An H2O 4th of July Picnic

[H2O Man]

{1} "…..Kissinger ‘s aides recall that he was far more concerned over Allende in Chile than over Castro because ‘Allende was a living example of democratic social reform in Latin America,’ and Allende’s success within the democratic process might cause Latin America to become ‘unraveled’ with effects as far as Europe, where Eurocommunism, operating within parlimentary democracy, ‘scared him’ no less. Allende’s success would send the wrong message to Italian voters, Kissinger feared. The ‘contagious example’ of Chile would ‘infect’ not only Latin America but also southern Europe, Kissinger stated, using the conventional imagery."
--Noam Chompsky; Planning for Global Hegemony; 1985.

When I was young, many people in the United States viewed the war in Vietnam within a context known as the Domino Theory. Our nation had to keep the world safe from communism. This required that we fight the communist menace on a global game board, so that no domino would fall, causing the next domino to become unstable. That the falling dominoes could create a 10,000 mile path of destruction was certain: why, even LBJ warned us of the dangers of our "falling prey to any yellow dwarf with a pocket knife." Why were they so dangerous? Because, President Johnson told us, "We have what they want."

As it turned out, the people in our federal government did not believe in the Domino Theory. Behind closed doors, they spoke of international affairs – including events in places such as Vietnam, Chile, and Iran – in the context of the Bad Apple Theory. This was the creation of Dean Acheson, who warned that the success of a country that did not meet the needs of US policy, would be like a rotten apple in a barrel, capable of spreading the "infection" to the people of other nations.

The "Domino" and the "Bad Apple" are both examples semiotic theory. That is, each provides a construct for a group of people to interpret and understand the larger world around them. However, they are distinct. More, the Domino Theory was created by this nation’s ruling class, to limit the larger population’s insight into the true nature of our policies in places such as Vietnam.

{2} "The first casualty when war comes is the truth." –Senator Hiram Johnson; 1917.

People even younger than me may recall that President George W. Bush started the war in Iraq to keep the United States safe from the threat posed by the WMDs. Many people here believed that Saddam probably had WMD, because the US had sold him so many at the time that Iraq and Iran were engaged in a game of dominoes. When it turned out that Saddam didn’t have any WMDs, the administration simply changed the semiotic construct.. The USA was intent upon nothing less noble than bringing democracy to the Iraqi people.

This struck some people as odd. George W. Bush had not been elected president by our democratic process. In 2000, when it became clear that Vice President Al Gore had won the election, Bush’s team brought in their own referees. The US Supreme Court, acting in an openly unconstitutional manner, placed Bush and Cheney in office. To accomplish their goal, the USSC had to not only ignore the rule of law: their ruling strongly supported the denying of a class of people the right to vote – in this case, it was primarily the black citizens of Florida, though the court’s decision actually disenfranchised the votes of the majority of those participating in the election.

Yet, this should not have surprised us. It’s not just that there has long been election fraud in our country. Rather, it is because the ruling class in Washington, DC, largely subscribes to the theories expressed by Antonin Scalia a year later, when he told the January 2002 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life that our nation was based upon "divine law." More, Scalia stated, "That consensus has been upset by the emergence of democracy. ….The reactions of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectively as possible."

Odd that we should fight the dangerous tendency of democracy in our country, at the same time we send soldiers to fight for democracy in Iraq. It may be that there are some rotten apples in the Washington. Or, it may be the barrel is rotten to the core.

{3} "I can’t tell the difference between ABC News, Hill Street Blues, and a preacher on the old time gospel hour stealing money from the sick and the old."
--U2; Bullet the Blue Sky (Rattle & Hum).

There are, of course, significant differences between "democrats" and "republicans" at the grass roots level. But as politicians move "up" in the level of power, those differences tend to become less evident in reality, and the democrats and republicans begin to become a class of their own. A classic example would involve Barack Obama and George W. Bush: as human beings, both growing up and as young adults, they were very different.

During the 2008 democratic primary, we watched a tough contest between Obama and Senator Clinton. In the general election, Obama thrashed McCain. Democracy seemed within our grasp. Its potential to change our nation was visible. The ability to change course, and to return to a Constitutional democracy that respected the rule of law, was an energy that many expected the new president to harness.

When Obama began making his choices for his cabinet and administration, it was clear that he was including many people associated with the Clintons. That included Senator Clinton. This appeared to be a wise move, for it united the two largest groups within the democratic party. Obama was harnessing the power that he needed. But then, there were choices that involved Bush-Cheney influences. The machine was harnessing Barack Obama.

It should be painfully obvious to any thinking person that the concept of a two-party system is a charade ….nothing more than a semiotic structure created by the machine to keep citizens unaware of the true nature of the ruling class that capitalizes on the population’s ignorance while robbing them of their humanity. It’s as if the public is convinced that there is a real difference between McDonald’s and Burger King. And yes, I would rather vote for a democratic Ronald McDonald than a republican Hamburglar, but there comes a time when one must look at the House and Senate, and recognize that they are serving us something as different from true democracy as fast food is from real food.

{4} "This is what separated us from you; we made demands. You were satisfied to serve the power of your nation and we dreamed of giving ours her truth." –Albert Camus.

The corporate media provides the advertising required to keep the public believing that there is a very big difference between McDonald’s and Burger King. And the public buys it. They buy the lies, and they buy the product.

If you were at the counter and bought a burger that was rancid, you would not be satisfied that there was a tiny section that allowed you one bite. Yet, people point to Keith and Rachel on MSNBC as at least providing some nutritional value. What is it that reduces people to accepting this?

The process of reducing people, of stripping them of their humanity, is perhaps best illustrated by the institutionalization of inmates in our nations jails and prisons. When they are first incarcerated, they may attempt to resist the structured setting. But, in time, they begin to accommodate that system – to make room for it inside themselves, as they seek to find a space for themselves within their cell. Then, they adjust to the conditions inside the institution. Eventually, they begin to accept the very system that robs them of their humanity. Once this happens, the majority have lost their sense of self-respect, to the extent that they question attempts to treat them with respect.

There is a myth that the inmate population enjoys better health-care than the general population. With the exception of the "country club" facilities (which are few and very far in-between), this is not true. But it keeps people from understanding the more important issues involved, and when a movie like "Sicko" tries to bring that home in the final scenes, most people are not able to process the truth. Of course, far too few take the opportunity to see the movie, because it threatens to treat them with respect, and seeks to spark their sense of humanity.

We can’t be satisfied to stand in line at either McDonald’s or Burger King, hoping that they will put justice and democracy on their menu. It’s not going to happen. We need to instead harness the power that is found at the grass roots, and bring some of our home-cooking to Washington. It is an option that is open to us. And while it may be difficult to accomplish, failing to try will result in a far worse conclusion.

[Junkdrawer]

1. George Carlin: "Forget the politicians..."

"Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice..you don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own, and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[H2O Man]

22. I like that.

Thanks!

[Blue_Tires]

25. very true...that bit NEVER gets old...

[mmonk]

2. Excellent. A great summation of our situation, the situation that keeps

my mind unsettled, especially given the additional lawlessness of the last 8 years or so. It gnaws at me and doesn't allow for any settling of my mind. It doesn't allow for me to go very long without hard pangs of frustration combined with an inability to show it to others that have assimilated to the manipulations. Recommended.

[JohnyCanuck]

3. K&R

[Bandit]

4. Do you believe your third Party route would not be sucked into the abyss as well?

The Power Structure will ALWAYS Rule..Even Mr. Smith (goes to Washington) will eventually succumb to them, though maybe not in so obvious of manner as has Obama..

[H2O Man]

8. You are the only one

that mentioned a third party.

[Bandit]

11. Maybe a thrid way instead of third Party

You were basically saying the two party way is not working. At least that is how I read your essay. You were using the metaphor of McDonalds and Burger King in place of Democrats and Republicans but basically the way I read it was they all tend to become corrupted by the system. You suggested we need to bring home cooking to Washington (Mr. Smith goes to Washington). All I was trying to say is I believe the Power Structure is too ingrained and Powerful. While it may be refreshing at first for truth and justice to come to Washington it certainly could never last. Even if another Party were to gain enough support it would soon beome absorbed into the Washington Culture..It is wonderful to have hope though, I just feel such tremendous disappointment from Obama thus far.

[mmonk]

12. We already have a "third way" and they are the problem.

"Imperial Republicrats".

[H2O Man]

13. I understand.

I believe that the grass roots is the level where the essential and meaningful values of our party exist. Thus, on DU, I have long advocated an updated version of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, which is a "wing" (or, more accurately, a level) of our party. The MFDP went to Washington, to create pressure, and to make the Washington level of McDemocrats to advance those values.

There is, of course, a risk of those who venture to DC becoming corrupted over time. Certainly, that has been true of some of the young lions from the Civil Rights/Anti-War era. But not all of them. And as long as there are people on the margins of our society, we can replace those who are seduced by Washington's nature.

[G_j]

5. K&R!

great read, thanks!

[zeemike]

6. I do wonder if these truths, which are evident to anyone who can still think

for themselves are not just a little scary and intimidating to a lot of people? Because accepting these truths would make you morally bound to do something about it.

And that explains why we can never get a real grass roots movement off the ground. Especially one that would eliminate money from politics.
That would greatly reduce the hooks that our politicians and officials (and the military too) had in them to guide the country to a more profitable corporations, and a more docile and uninformed people.

I highly K&R this post, and hope it is well read and understood by many.

[Hepburn]

7. Hey, H20....

...K&R! Good to see you...I love your contributions.

:hi:

[H2O Man]

19. Thanks!

I like about half of what I post here. The second half always starts a quarrel in my own mind. And the third half just annoys me to no end.

[Patsy Stone]

9. Right on!

K&R.

:patriot:

[starroute]

10. The central mission of government is always to serve the powerful

This nation was created on the basis of a beguiling myth which grew out of social contract theory. The social contract argument was that people voluntarily surrendered some of their autonomy to a strong central government because the advantages it provided in the way of security and coordination of activity outweighed the loss of personal freedom. And the founding myth of the United States is that it's possible to find a sweet spot, where government has enough power to protect us but not enough to tyrannize over us.

It hasn't worked out that way.

I have very mixed feelings about the extent to which government is necessary at all. It's obvious that we do need some kind of universally-accepted institutions to set and enforce basic ground rules, to mediate disputes between individuals and groups, to counterbalance the extent to which the powerful tend to exploit the weak, and to look after certain aspects of the common good which can otherwise get lost in the thicket of personal self-interest.

We're accustomed to having government do most of those things -- but that doesn't mean either that they are necessary functions of government or that they make government itself necessary. At best, they account for perhaps 10% of what government actually does -- while the other 90% mainly goes into protecting the property and privileges of the elite.

What passes for government these days most closely resembles a system that existed only during major crises in earlier and simpler times. Just as the single cells of slime molds come together to form a quasi-organism in times of crisis, so the human community pulls together and seeks strong leaders when under assault. War-chiefs in times of conflict. Charismatic prophets when famine makes it necessary to pull up stakes and migrate to greener pastures. But after the crisis passes, that degree of centralized power is no longer necessary.

Except that for some reason, we've been living in permanent crisis mode for the last 5000 years -- since the rise of the centralized state at the start of civilization.

It isn't clear just what happened then. Disparities in grave goods show that class distinctions had increased sharply over the previous thousand years or so -- but around 3000 BC there is a sudden phase-shift, from local aristocracies to centralized monarchies in which the ruler has nearly godlike status. The most likely guess is that the climate took a turn for the worse and there were a couple of centuries marked by threats of famine and border attacks by nomadic tribes. But whatever the crisis was, it ended -- and the centralization of power never did.

Naomi Klein talks about the shock doctrine and disaster capitalism -- but that's merely an acute form of what we've been living with as a chronic condition for 5000 years. The overthrowing of an occasional tyrant wrings some of the worst abuses out of the system, but only to return it to that same chronic level.

Even the American Revolution did nothing to change the basic fact that government functions to protect the wealth and power of the privileged. There have been gestures from time to time at rebalancing the equation, but none of them have been effective in the long run. And at present, we are in the worst shape we have been in for a century, with the facade of democratic elections increasingly unable to disguise the fact that Washington is run by a permanent and often hereditary governing class for the benefit of lobbyists and corporate interests.

But that's the nature of government. It was designed that way to serve that specific function, and thinking it could be anything different is a sucker's game. Government is programmed to serve its original masters, and that programming will always win out no matter how many override codes you try to apply.

So instead of applauding our deeply-flawed and ultimately inadequate American system of government on this Day-After-Independence Day, we ought to be taking a step back and thinking about what alternative system would actually achieve the ends that government of any kind appears unable to attain.

The Declaration of Independence asserts, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

That's half true as can be and half deeply distorted by the social contract myth. Our founding fathers recognized the abuses of all known forms of government, but they also believed that the true original purpose of government was to secure the rights of the governed, and that if one system of government fell down on the job you just had to abolish it and start over in slightly different form.

It's time to recognize instead that government of any kind is a con game that picks our pockets while it promises to secure our rights. If after more than two centuries of experimentation with liberal democracy, *all* forms of government are still "destructive of those ends," we may need to shake loose of the permanent crisis mentality, abolish government itself, and start over from first principles -- to create something that actually serves our needs instead of screwing us over and spitting in our faces.

[riderinthestorm]

14. Wow! Very powerful read. K and R!

And to think I only spent my 4th grilling, drinking beer and watching the fireworks from my roof.

I have been posting for the past few months of my growing unease with Obama's "drift" - from the inclusion of Rick Warren at the inauguration through the banking "bailout" (cough), the escalation of war in Afghanistan and his legal positions in regards to wiretapping, detainees, DOMA and more. And it's been increasingly obvious that more and more DUers are beginning to see clearly. I think Obama's rhetoric gave us such hope, and yet his actions have been so blatently "corporate" that the scales are finally falling from the eyes for many people on the reality of our democracy.

Was Kennedy the last politician who actually "worked" for the average American instead of corporate masters? Tracing back the line of corruption probably follows the growth of the military industrial complex fairly closely. I know Octafish, blm and others have also provided some very thought provoking essays on these hidden dynamics.

Thanks for providing yet more insightful commentary.

I salute your patriotism in really thinking about our democracy on the day we celebrate it's founding. Now THAT'S a patriot!

:patriot:

[starroute]

15. You really think Kennedy worked for the average American?

My adolescent infatuation with Kennedy lasted about a year, and after that it was all downhill.

Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex wasn't "prophetic," as someone was describing it here the other day. The MIC had used Sputnik as an excuse to really dig its claws in, and they'd been frustrating and sabotaging Eisenhower's policies consistently during the last 2-3 years of his administration. Things were no different under Kennedy.

But the event that was most shattering to me -- though at this point I'm not sure why, since nobody but me seems to even remember it -- was the giveaway of the communication satellite system to the corporations in 1962. When Kennedy was shot, I was as devastated as everyone else, but I also swore to myself that I would never forget how disillusioned I'd become.

Truman was the last Democratic president who even paid lip service to the ideals of the New Deal, and Truman himself was either compromised or ineffectual. Neither of my parents voted for him in 1948.

The real power of the military-industrial complex goes back to World War II, when the United States was dependent on the major corporations (even the ones who'd been playing footsie with the Nazis throughout the 30's) for the war effort, and when most of today's defense contractors got their start. That power was reinforced by the imposition of the national security state in 1948.

Through the 1950s and 60s, the United States was prosperous enough that the corporations could afford to have ordinary people share in some of the prosperity, instead of taking it all as they're been doing since about 1973. That is the only reason a Kennedy can look good in hindsight. But he and his advisors did not have the interests of average Americans at heart any more than the rest of them.

[Gregorian]

16. Stunning.

This is true H2Oman in his essence, if I may say so. I sense discontent, and I share it.

When those men signed the Declaration of Independence, they might as well have been signing their own death warrants. They risked their lives. That is what the fourth of July means to me.

What I see that gets us divided is two groups of legitimate believers. The liberals and the conservatives. They have their reasons. Social freedom and commercial freedom, if I may be so binary. Then there are those who follow them. They believe someone has a good reason for being the way they are. They trust. They probably have nothing more to benefit from that belief than having their genetic, or taught personal belief system supported. Nothing more. They had a father. They have a husband. Whether dead or alive, they still uphold what they were taught. I just got off the phone with my 80 year old aunt. She is probably a liberal. But having married a staunch conservative, blind idiot of a husband, she is also a conservative. My father has tried and tried to open her eyes to the truth. She told me she's afraid Obama is going to "ruin America". I couldn't help but wonder what she thought had been happening over the last eight years. But I didn't dare go there.

And then there is the group of people who either don't have the cognitive ability to understand, or else just don't care.

So all of the rest are the ones who can keep this American dream alive. And I don't know if it is a majority or not. But I do know that the majority, whether they know it or not, believe in democratic principals. Habeas Corpus is such a basic human need that I can't think of a single creature on earth that would not support it.

Snake oil salesmen. There were a few, in 1776, who wanted their slaves. Not the majority. And yet now it appears that so many Americans have bought the poison. It's not even good for them. It's poisonous. I marvel at how many people couldn't see through Palin. That's what we're talking about here, I believe. That is why Baywatch, and COPS, and drug wars, and phony elections have been allowed to happen. And I use crap tv shows as an example because of how it reflects on the character of those who choose garbage in lieu of quality. I have seen it all of my life. From music, to food, to architecture, to an automobile centric society. I am discontented. And I fear that it is as slow a process to educate the people as it was to de-educate them.

What can we do? I hate having to just watch. The corporate machine is in full traction. With continuous wars and propaganda. But then, the Founders were discontented and running scared as well. America almost didn't happen.

I love the keen and utterly simple insight you have. You break things down to the bare essence. It seems so easy, but it isn't. Like good music, it is anything but easy. Thank you for another brilliant spark of inspiration.

[annabanana]

17. Yes.. BUT

It is MUCH slower to educate than to de-educate. Like swimming upstream or down...

[Gregorian]

20. I see two things.

Dependency on corporations, and good people not knowing the true results of their actions. When the Founders wrote the documents to declare independence, they were still living off the land. There weren't "stores". Even the richest person on earth is dependent now. And that is greater poverty than simply being poor. And then there are people who either are not engaged in upholding what is not a self sustaining society, or there are those who, by virtue of living in this modern society, do not know that their actions have results that are not readily apparent. Driving is one simple example. Vietnam was partly about rubber. Iraq was partly about oil. These wars are twofold. To enrich military stockholders, and to sustain a modern lifestyle.

It has struck me lately that the worst things in the world come as a result of intelligent, good meaning, benign people. Have a typical pork chop- some poor poor animal lives in a blacked out facility. Take a simple trip for a vacation- increase global warming. It is so pervasive that we can hardly do a thing now without grave damage at our every move. Compounding this whole thing is multiplicity of users. Or simply stated, population. We're living in a highly advanced material way, and in huge numbers. That has increased the problem of our highly paced society while empowering those who can now take this democracy and drive it in their direction, even though they are not "the people". They are the corporations.

[H2O Man]

21. There are times

when it is tempting to simply withdraw, and spend my remaining time out at my pond. I can relax and feed the birds and minnows, and read. Books allow me the opportunity to converse with some of the people that I find to be (or have been) the most interesting.

But then I have days like today, when my daughters and I stopped to see my nephew and his family. He and his wife have two beautiful little children, who deserve a much better world than the one we are handing off to them.

I still think that we need to have an up-dated version of King's Poor People's Campaign in Washington. Perhaps people are not ready yet. But, in time, they will be. And while that isn't "the" answer to all of our problems, it would represent a start. It would raise the level of consciousness in this country.

[Gregorian]

23. I had to change in order to survive.

People are all different. But when I think of this speck of dust in a universe that is so huge that it dwarfs even our imagination, I realize we're all the same. And alone. And together.

Some people live in the future or the past. We all do that. But some of us are vigilant. I can't help it. My eyes see. And even though my ears heard sound, I couldn't listen. And I practiced until I could listen. It took twenty years. I believe we are all trained to behave how we do. There is genetics, but I see how people behave. They act. There is only one reality. Yet people act like there is another one. Invisible. Whether it's dominoes or those evil drugs. And then they deny global warming or overpopulation. I didn't have cancer yet, but I decided that smoking might lead to something horrible that I would regret. So I quit. Some years ago I decided that alcohol was not helping me either. And I quit that.

If one lives in reality, it is simple to see that war, hatred, poverty, work against us all. And self destructive behavior does as well, but punishment isn't productive.

We're destroying ourselves. And we could have done much better. It isn't a perfect world. But we're making it more imperfect in a very fast manner now. And I don't really have any answers. There are very wealthy people who have far too much power. We've passed the time in which we could avoid being controlled that way. Although we were never equals. There was always someone bigger. But that is our goal. That is what we are to be working towards. And in fact it's far more of a moderate and mild mannered society than that which I believe the conservative mindset typically wants.

I've got to turn off the generator and get out on the tractor. These thoughts are never finished. But we can do better. And there are dreams to be fulfilled and upheld. What is life but dreams. Good dreams. I fear that in this state of affairs, dreams are seldom fulfilled. We have passed a point of natural living whereby we can only rely on our own for survival. It's ugly. That's why we must be ever more vigilant. We can sustain the Cheney's of the world no longer. I'm not sure I'm saying much. It's time to go out and be with my crow friends. I love them. I think they've tricked me into believing they like me. But they really are just after my table scraps. Haha. I still love them.

[KoKo]

27. It's been hard to deal with "stop the world, I want to get off moments"

watching what some of us are starting to see as a planned train wreck where the injured survivors will not be rescued and identified in time to be able to survive. And, that the planners were well aware of that.

Just cryptic..sorry.

[Me.]

18. Transparency Now Means The Charade Is Becoming More Obvious

Wonkette, Maureen D., and a host of others called Palin on her nuttiness this weekend. And she is quite wacked, so mired in delusion of her own making that there it is almost impossible to believe that people are still talking up her 2012 run, yet they are. But she's not the only one living in a land of their own creation that has nothing to do with us. We have Feinstein attending a dinner for Palin in Jan. and telling us all two weeks ago that we can't have decent health care. Other senators are making it very clear they don't give a damn what the voters think as they water down banking bills and try to deny free choice. And then we have the Obama admin defending Cheney. That is seriously twilight zone material.

The economy may be the real key to change. If the economy continues to go down and unemployment up the discontent level will be hard to appease with fine words and little real action or results.

[myrna minx]

24. Excellent essay as always, H2o man.

Happy 4th. :hi:

[KoKo]

26. K&R...