should drop our principles (oh so briefly, no doubt; just until the next election) and play in the mud with the nutjobs and the dimwits. 

I say, when the government has been co-opted by all those guys who used to shove your head into the urinal in the school bathroom, it’s time to do something, certainly. But I’m not sure trying to find some way to get their heads into the toilet instead of yours is the best idea. They are, after all, bigger and stronger than you, and they enjoy being bullying, tormenting pricks, which I, at least, do not, and don’t want to learn to do, either. 

Maybe, instead, we should try to figure out some way to keep them from dragging us into the men’s room in the first place. 

What is a government? Where does its power lie? Mao would tell us that power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and as always, he has a point, in his sly and inscrutably Celestial manner. However, in point of fact, the power of any government is mostly economic, and there is no government in the world where this is more true than ours. 

America is a super power because we have a large population that works and pays taxes. Those taxes form an unimaginable wealth base, which our government then leverages through various different forms of financial chicanery into even greater and more unimaginable sums of money, which it then spends however the hell it wants to, regardless of what any of the people who contributed the money have to say about it. Taxpayers do not get any sort of veto over any government expenditures at any level. All we get to do is elect representatives who supposedly look out for our interests when our money gets spent. However, given that a majority of Americans now feel (according to the latest polls) that the war in Iraq was a colossal mistake and we should get the hell out of there as soon as possible, and our elected representatives continue to vote to continue to spend several hundred billion dollars of our money on a war we don’t want, well, you can see that the system has some flaws.

Nonetheless, it is important to understand: our government’s power does not ultimately come from its military might. Mao is correct; power does grow out of the barrel of a gun… but he didn’t trace the chain back far enough. Somebody has to build those guns, someone has to manufacture the ammunition, someone has to carry the gun, someone has to point it, someone has to pull the trigger… and all of those people want to get paid. Our government pays all those people with tax money, which is to say, with OUR money.

If the people currently in power in America have a nightmare, it certainly isn’t armed insurrection in the streets. For one thing, as I’ve already pointed out, the conservatives have all the guns; if the left wing actually tried to shoot it out with the right wing, the right wing would win in a heartbeat, and then they’d have an excuse to stick any of those of us who survived in jail for treason, where we would be making little corporate widgets at slave wages for the rest of our lives, which is a treasured goal of the right wing that otherwise is probably going to take them at least another two generations to achieve.

No, the conservative nightmare is when half the country decides to stop working all at once.

See, if half the people on the tax rolls suddenly drop off the tax rolls, our government’s power is, all at once, crippled. Our government relies on a never ending flow of revenue from those pricks in your employers’ accounting office who calculate everyone’s withholding every week and forward a fat check to the local authorities. That never ending flow of revenue is the primary reason why Congressmen can take expensive fact finding junkets to the Far East on the public dollar and defense contractors can charge the Navy $200 for a roll of tape. When you have an endless and infinite source of funding, you don’t exactly have to shop at Dollar General. 

But in fact, the source of the money river is neither endless nor infinite, and if you were to abruptly subtract half or more of the tax producers from that flow, well – it would hurt. And it would hurt BADLY.

Another huge source of government income – government at every level, state, Federal, county, and municipal – is gasoline. Stop driving to work every day, and you stop filling your tank as often. If half the country stops filling its gas tanks as often, that’s going to hurt, too.

These are observations, mind you. I’m not sounding any call to action. I’m certainly not suggesting any kind of organized civil disobedience on the part of the left in this country, or any sort of concerted effort at tax avoidance. I’m not calling for a nationwide strike of all liberals until, say, every member of the fraudulently elected Shrub Administration steps down, or Congress convenes an investigation into the current Administration’s criminal deception of the public in regard to our reasons for invading Iraq, or even until the Shrub gets enough cojones to fire Karl Rove for doing immeasurable harm to our national intelligence community. 

No, I’m not calling for any of that, because, for one thing, no one ever listens to me (except maybe for the NSA, who might arrest me if I did that), and for another thing, even if people did listen to me, we are all, as Mike N. sadly notes, "too comfortable" to do anything that would inconvenience us so drastically. How would we pay our light bills, keep the mortgage current, feed our kids, or buy boxed sets of The Sopranos if we all decided to stay home from work until… you know, the very bad, nasty, rotten, unreasonable, mean, unprincipled, deceitful, dishonest, illegitimate, murderous punks in office decided to, just once, Do The Right Thing?

I mean, it’s a tempting option, and it would, probably, eventually, see some kind of success. Even the PATRIOT Act doesn’t give our current crop of turdmongers the right to throw us in jail simply for being voluntarily unemployed. And they can’t shoot us; they need us to go back to work and start paying taxes again. It is the one possible course of action that really honestly could be effective – because when it comes down to basics, the government needs us more than we need them. We pay for the privilege of being alternately oppressed and ignored. Wouldn’t you like to stop giving Halliburton money for screwing up?

I mean, you gotta know, staying home for a day or two isn’t going to get it done. We’d be out for months. Who’s going to support us while we refuse to put more of our money into a corrupt government that no longer even tries to create a credible illusion of representing any of our interests?

Hmmm. Anyone got George Soros’ phone number…?

Comments

What is a government? Where does its power lie?
gene sharp says that government power lies with the consent of the governed…. and that there are more ways than a work strike to withdraw our consent. see (here and here for info, and here for analysis). certainly a work/tax strike could be coupled with a consumer strike – among other actions. different people would need different ways to participate.
personally, this approach appeals to me much more than the godfather type approach. in addition to the all the standard reasons (morality of means, the ethic of “do no harm”,…) i’d rather work towards a king no one obeyed than replacing one criminal “family” with another.
p.s. please excuse my long absence from the discussions here…

Posted by: selise | Aug 12 2005 13:15 utc | 1

Primetime news this AM describes the “mob” of “war protestors” gathering outside the Bush compound, sounding very like Waco.
Helicopters should be dropping pepper gas and little American
flags on parachutes very soon now. The “mother” of all battles,
once again, George dodging the action down in the fruit cellar.

Posted by: tante aime | Aug 12 2005 15:04 utc | 2

There’s another quote from that “send one of his guys to the morgue” movie, which is as interesting and appropriate to the current situation:
“I want this guy dead! I want his family dead! I want his house burned to the ground! I want to go there in the middle of the night and piss on his ashes!”
Not that I would dare to think this of *any* fascistic nutjob, mind you.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Aug 12 2005 15:22 utc | 3

While the Enlightenment has come and gone,
welcome to the Diminishment:
:
Deometry
The Odessa (TX) school system is also considering replacing its current high school math curriculum with a new approach that emphasizes God’s role in the study of quantity, structure, change and space. One likely course offering: Deometry, in which students of the field once known as geometry (from geo meaning earth and metro meaning measure) accept as their starting point that God created the earth, before embarking on their study of lines, points and circles. Educators are reportedly also debating the best way to incorporate the role of the Creator into other high school classes, including home economics, gym and drivers ed.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 12 2005 16:34 utc | 4

Unkka- you know The Swift Report (Deometry) is satire, right? –although it’s hard to tell the difference between reality and satire these days, I know…
selise- Ghandi brought down the British rule in his country…but there was an organized effort for self-determination, and a willingness to go to jail, as with MLK, for a cause. who knows if Americans are willing to do that…and if not, I suppose we get what we deserve, as far as govts go.

Posted by: fauxreal | Aug 12 2005 18:08 utc | 5

I’ve had a developing idea lately… it revolves around organizing a shadow government, sort of like an extension of the concept of embodied by the shadow conventions we saw in 2004.
What if, in order to agitate for better methods of electing representatives, we moved to build an unofficial election system, using open and transparent methods (unlike the official elections), to elect a shadow government? Hell, we could even go so far as to elect delegates to a shadow constitutional convention. All the while, we keep repeating over and over again that we are not trying to elect a replacement for the official government— just show what it would be like if we used modern methods for electing one.
The key, people, is to understand that official elections, which use proprietary, secret technology to count the votes and register the voters, are the weak point in the system where you have the best leverage for moving the consciousness of the electorate in a progressive direction.

Posted by: s9 | Aug 12 2005 18:35 utc | 6

This serious post by Highlander is very good. Great to see voter fraud and taxes discussed.
The US is not trying to build an Empire. It is trying to prop up a dying country, trying to maintain its status and power.
The US is not what is was 20 years ago – economically, politically, culturally, socially or even spiritually.
It has lost its self-confidence and is partly mired in doom, poverty, corruption, waste, crazed bureaucracy, authoritarianism, stifling of creativity, and so on. As an actor on the World Stage it has nothing left but its military clout, its threat potential, coupled with shreds of left-over arrogance, and still today, the capacity to pay. For example, pay the UN, pay ugly tin-pot dictators, pay for bases, etc. (Not to mention ‘wars’). It pays and coerces to defend short-term interests in a confused plan that relies on its flexibility (one can just see Condoleeza, chewing on a pencil, map in hand) and either has no long term goals, or a game-plan that is not respectable and cannot be made public.
And pay it does — US taxpayers should be informed of where their money goes.
Naturally, the fear it provokes is puzzled and pitying, as no-one in the West wants a general meltdown of the current World Order.
This unconfortable position explains its hesitancy and its switching from one style to another – rabid agression to humanitarian values, protectionism to openess, puritanism to hedonism, free speech coupled with the jailing of dissidents, etc. The US finds it difficult to give up its strengths (mostly built on the fact that it had a huge rich open Continent to colonise, a cornucopia abundant enough for all…) built up out of some European ideals, such as democracy, free speech, fair deals, the respect of contracts, personal happiness, tolerance, just laws, religious freedom, taxes communaly decided on, nice houses, care for the poor and sick, and so on.
Squeezed, trapped, incapable of gving up ideals, it cannot afford these values any longer, but wants to maintain them as long as possible as an ideological trump card, mostly for internal consumption.
It also illuminates why the US Gvmt. is now secretive and duplicitous. Billy C. was a master diplomat and left in good time.
In comparison, the Cold War period, with its balance of power, its definitive ideological separations, despite the waste, the killing in ‘local’ skirmishes, seems peaceful and lovely…
What people tend to ignore is that that period, roughly 1950 to 1990, was a time of richness and plenty. We (humans) set about to ‘improve’ exploitation of the earth (mainly agriculture) and we succeeded; to shape it to our will (towns, etc.) and we managed. We concentrated on drawing down ressources created millions of years ago (fossil fuels), and we did it, laughed.
There was really plenty to go around, even if the downtrodden in poor countries experienced hunger, strife, wars, they multiplied. Everyone spoke of ‘development’ – it was only a question of time before prosperity spread. (Lip service is paid to that view point today.) Seventies Peace and Love followed on. People’s group-belonging was assuaged by posturings of Gvmts. or Leaders that touted one or the other strongly contrasted political / societal systems.
Those days are gone. The crunch is here, now.
The US as a forerunner and leader for the West is lost in the limbo of contradictions.
Using ‘Blue’ and ‘Red’ stereotypes, an argument (and it is but an argument…) can be made for the fact that Reds in the US better understand the need for agressive action, a return to ‘past values’ and so forth. Manipulated by the media (to distract them from the real issues), they are set on social conservative values, seeing them as emblematic of lost Eden and better times. Conquer and rapine figure large too – if we can’t hunt and farm like we want – expand – if white Americans can no longer be top of the heap – if we no longer have control – ease and rights of before – something must be done.
“It is not right!”
Your typical Blue, in a big City, working in entertainment, the media, or an Int’l company, Finance, Banking, (etc.) or just a hopeful, with a girl friend who pulls big bucks, the glitter and glamor beckoning, sees no need to torture or kill Iraqis. It seems barbarous, gratuitous.
Bush’s base understands the blindness of these city types. They are close to the land and the holders of ‘American values’, whatever these might be, and they are in effect feeding the Blues. They know the end times are coming. And have -some of them- obligingly set up a mythology to deal with that.
Voter fraud apart, most Americans (as others in the West) are called on to vote for ersatz candidates who mouth platitudes about non-issues such as abortion, forbidding Nazi symbols, tax on biscuits, drilling in Alaska, lowering taxes, etc. Issues calculated to be within the ’confort zone’ of dinner table conversation in middle class homes. (Others don’t, can’t, vote anyway.) As if all were living in a stable world.
The 40 – 40 % split referred to by Highlander is an outcome of clever strategy by the pols, moving the right distance to or from the Center. It does not reflect opinions, desires, aspirations in the country, and the issues touted are not really connected to the desperate matters at stake.
Not paying taxes cuts to the fibre of citizenship, the status quo, the stable world, the belief in society, leaders.
It is easier to go out in the street with a gun.

Posted by: Noisette | Aug 12 2005 18:41 utc | 7

Noisette,
Some fairly astounding points, and quite incisively put. If I think you have, perhaps, been rereading your copies of STAND ON ZANZIBAR and THE SHEEP LOOK UP a little bit too much for your own emotional wellbeing, well… still, there’s a lot of validity in what you’re pointing out. And has been for the past… what… thirty years, at least, if not longer?
The problem with your post, at least, as I see it, is it seems to me to be ultimately despairing. You point out the central problem in every political conflict since human civilization began — limited resources — and in the end, all you have to offer as a solution is “It is easier to go out in the street with a gun”.
It’s always easier to go out in the street with a gun. And as a rabid SF geek, you’ll never catch me making the mistake of saying ‘violence doesn’t solve anything’; I’ve read my STARSHIP TROOPERS. Violence, as Heinlein noted therein, has solved (or resolved, anyway) more conflicts and issues than any other method found by man in our history.
Yet Heinlein also notes, in PODKAYNE OF MARS, that politics may well be mankind’s most glorious invention, because, when you boil it all down, all politics is is a way to keep things moving without violence.
Or, at least, that’s what it’s supposed to be. Our current crop of imperalist evangelists masquerading as politicians doesn’t seem to have a very firm grasp on that concept.
It is undeniable that “Not paying taxes cuts to the fibre of citizenship, the status quo, the stable world, the belief in society, leaders.” We all hate taxes, but I long ago accepted that taxation is the price we pay for living in civilized (even decadent) times… and I am a child of civilization (perhaps even of decadence). I wouldn’t survive fifteen minutes in the world of THE ROAD WARRIOR; I need my lawful infrastructure to prosper and enjoy life. What’s the point of existence without hot showers, air conditioned movie theaters and computer games, after all?
Nonetheless, the idea of refusing to continue to sign checks to a thoroughly corrupt, utterly illegal, completely unethical anti-democratic and unelected regime is a valid one. I’m not saying it’s something we should do; we’ll get in a great deal of trouble if we do it, and unless a LOT of us do it, it won’t work.
I was, as someone or other in Miller’s Crossing once put it, “speculatin’ on a hypothesis”.
You do seem to think that people need to re-align their own political perceptions and start thinking outside their own Red and Blue reality tunnels, and I’m all in favor of thinking outside the box. However, global realpolitik is a tough sell to the average American (or, even, affluent Westerner) since the first thing we all have to accept is that (as you point out) there are too many people on the planet, and not enough Cool Stuff to go around. We Americans (and most other affluent Westerners) prefer not to deal with that undeniable reality, because once we internalize it, we are left with two equally unpalatable alternatives: we either take a stand for equity and fairness, which would mean accepting a severely reduced standard of living, or we shrug our shoulders and embrace our own selfishness, with the implicit understanding that we are simply saying to most of the rest of the world “Well, we’re rich and you’re poor and sorry, I guess it sucks to be you”.
We much prefer to worry about issues like, you know, electronic voting machines, whether or not our military should break countries and kill people who haven’t done anything to us, and just how letting the FBI conduct secret searches of our homes and continually monitor all our activities will keep us safe from terrorists.
One element of realpolitik that needs to be acknowledged, then: you aren’t going to get any traction with any Western democracy by demanding that their citizenry all vote to share the wealth with everyone else on the planet. A majority of us would, honestly, rather kill every single one of them first.
It’s possible that there simply isn’t a solution. The oceans, for example, may already be past the point of no return, although they are so huge an ecosystem that it will probably take the remainder of the century for them to completely expire. Once they go, though, we all go. And it doesn’t have to be the planetary water table. The Brazilian rain forest could also be irretrievable, at this point, and that would be pretty bad news for us all, too.
The simple fact is, there are too many people living on the planet right now, and too large a percentage of us are using too many toys that create too many toxins for our ecosystem to handle. But even if we all voluntarily started living like the Amish at the end of business today, the sheer astonishing volume of biological waste generated by six billion hunter-gatherers is staggering. The weight of all that shit, piled in one place, would probably tilt Earth on its axis. The accumulated body heat of the human race is probably enough to melt a few glaciers by itself.
The only solution is either to (a) drastically reduce the population or (b) continue to refine and develop our technology in hopes that eventually, we will be able to live in something like equilibrium with each other and our environment. (a) would either involve the utter breakdown of all modern civilization, or the rise of a ruthlessly genocidal world tyranny, and I don’t find either of those alternatives palatable. So… here’s hoping that eventually we can find something that works.
Sorry, that’s all I’ve got. But I think it’s better than ‘get out in the street with a gun’.
S9, your idea of electing a ‘shadow government’, just to show that it’s possible, is interesting. However, it would involve a lot of people taking a lot of time out of their lives to, essentially, make an empty gesture. Unless we plan on starting to pay ‘shadow taxes’ to these guys as well, which, honestly, strikes me as a little much, with gas prices projected to rise over $3 per gallon before they stabilize again.

Posted by: Highlander | Aug 12 2005 19:54 utc | 8

It seems to me that by being voluntarily unemployed – you would be helping those conservatives in favor of starving the beast. How happy Bush would be to cut Social Security, welfare, and education programs as a fiscally necessary step due to unprecedented unemployment.

Posted by: aschweig | Aug 12 2005 20:45 utc | 9

Highlander/Noisette
Truly great and interesting writing.
At the moment, I cannot see any sign for optimism, hence I side with Noisette.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Aug 12 2005 21:43 utc | 10

The oceans, for example, may already be past the point of no return
I can not find the link now, but the UN agency in charge of such proclaimed peak fish last year. The amount of fish getting fished is in irreversible decline. This does not necessary mean that the oceans are gone, but that we will have to manage without much fish if we want them not to collapse.
with gas prices projected to rise over $3 per gallon before they stabilize again
All stabilisation is temporary, peak oil is here! *Runs out with unwashed hair, gets an old cardboard sign and starts assaulting strangers.*
No seriously, it might very well be here and if it is not it will porbably soon be.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Aug 12 2005 21:52 utc | 11

Noisette: I feel your feelings. I sit around the piled up branches of the “weltesche” awaiting the conflagration but I get bored so I walk out and tend my yard, trim the yews, water the moss and then I translate Plautus. At the end when the time for the passage comes I hope to get the viaticum.

Posted by: jlcg | Aug 13 2005 0:40 utc | 12

btw, something I’ve meant to mention but have not. Does anyone other than me think that it might not exactly be a coincidence that the AIPAC indictments have come down at the moment when Sharon is enforcing the withdrawal from Gaza?
a little leverage against Netanyahu’s moves?

Posted by: fauxreal | Aug 13 2005 4:03 utc | 13

@fauxreal
Unkka- you know The Swift Report (Deometry) is satire, right?
Yes, fauxreal I was aware of that 😉

“Just keeping youse guys on your toes”..hehe
It’s satire. That said, the Swift Report does tend report tomorrow’s horrible wingnuttery today.Wasn’t it Voltaire who said “Totalitarianism always looks like a parody of itself”?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 13 2005 7:25 utc | 14

On preview,
Ding ding ding!
You win the prize on your Netanyahu comment fauxreal, I concur.
Couple of link that are interesting in this regard:
Here
Mossad Chief Confirms Netanyahu’s Warning of London Bombing
here:
Confirmation: Netanyahu and Giuliani in same hotel on 7/7
And here:
Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quit Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government, saying he opposed plans to evacuate Jewish settlements from Gaza.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 13 2005 7:41 utc | 15

@Bernard, Noisette, Highlander.
Great posts. Thanks.
Is it out of the realm of possibility to see a world-wide general strike…

Posted by: PeeDee | Aug 13 2005 8:24 utc | 16

I meant to post this last night w/ regards to this wonderful post and disscussion, but got side tracked listening to Peter Gabriel’s Album “Up”. I had forgotten how much excellent muszak on an incredible sound system helps me cope. We all need our outlets in these trying times…
Protest as Perspective:
Do We Want a Revolution
or a Renaissance?

So often we hear people using the word “revolution” to describe the current overwhelming cultural shift fostered by technology and new media. However overwhelming it might be, can we really describe the current transition as a revolution? For me, the word “revolution” evokes images of a violent upheaval and guillotined heads. There’s certainly very little progress implied by revolution; it’s simply someone spinning around in circles.
Digital culture may be marginally revolutionary in the sense that it is characterized by what so many companies and institutions have called “thinking outside the box”–a willingness to challenge conventions and consider meta-narratives. But, this notion of thinking outside the box and gaining perspective is not simply moving in a circle. We are coming to a new understanding of what had always been considered literal reality; we are seeing it instead as a picture of reality. Our new tools are also leading us to feel empowered enough to adjust the frame around that picture. Such an upscaling of perception, intention, and design is better described as renaissance.”

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 13 2005 10:17 utc | 17

My wife and I pretty much came to same the same conclusions last November so we left the U.S..
(Add to the above fear of the incoming shitstorm, too.)
Many smart folks, not all Jews, also left Germany in the 30s.
Sometimes there are no other solutions.

Posted by: Lupin | Aug 13 2005 12:10 utc | 18

@ Lupin,
Good idea, great website. You have relatives there; I assume you speak french. I have thought of doing the same, especially when I saw Cassis.
But what of the french secret police and the rise of the right in Fance? Are Europeans sliding toward authoritarianism also, albeit more slowly?

Posted by: gylangirl | Aug 13 2005 21:09 utc | 19

Freewayblogger

Check out the options

Oh, show us the way to the next little dollar
Oh, don’t ask why, oh don’t ask why
For we must find the next little dollar
For if we don’t find the next little dollar
I tell you we must die! I tell you we must die!

Posted by: Dave Riley (Australia) | Aug 14 2005 3:06 utc | 20

Dear GG (or GiGi? 🙂 )
For the big picture, I domn’t know. You should ask Jerome on Euopean Tribune.
Our 800-souls village is so far removed from the secret police and our two departments, Ariege and Aude, are / have been traditional bastions of the Left and opposition to Central Power dating back to the Cathars.
So we feel reasonably safe eating pate and fresh tomatoes. 🙂

Posted by: Lupin | Aug 15 2005 5:47 utc | 21

lol……like yanks drinking beer and watching sports on the tube?;)

Posted by: lenin’s ghost | Aug 16 2005 5:47 utc | 22

This thread is dead, but I wanted to respond to Highlander. (Got distracted before.)
Highlander, I haven’t read any of the SF titles you refer to, and haven’t a clue as to what they are about, so can’t catch the references.
When I said, it is easier to go out in the street with a gun, I was not advocating that, nor predicting it would happen.
I meant, it is something people can envisage, and in the US and other places, something people do quite often, killing others in the process (luckily only sometimes.) It is a possible action, closely tied to a sort of Wild West mentality, to put it in a stereotypical way. It is also possible to argue that the pro-war in the ME faction, those who support Bush for his actions, are displacing agression. (Kill those X’s, etc. Neatly, they are far away in foreign lands, not at home…)
Not paying taxes as an oppositional action is rather rare. It implies a reflective, peaceful stance. So far it has been ineffectual – afaik.
I don’t think equity and fairness are the issue here. (– Not enough cool stuff to go round in the World.) Of course, it would be nice to think of people cheerfully sharing what there is, and giving up what they have for others who have less. This is a sort of psychological utopia (as you say yourself) and completely unrealisitc. Not just because people are selfish (they undoubtedly are) but because we all can only live in stable worlds, change is painful, and in fact it is the job of Gvmts. (or whatever higher authority, some instanciation of collective will or capitulation to deciders) to prevent hold-ups, be it your local bank-heist or genocide.
The first thing to be done is to stop that gun toting. But boy is it easy to do. And it does bring rather consequent rewards.
As for the ecological state of the world, a huge amount could be done easily, as you know. But it takes determination, a willingness to face change, and ‘respect’ (very unclear what that entails) for one’s neighbor, not to mention other living organisms + the physical environment. Giving up tech goodies, powerful cars, fancy manicures, are not really part of the equation.
What is needed is a system change. A whole other can of beans.
P. S. this in not an apologia for the West (and me and you) keeping our goodies.

Posted by: Noisette | Aug 18 2005 19:31 utc | 23