Can Animals Be Gay?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html
An intriguing article that talks about animal behavior, the potential insights it gives for human behavior, and the relationship between politics and science.

An Adult

He was an adult in a field where there are too many children. The difference between adults and children is that children want power so that they can be somebody, and adults want power so that they can do something.”

Eric Severeid’s radio commentary on the death of John Foster Dulles
in 1959 (via Albert Pennybacker)

Finland’s 100,000 Year-Plan to Banish Its Nuclear Waste

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/science/11nuclear.html

“Onkalo, a tunnel that will hold spent fuel rods 1,600 feet under bedrock in Eurajoki, Finland, is the subject of the documentary ‘Into Eternity.'”

Company Gardens

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/dining/12gardens.html

“Workplace gardens are a relatively cheap perk that can put healthy snacks on the conference table.”

Windmill Worry

Aleph

‎”Aleph” is a soundless Hebrew consonant. Perhaps it preceded Genesis 1:1, which is when the Kabbalists believed creation actually began–in silence before the light was scattered. The Bible actually begins with a “bet,” which is our “b” sound–the pressing and parting of lips.

Aleph-Beth

Aleph-Beth (A-B): That’s how creation began. First breath,then the kiss of lips in voice, finally the universe.

Chemicals and Cancer

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/opinion/06kristof.html

Nicholas D. Kristoff: “The medical establishment has embraced the idea that untested chemicals can cause cancer. It’s time for Republicans and Democrats to address this issue.”

Dream Symbols

Twisting subterranean hallways where symbols merge with life as we know it. A dream showing us the way.

How Rock Stars Will Sing in their Old Age

http://tinyurl.com/yeme74z

“Tim Hawkins sings songs that famous Rock Stars will be singing in their old age.”  This is fun

Fiercely Independent

I describe myself as fiercely independent. Leave conformity behind and seek creative solutions. The terms, “liberal,” “conservative,” and “moderate,” just don’t cut it for me. I think for myself as best I can, not according to some ideology or set of rules or party platform. Of course, I’m influenced by others and by their ideas, but I come to my own decisions. When anybody tells me how I should think. I generally rebel. Ultimately decisions need to be based on a list, but on one’s own judgment. I’m sure that there are some who would regard me as very liberal on some issues, but there are others for whom I’m too conservative. It’s all relative, but I make my own choices. And I’m not moderate either, since I’m pretty firm when it comes to certain positions (my wife, Dianne, got me to realize this; they just don’t conform to the boxes that others want to put me in.

Adam Smith was No Ideologue

http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2010/04/smith-market-essay-sentiments
Amartya Sen reminds us that Adam Smith, the founding philosopher of modern capitalism, was not a market fundamentalist and did not believe in unfettered markets. He just believed in the market. He also believed that various human values other than self-interest–e.g. justice, humanity, generosity, spirit–were indispensable to a free, capitalist society.

Torah

Torah, which means “teaching” in Hebrew refers to (1) the first five books of the Bible, (2) the entire Bible; and (3) the whole of Jewish interpretive tradition, including the written Bible, the oral teachings, and various writings such as midrash Interpretations of biblical stories) and responsa (legal interpretations).

A Buddhist View of the Environment and Evolution

http://www.shambhalasun.com/sunspace/?p=16105

“In his recent book, The World We Have: A Buddhist Approach to Peace and Ecology (2008), the great Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh asserts that Buddhism, as a robust type of humanism, allows people to learn how to live on our planet not only responsibly, but with compassion and lovingkindness. …”

A Tiny Apartment Transforms into 24 Rooms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg9qnWg9kak&feature=player_embedded

“In Hong Kong, because of the space, apartments are small and expensive. Gary Chang, an architect, decided to design a 344 sq. ft. apartment to be able to change into 24 different designs, all by just sliding panels and walls. …”

How to Build Neighborhoods

What if we built our neighborhoods around curves rather than straight lines?

Pachelbel’s Canon With Some Juice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjA5faZF1A8&feature=player_embedded

This is wonderful

New York is the Home of Over 800 Languages

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/nyregion/29lost.html

Noam Chomsky and Israel

I wrote the following to a friend when he sent me an article by Noam Chomsky from Salon: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/04/27/chomsky_middle_east/index.html?source=newsletter

———————————————————-

Chomsky claims he is a Zionist, but does not really support the idea of a Jewish state or of a two-solution (even though he implies that he does here and elsewhere–he’s not serious and calls it temporary).  He does not take seriously into account Arab anti-semitism and Arab views of Jews over the decades or, even more important, the Arab commitment to annihilating Israel.  He neglects to mention that Israel came to occupy the West Bank in 1967, because every surrounding country was on the verge of a massive attack against Israel motivated by the desire to drive “Israel into the sea.”  What was Israel supposed to do?  Allow themselves to be slaughtered to feed the egos of those who do not believe that Jews have a right to defend themselves?  The goal of annihilating Israel and Jews still remains for many, obviously for Hamas, but even in the PLO and in many Arab societies, as well as the Iranian government.

How do you have a peace agreement when the majority of the peoples around you wish to destroy your country and slaughter or deport your citizens?  How do you have a peace agreement with a government which does not demonstrate a commitment to a democratic, non-corrupt, free society?  How do you have a peace agreement with a government that does not demonstrate even the most rudimentary capacity to run an orderly society?

Chomsky also claims in many of his interviews and writing that antisemitism no longer exists in any meaningful form.  That’s nice for him.  I don’t know what reality he lives in, but it’s not one I’m familiar with.  Perhaps he should take a look at what it’s like to be Jewish in France or Britain or Venezuela.  Or he might take a look at FBI religious hate crime stats in the US, which show that in 2007 69.2% of religious hate crimes are against Jews while 8.7% are of an anti-Islamic bias (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/victims.htm).  Chomsky is a well-to-do, successful, academic in a highly privileged institution who has no clue what it’s currently like to be Jewish in other settings, including the Middle East.

The real reason that Chomsky opposes Israel is that he is at heart an anarchist and does not really believe that states should exist in the first place–certainly not a Jewish state.  That’s nice for those who live in La La land.  I am certainly no backer of nation states and believe that they are on their way out as governing entities.  But I’m not so silly as to believe that we don’t need government and authority of some kind.

It’s sad that Salon would feature someone like Chomsky who is not taken seriously in the Jewish community, even on the left.  There are many others who could critique Israeli policies and offer a progressive vision of the Middle East.  Featuring Chomsky, an anarchist, does not encourage discussion or debate.  It shuts it down.

—————————

By the way, I’m not joking when I call Chomsky an anarchist.   He really is a self-proclaimed anarchist.  He has written extensively on the topic, including a book.  My best guess (and it’s only a guess) is that a lot of his strong opposition to Israel stems from his own Jewish identity and his anarchism.  As a Jew, he is especially opposed to Zionism and Jewish statehood, because the very concept of statehood is anathema to him.

But, in the real world today, with the way people live and act, the possibility of anarchism is a fantasy.  It bears a lot of resemblance to radical libertarianism, which comes from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum.

Snopes

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05snopes.html

At a time when it’s very difficult to tell truth from fiction on the internet, Snopes is one of those oases of reliability (via Dianne Bazell).

Africa as the New Asia

Africa is becoming the new China and India.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/18/how-africa-is-becoming-the-new-asia.html

Film Review: “Green Zone”

I recommend the film, “Green Zone.” It has flown under the radar for some reason, but Matt Damon does an excellent job, as does the rest of the cast. With the same pacing as the Bourne films (also directed by Paul Greengrass), Green Zone is sometimes hard to follow, but it is always exciting and interesting. It takes the point of view (probably now a consensus) that Iraq had ended the WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction program) in 1991 and that the US knew that, but went into Iraq for other reasons. The main character, Warrant Officer Roy Miller (US Special Forces), commands a squad given the task of locating the WMD’s, but he soon realizes that there are no WMD’s. Much of the plot centers on whether the US should incorporate the Baath (Sadaam Hussein’s party) political and military leaders into the governance of the country.

The film represents a number of different points of view. Baath Sunni General Al Rawi (Yigal Naor) seeks to make a deal with the US; Freddy (Khalid Abdallah), who knows the lay of the land and serves as Miller’s translator, is a Shia Iraq-Iran war veteran who lost a leg and who harbors deep anger toward the Baath leaders; Clark Poundstone (Greg Kinnear) is a state department official who wants to destroy the Baath and kill as many of them as possible in order to install those whom the US favors; Poundstone backs Shia Ahmed Zubadi (Raad Rawi, presumably an allusion to Ahmed Chalabi whom the US probably thought it could install as leader of Iraq), but Zubadi has little support among Iraqis; Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson) is a CIA agent who apparently supported the Iraq war, knew that the US lied about WMD’s, and wants to make a deal with the Baath; and Lawrie Dane (Amy Ryan) is a Wall Street Journal reporter who wrote stories on the Iraqi WMD that lent support to the US invasion of Iraq.

For an action film, there is a lot of subtle commentary, with different points of view presented on whether the US should have allowed the Baath into the governance of the country. Most action films do not show the complexity of real-life contexts, but this does so with flair. General Al Rawi is an intimidating charismatic leader who wants to make a deal. His physical presence in the film oozes suppressed rage and violence that could explode under the right circumstances. Both Freddy and Martin Brown expose the naivete of Miller. Freddy’s wounds and suffering give him credibility and moral force, as encapsulated by his words to Miller: “it’s not for you to decide what happens in Iraq.” Brown was well aware of the US deceit and lies from the outset, but has a realistic understanding of what could work in Iraq. Poundstone is an oily power-grubbing political climber who has no clue about Iraq and only cares about his own advancement. Zubadi is a lackey. Lawrie Dane is a dupe. And Roy Miller is caught in a web which he only begins to understand at the end of the film.

Green Zone’s depiction of the chaos of Iraq and the hellish environment in which soldiers operate attempts to give viewers a picture of events from the point of view of soldiers and Iraqis. Green Zone clearly takes the position that were no WMD’s in Iraq and that the US knew that, but it also leaves open the question as to whether the US should have invaded Iraq and whether it should have incorporated the Baath leaders into the governing structure of the country. The film intimates that, if the US had incorporated the Baath into the new Iraqi political system, one of the goals of the invasion might have come to fruition more quickly: an inclusive, democratic Iraq that could serve as a political model for the Middle East. But obviously there were those with other ideas, including both Americans and Iraqis.

The film does not give easy answers, and that’s what makes it special.

Reforming the Deli

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/dining/14deli.html

This article makes me hungry.

Cirque du Soleil Show Kooza Wheel of Death

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFAly6G5cA&feature=player_embedded

I’ve always wanted to try something daring. e.g. parachute jumping or bungee jumping. But walking the kooza wheel of death sounds like even more fun. Who wants to try it with me?

Ellen DeGeneres with her Hawaii Chair

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHiqVygN-w0

This is definitely at the forefront of new approaches to exercise. Whole offices can do this.

Judaism and Social Action IV

One further positive on government:  the environment.  If we didn’t have federal mandates, Lake Erie would still be burning, chemical and other toxic waste producing companies would be doing more damage to our soil and water, I and lots of others would be suffering from more severe asthma-induced air pollution (I’m personally still waiting for more restrictions on air particulates–it would help me to breathe), we’d continue to enjoy the benefits of DDT in our food, etc.  Sometimes the mandates are too strict (I’ve seen that with our own small family property in the Boston area), but all in all I prefer to be able to eat, drink, breathe, and live on a healthy planet.  If you want it the other way, take a look at Love Canal and other similar locations:  that’s what we have to look forward to without government “improvements.”

Again, government (WE) sometimes does the job well and sometimes badly.  That doesn’t mean we should either rely on government or remove it, but frankly we need to look to ourselves and ask ourselves what we’re doing wrong or not doing at all.  It’s up to us.  Government ineffectivenss, impersonalness, and bloat are just smptoms of our own attitudes and behaviors.

Evolution and Religion

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23wright.html
An interesting approach to reconciling science and religion on the issue of natural selection and evolution. Personally I never had the conflict.

Judaism and Social Action III

An email response to a friend of mine:

————————————————-

A couple of points.  You’re right.  There is a distinction between government-sponsored social action and social action in a Jewish context.  But the distinction is NOT between “government” and the “individual.”

For one thing, “government” is composed of individuals–just like you and I, they’re members of our communities.  There is no “us” and “them” (i.e. goverment and people).  That’s an illusion.  The government is “us”; if we don’t like it, that’s our problem, and we should elect new reps who will change it (obviously campaign finance reform may be necessary, but that’s ultimately in our hands too).  Posing government as some kind of demonic bogeyman is just another form of scapegoating.  It tries to fob off our problems on some other entity or group of individuals.  It’s another component of the victim mentality prevalent in Western culture.  Usually we think of ethnic groups as engaging in the discourse of victimiziation, but those who blame the government for all of our ills do exactly the same thing.

Government does good things, and government does bad things.  It built our highway system.  The Voting Rights Act allowed African-Americans to vote in the South.  It gave us the GI Bill of WWII, which allowed a whole generation of GI’s to attend college and buy homes and helped to produce the modern American economy from which we still benefit.  For all its faults, affirmative action and diversity have produced work forces that include women and minorities–I think of universities where I have worked, and I know that they would look very different without the pressure of government (probably hardly any women or minorities).  Of course, government does bad things as well.  Look at our tax code.  Look at the huge bureacracies.  Look at the welfare system.  Look at the Post Office.  Look at the mess we have for an educational system.  In the end, what government does well and what government does badly simply reflects on US.  Good or bad, in the end we are responsible.  Instead of blaming government or the “system,” we need to take a good, hard look at ourselves.

As to Judaism on social action.  Judaism does not view individuals as completely separate from their communities.  That’s why at Yom Kippur we atone for sins that we ourselves as individuals may not have committed.  And Judaism always views indidiuals as part of a larger Jewish community.  And the rabbis wrote the Mishnah, Talmud, and Responsa for the express purpose of governance.  They always envisioned a Jewish society in which these laws (civil, criminal, and religious) would run a nation.  That’s because Judaism isn’t solely a religion, but also a culture, a people, and a nation.  It’s both indidivual and group.  The two go together.  Tzedakah, etc., are OBLIGATIONS that Jews have both as indviduals and as a community.  The rabbis viewed those who did not do their share not only as making an individual error, but as disturbing the harmony and well-being of the larger group and even the cosmos.  And there were penalties when such behavior got out of hand.  I’m not personally a big fan of a rabbinic government, but, when we refer to the rabbis, we should be clear:  THAT’S WHAT THEY THOUGHT.  It’s fine to emphasize the individual over the group (though I myself prefer a more balanced and integrated approach), but in any case that’s not how the rabbis thought or think even now in Israel.

The individualism that some in our country emphasize reflects a very different tradition from the rabbinic one.  It’s a wonderful tradition that has helped to make our nation what it is today, but (in my opinion) it owes more to the Enlightenment than to any earlier religious traditions.  As for myself, I believe that we can exist both as individuals with our own personal goals and needs and as members of larger communities with whom we share group commitments and oblgations.  It’s always a balance, but that’s the challenge we have to acknowledge and face.

Converting Trash to Clean Energy in Europe

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html

Urban Symphony II

Bird songs, leaves rustling, chainsaws, lawnmowers, sirens.  Urban symphony.

Urban Symphony I

Voices of birds. Hum of motorized vehicles. Urban symphony.

Japanese Fiddler on the Roof

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGoRo-nPLOM

Now for something different and fun (via Dianne Bazell): Fiddler on the Roof in Japanese. It seems that the Japanese have a real affinity for this story dealing with the tension between tradition and change

Healing Rifts Between Poland and Russia

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/world/europe/13poland.html

More on the theme of reconciliation: Here Poland and Russia

Lech Kaczynski and Polish-Jewish Reconcilation

http://jta.org/news/article/2010/04/12/1011536/kaczynski-leaves-legacy-of-polish-jewish-reconciliation
May his memory be for a blessing. It’s very impressive how far Jewish-Polish relations have come over the last 75 years.

Political Psychology

http://www.truth-out.org/why-you-need-understand-political-psychology58214

This is a very interesting discussion of political psychology. There’s also a really cool set of surveys that allow one to see the different responses that liberals, conservatives, and centrists give to a whole variety of moral and political questions, as well as visual markers (dots, lines, triangles, colors, etc.): http://www.yourmorals.org/. Many of the questions are problematic and flawed, but they’re all intriguing. I’ve done about ten of the surveys, and my responses do not seem to correlate very well with any of the groups. In quite a number of instances, I’m considerably more liberal than the liberals, and other times I score more closely to conservatives. Sometimes I’m in-between. I call myself “radically independent,” and so this might make some sense. Thought-provoking.

Two Very Different Views of Iran and the Middle East

Here are two very different views of Iran and the Middle East:

1)  The first is from a conservative blog and discusses a book written by an Iranian, Reza Khalili, a CIA spy who was a member of the Revolutionary Guard of Iran.  He is convinced that either the US (the preferred option) or Israel must attack Iran and that the Iranian people are hoping for such an attack.  It is important to note that he does NOT advocate an invasion, but rather an attack on the Revolutionary Guard.  He also points out that most Iranians essentially love the US and are not unfriendly to Israel.  He opposes an invasion, because NOBODY wants their nation invaded.  He is of the opinion that Iranians cannot stand the current government, but they have no power to overthrow it.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/

2) The second is by a left-wing Israeli journalist, Uri Avneri.  He is of the view that there is very little the US or Israel will or can do about Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.  Israel’s and Jews’ connection to Iran goes back several thousand years, and the positive relationship cannot be preempted by the group of crazies that now run the country.  The effect of an attack by Israel would shut down the world economy, and the US will never allow Israel to do that.  And, given Iraq and Afghanistan and the US’s own economic woes, the US is in no position to attack either.  Obama is pushing Israel on East Jerusalem, because he wants Israel to make a choice between its building policy in the Jerusalem environs and a strong sanctions policy against Iran led by the US.  If Israel pursues its current settlement policy, then the US will not pursue the sanctions.  This is the choice that the US is presenting Israel.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1270319001/

At for the Khalili interview, I am not sure that an attack on Iran, which would include both the nuclear sites and the revolutionary guards without an invasion, would lead to the overthrow of the current government.  There’s a lot of wishful thinking there, and I don’t necessarily buy that.   It’s possible, but, even if the current government falls, the new government will very likely pursue nuclear weapons, although it will take them longer if the nuclear sites are destroyed.  Khalili is no doubt correct about an invasion and the long-term negative impact of such an approach.   Yet even a targeted attack on the Republican Guard and the nuclear sites could produce a understandably self-protective reaction on the part of a broad cross-section of the Iranian people.  You might hate your oppressive government, but you don’t want foreigners to do your own work for you.  That just makes people angry.  I do believe that Khalili is correct about the religious views of the Iranian leaders–that they believe that the use of nuclear weapons will initiate the public return of the twelfth mahdi and a worldwide victory for Islam.  Many in the West find this hard to imagine, but all we have to do is listen to late night radio and hear what many in the conservative Christian community believe.  It’s pretty much the same thing, with victory coming to Christ and Christians instead of the Mahdi and Muslims.  We should take very seriously the religious views of Iranian leaders, because they actually believe what they say.

The second piece is correct in its analysis of the US view of the Jerusalem situation.  I believe that the Obama administration and many US foreign policy analysts (including those from a variety of prior administrations) believe that progress on the Israel-Palestinian conflict will give the US more leverage in dealing with Iran.  Whether this is actually true or not is another matter (whatever the merits or flaws in the Obama admin’s position on settlements).  Arab governments are terrified of Iran regardless of Israel, and progress on Israel-Palestine will likely not change the behavior of the Iranian government and of those who fear it.  The Middle East is much more complex than Israel-Palestine, and the US should not be fixated on that as some kind of cure-all.  It might buy some time, but that will end quickly.   We are dealing with governments in the Middle East that, except for Israel, are, for the most part, corrupt dictatorships (often despised by their own people, as in Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia), and that makes the situation volatile no matter what happens with the Palestinians (For Arab countries, see most recently the democracy report card of the Arab Reform Initiative:   http://arab-reform.net/IMG/pdf/annual_rep_010_english.pdf , where Palestine, by the way, scores rather low).

This is a very difficult environment.  I have no idea what the solution is.  My own sense is that Israel will attack if it appears that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons, even if the US opposes such a move.  This could have profound consequences for the US-Israel relationship and, of course, for Israel.   That is why Israel has spent a lot of time cultivating its relationship with both India and China, both economically and militarily.  In the end, this is an existential question for Israelis.  Given the holocaust and the near decimation of world Jewry, Israel is acutely aware of what the consequences of Iranian nuclear weapons would be.  Israelis will take enormous risks to prevent that from happening.  The best possibility right now might be the continuation of covert operations to slow down Iranian progress on the nuclear front, but that can only work for so long.  The effectiveness of sanctions is doubtful.

In reality, no one has a clear answer.  The best approach is for those of us are observers to try to understand the complexity of the dynamics at play and the different points of view of the people and nations involved.  At the same time, any kind of open dialogue is preferable.  This is a time when the lines of communication need to be open and when people of different backgrounds need to be talking with one another, even if there is very little apparent progress and even if they are not talking about the Middle East.  Sometimes just talking about gardening or sports builds the foundation for real understanding.  And I know that this may sound pollyannish, but we need prayer and meditation to surround this region with imagery of peace and light.

Who Murdered Archbishop Oscar Romero?

The assassins of Archbishop Romero are revealed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/05/AR2010040503234.html

A Great Photograph

A great photograph is not a reproduction, but a distillation.

A Toddler Uses an iPad for the First Time

We could all use this kind of mental flexibility.

http://laughingsquid.com/a-2-5-year-old-uses-an-ipad-for-the-first-time/

Not Democrats vs. Republicans, but Elites vs. Working People

I think that this by article by Dan Gerstein is excellent.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/20/scott-brown-health-care-republicans-democrats-opinions-columnists-dan-gerstein.html?boxes=opinionschannellighttop

See also this piece on smart populism: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/28/the-wisdom-of-crowds.html

And see this one on progressive vs. populist politics: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/03/the-progressive-and-the-populist.html

The real issue in the U.S is not Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative, big government vs. small government, libertarian vs. communitarian, raise taxes vs. cut taxes, etc. Rather the fundamental division is between the elites and the working class (which is the vast majority of us). Many of us don’t like to think of ourselves as working stiffs, but we are if we have to work to live or if we can’t afford to pay massive hospital bills. Those in power would like us to imagine that we will all be billionaires or that our tastes (food, literature) make us better than others, because that keeps us divided and impotent.

There are elites from the entire political spectrum. The extreme wealthy back both Democrats and Republicans. We are chumps if we think otherwise. And then there are those in both parties who have contempt for working people–and many of those who express that contempt are themselves working people. Many conservatives sneer at those who are unable to get adequate medical care, because for them it’s an individual responsibility. Many liberals have contempt for those who express frustration with taxes that make it impossible to live in many communities. Many conservatives look on anything intellectual, scholarly, or environmental as a waste of time. Many liberals scorn sports, pick-up trucks, budget restraint, and down-to-earth pragmatism.

I consider myself a radical independent and a progressive populist. For me health care is essential and a top priority. I consider access to adequate health care a basic right and a prerequisite for a civilized society. But people are hurting economically right now and fearful about employment, and they need relief. If the government does not address the basic fear of those in the workforce and show that it understands what we are facing, then no reform will ever get done on anything. We need leaders who comprehend what it is to struggle in day-to-day life and address those of us who deeply want reform, but who also have to work.

Right now our leaders may talk about jobs and the economy, but I don’t have the sense that they identify with working people. Until they do, one party will defeat the other, only to be defeated again. It is an illusory cycle of change, where movement seems to take place, but actually we’re standing still. And, as the world changes swiftly around us, our government will be in effect non-functional (as it seems to be now). And then there will be two choices: a demagogue (or a demagogic movement) will find his or her way into the vacuum and take us in to some kind of authoritarian hell; or (I hope) a grass roots movement will force a third party or some other mechanism to emerge that will make our political leaders responsive to the concerns of those of us in the trenches and move us forward as a free society.

« Previous Entries Next Entries »