People’s History

When I first started hearing about the Occupy movement I was immediately reminded of Robert Thurman’s book Inner Revolution in which he proposes a full-time, supported and even paid nonviolent peace army which would fight for justice, peace and changes in our society. It seemed to me the Occupy people were taking the first step toward being full-time activists and establishing ‘permanent’ protests instead of the ‘temporary’ protests and marches (however effective) used in the past. I just read the January issue of Shambhala Sun and there is an excerpt of a speech he gave in Zuccotti Park which references the ideas from his book.

I have also been thinking of Howard Zinn who argued that all true change in our society comes from the grassroots and travels ‘upward’. He didn’t live to see Occupy but it’s almost as if the Occupy people are all his students. People’s History, indeed!

And, ironically, there is a new documentary about Gene Sharp (the granddaddy of non-violent activism) which just came out and is being shown in theaters as well as Occupy sites all over the country.

Looking at the Republicans (?) who are 'running' for President I can't help but notice how loony they all are - maybe downright stupid. This made me realize there is an Obama effect happening. The Tea Party is rooted in racism, and I think this latest manifestation of Tea Party politics is also racist. I think that, in the back of their minds, these loony Tea Party Republicans are thinking: "Well, last time a Black guy won. So how hard could this be? Go for it!" None of them have any real credibility. (At least McCain was a Senator.) Most of these people hold elected offices but it's unclear how any of them could have gotten elected. Maybe their voters felt sorry for them....

“U.S. President Barack Obama suddenly takes hard-line stances against his Republican political adversaries after over two years of meek accommodation.” (recent headline)

I’m really tired of seeing all the negative stuff from the Left about Obama’s ‘meekness.’ It has been my belief all throughout his administration (so far) that he clearly understands what others do not understand: the Right-wing threat is much bigger and more menacing than others would admit. It’s not ‘democracy-as-usual’ to the Right-wing extremists. They are trying to take over the government and wreck it. They are about as anti-American as you could believe. I feel Obama has been taking a reasonable, flexible, conciliatory position with them so as to throw their extremism into sharp relief and make the American people see how dangerous these Right-Wingers really are. In my opinion, he’s trying to prevent a Right-Wing coup. I think his tactic is starting to work – the deficit debacle made some people see how reckless and dangerous these extremists are. I think voters might be waking up.

Politics of Deception

The Repubs are deliberately sabotaging the economy, but it's not for political gain in 2012. It's to accomplish what Newt recently referred to as 'social engineering.' They are trying to accomplish what they have been advocating for 80 or 90 years - the extermination of unions, relegation of women to second-class status, re-criminalizing homosexuality, etc. It's all social agenda stuff. They hid it behind their weeping and gnashing of teeth regarding the deficit, but they don't care about the deficit at all. It's just another phase of their ongoing practice of the politics of deception.

Boom!!

I was born in 1946, the first year of the so-called ‘baby boom’ generation. We baby boomers are starting to turn 65 this year and are being blamed for the fact that Social Security is going to run out of money in a few years. It is implied that because there are so many of us (because of the ‘boom’) we are going to bankrupt the system and destroy it. I’m wondering whether this is true.

First, I don’t see a boom at all. My parents were both from large families – My mom was 1 of 11 and my Dad 1 of 6. But they only had 2 kids. And my Mom and Dad’s siblings had from 0 to 4 kids. I would expect that if there was in fact a boom, there would be larger families in my generation, but there aren’t. In fact, it seems the families actually got smaller. So where did this boom idea come from?

Second, it is argued that the boomers will drain Social Security because there are so many more of us, and we are therefore poised to take more money out of the fund, but this is not accurate. Our generation may be larger than the preceding one but that previous generation’s work-force was almost entirely male. We actually put more money into the system because during our lifetimes women came into the work-force in huge numbers, thereby increasing the amount of tax being paid into Social Security, so we probably paid in more than we will take out, proportionally.

Third, I believe it is not the birth-rate that is the cause of the Social Security problem but the death-rate or average lifespan that is the cause. It is my theory that the system was designed when people’s life spans were shorter and it was assumed they would take out less than they put in. Due to increases in medical technology, life spans have been increasing and people are (fortunately) living longer and therefore taking out more money. I wonder if the system has ever been adjusted for this. The problem could be due to faulty math rather than excessive births.

Fourth, I believe this attack on Social Security is really an attack on the boomers by Conservatives and reactionaries who seek to punish us boomers for the liberalism and radicalism of the 1960’s. In that era our generation tried to transform America, to create a society that befit our ideals as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It was a revolutionary decade marked by social upheavals the likes of which had not been seen in decades (since the 1930’s, in fact, the era when Social Security was started.) We have much to be proud of – the civil rights and women’s movements, opposition to war and imperialism, attempts to change the capitalist economic system to make it more humane and make it serve the needs of the people (instead of the other way around.) Etc.

So I believe the attack on Social Security is political. Plain and simple.

I am really stunned by the stupid remarks that are being made in the wake of the Osama Bin Laden assassination. People are saying we shouldn’t celebrate somebody’s death. Oh, really? Do you recall who Osama Bin Laden was and what he did? He declared war on the United States and carried out numerous terrorist attacks. His thugs killed thousands of people in many places around the world. He was the #1 international criminal. And we should feel sorry for him because he was killed? I don’t think so. I feel sorry for the idiots making the stupid comments. Comments that suggest people should not have been celebrating last Sunday night when the news of his assassination broke. Some people are even criticizing the crowds for chanting “USA! USA!” What should they have chanted? “Osama, we're sorry, please forgive us?” I used to disparage people who displayed the “9/11 We will never forget” signs. Now I see they were right. It seems we somehow have forgotten. And now I hear people are complaining that Osama Bin Laden’s codename was ‘Geronimo.’ I can’t speak for the real Geronimo but I’m willing to bet he would have understood the reason for the action and been proud to have his name associated with the assassination of such a heinous criminal.

I am becoming increasingly annoyed at the criticisms of the response to the assassination of Osama from the Left. Some people are self-righteously asserting that we shouldn't celebrate his demise. (As if it's wrong to cheer for assassination. Well, it isn't. Not in this case, anyway. What's wrong - in my estimation - is to tell people they shouldn't feel what they are feeling. More about this below.) Others are suggesting the whole thing is a vast hoax. What nobody seems to have done is to observe how the American people responded as the news broke.
What I saw happening on Sunday night really amazed me. The announcement came at 11:30, although we knew well before that that Osama had been killed. Within minutes there were people gathering outside the White House to celebrate. Soon there were also people at Ground Zero. I understand there were similar gatherings in other cities. The news kept cutting back to the White House as the crowds swelled until the people filled Lafayette park. I actually got goosebumps as they chanted U-S-A! U-S-A! I felt like chanting as well - not for triumphalism, but relief. What occurred to me as I watched, and apparently hasn't occurred to anyone else, is that the shock of 9/11 had affected us more deeply than anyone really had imagined and these gatherings, while celebrating his assassination, were also celebrating what can be called the end of an era. They were a huge cathartic release of pent-up deeply-buried emotion. For almost 10 full years the US has been a country that (I feel ) people really didn't feel comfortable with, didn't feel was right. A country that no longer lived for its ideals, but instead embraced the worst practices of its enemies to defend itself. I feel that these celebrants realized that era was ending and they were happy to see it go. Maybe now we can return to the US many of us can believe in again. U-S-A! U-S-A! indeed.

So they killed Osama. He wasn't the real problem - his followers were, and they're still around. So is his money. At best his murder is symbolic. At worst, it will unleash a wave of terrorist attacks. We don't know what he was planning, what was in the works. It's time for all of us to be vigilant again.

I have been moved by the spontaneous outpouring of jubilation. Some cynics seem to think this was inappropriate and possibly staged. I think it was a cartharsis. Others have been criticizing the celebrations as if they are only about the assassination, as if they are blood-thirsty triumphalism. A few people (like Rachel Maddow) have looked back on the US and what has happened to us and what we have become since 9/11/2001. When you lay out all the facts what you clearly see is a nightmare. I think people were jubilant because that nightmare can be said to be over. That's worth celebrating.

I turn 65 in a few months. This period of my life is supposed to be my “Golden Years.” But the way things are going, I might get the years but the Republicans will be taking all the gold. Their systematic attempt to be “Robin Hood in reverse” – to rob from the poor to give to the rich – has got to be stopped. They defend and protect rich people as if rich people had some innate or God-given right to be wealthy, as if because they are wealthy they are innately superior to everybody else. But this is the mind-set of feudalism – it's as if we all are still laboring for the feudal lords who rule over us and live off the wealth that we create. There’s an old Wobbly song that goes: “Dump the bosses of your backs.” That’s kind of what we have to do. We have been carrying these wealthy people too long. They have every right to wealth but not to the sort of social and legal advantages that enable them to accumulate wealth at the expense of poor people. The Republicans argue that anyone who is against rich people is against capitalism and the market economy. But this is a lie. Capitalism is not intended as a mechanism for the creation of wealthy people. Capitalism is intended to use wealth to create more wealth – not to keep wealth bottled up.