Someone Asked me Why I Hate my Country

The question was meant to be facetious, not insulting. But still, it caused me think about the issue – what it means “to hate” or “to love one’s country”.

It is an issue on which the elites who control our country – our elected politicians, as well as those who pay them to do their bidding – place a great deal of emphasis. More specifically, they use it to marginalize those who disagree with how our country is run.

These are the elites who refer to those who express opinions against the wars that they generate or support as “unpatriotic” or “treasonous”. They are the people who use the term “class warfare” to attack those who believe that the wealthy should pay their fair share of taxes, commensurate with what their country does for them. They are those who use the epithet “socialist” to describe anyone who believes that government should play an active role in providing opportunities for the most vulnerable of our citizens. They coined the term “loony conspiracy theorist” to describe anyone who expresses serious disagreement with their own version of history. They wield the term “big government” to express their ideology that only private individuals and corporations are capable of making contributions to society, thereby advancing the argument that the government that governs least is the government that governs best. They use the term “bleeding heart liberal” to describe anyone who expresses empathy for the unfortunate.

There is a purpose behind all of this. Being at the top of the hierarchy, they wish more than anything to preserve the status quo at the least, or better yet to expand their own wealth and power. In the service of that goal they pronounce and propagate a world view that lauds the current power structure in our country. They do this in their attempt to justify the fact that they have many magnitudes more wealth and power than the rest of us. After all, who would accept having many magnitudes less wealth and power than other people unless a justification is provided? In other words, they propagate their justifications in order to keep the vast majority of American citizens content and quiet, and convince some of them even to put their lives on the line by going to war to support their various causes.

The elites of all nations do this to some degree – some more than others.


What does it mean to love one’s country?

I’ve said before that the question of “loving your country” is so abstract as to be almost meaningless. What does it mean? Does it mean loving the laws and policies on which your country is based? Does it mean loving your country’s leaders? Does it mean loving most or all of your country’s citizens? Does it mean loving the physical geography of your country?

It can mean any or all of those things, and more. In my own personal view, loving or hating your country means above all loving or hating what your country does. What your country does is determined largely by its leaders. But all of us deserve at least some part of the credit or blame because to varying degrees we all support or enable what our country does, or we take various measures to cause it to follow a different path.

I hate a great deal of what my country does. It does good things too, but like most Americans I believe that it is definitely going in the wrong direction. In this post I wish to note the things that I most hate about what my country does. It is important to me to do this because I believe that too many Americans are too complacent about these things. Too many of us are too hesitant to verbalize – even to ourselves – what it is that we dislike or hate about our country because we have been conditioned since childhood to be too hesitant to do this. We have been conditioned to believe that harsh criticism of our country is tantamount to lacking “patriotism” at best, or treason at worst. We have learned that those who express such views can be and often have been marginalized by society. So here’s my partial list:


Things I hate about my country

Imprisonment
The United States has by far the largest imprisonment rate of any nation in the world – 715 persons per 100,000 population in 2008. That amounts to more than two million imprisoned Americans.

You would think that this fact would give some pause to those who loudly proclaim the United States to be the “land of the free”. But it seems that most Americans either aren’t aware of this fact, or they are not very concerned about it – or both.

There are many reasons for our excessively large imprisonment rate – none of them good. In part it is racially driven, as suggested by many studies that show our justice system to be pervaded by racial bias. It is used to disenfranchise minorities, as was done in the 2000 presidential election in Florida, to hand the presidency to George W. Bush. It is facilitated by demagogic politicians who wish to enhance their image by appearing “tough on crime”. And it is fueled by the private prison industry, which spends millions to lobby our government for harsher and longer prison sentences in the interest of adding to their profits.

It is just plain shameful that our government hands off criminal justice responsibilities to private corporations who use the power given them in pursuit of their own private interests. Torture in our prisons is one of many tragic manifestations of that abrogation of responsibility. As one investigator explained:


Imprisonment for victimless crimes is a prominent feature of our criminal justice system. It has been estimated that in the United States today, there are approximately 750 thousand individuals incarcerated for victimless crimes – mostly drug related. The presence of laws that allow for imprisonment for victimless crimes facilitates the introduction of racism into our criminal justice system. It contributes to organized crime. And it is a major reason for single parent households in our country.

Money in politics
Money is so freely used to influence elections in our country today that any reasonable assessment of American politics tells us that bribery is routinely used to buy and sell elections. So routine is it that it is actually built into our system and legalized. But that fact is never overtly spoken of. To do so would imply that our system of government is as much or more an aristocracy than it is a democracy.

The enabling of money to influence elections in our country makes a mockery of the presumed principle of one person-one vote. The money is used primarily to flood our nation with propaganda – in print and over the “public” airways – on behalf of the candidates who represent the rich and powerful. That propaganda represents a powerful force in our elections because it requires countering with counter messages from the other side – which lacks the money to do that. To the extent that money is thus enabled to influence our elections, democracy is corrupted or negated.

Rampant militarism
The United States is now virtually in a state of permanent war. It annually spends close to $700 billion on defense, almost as much as the rest of the world combined. It has been estimated that it now has more than 700 military bases scattered throughout the world.

During the latter half of the 20th Century the United States engaged in violent interventions against sovereign nations more than any other nation of the world, mostly on behalf of right wing dictators who promised to protect American interests. A partial list of illegal, immoral, or genocidal overseas military and other aggressive interventions in sovereign nations since 1893 includes: Hawaii (1893); Puerto Rico (1898); Cuba (1898-1903); the Philippines (1899-1902); Nicaragua (1909); Honduras (1912); Russia (1918-); Iran (1953); Vietnam (1954-73); South and Central America (1954-); Cuba (1961); Indonesia (1965); the Dominican Republic (1965); Cambodia (1970-75); Laos (1969-74); and East Timor (1975).

Most or all of the military or CIA interventions noted above were illegal as well as immoral. And there have been lots more. The mere fact of forceful intervention against a sovereign nation is what made them illegal and immoral. Beyond that, many or most of them were associated with additional crimes and/or atrocities.

U.S. leaders always have propaganda ready to justify those interventions that it can’t or doesn’t care to hide from the American people. That propaganda serves to placate too many U.S. citizens. But the rest of the world isn’t much fooled.

Tom Engelhardt, in his book “The American Way of War – How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s Wars”, provides an apt analogy for the U.S. invasion of Iraq and its insistence that it has to maintain its presence there (albeit with “non-combat” troops) indefinitely to clean up the mess:


The U.S. contribution to global climate change
Climate change is threatening to destroy our planet. Brian Fagan describes the catastrophes that are likely to befall humanity if climate change is not adequately addressed, in his book “The Great Warming – Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilization”.


The U.S contribution to climate change is greatly out of proportion to its population. It is responsible for approximately one quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions. Yet, in 2001 President Bush pulled the United States out of its international commitment to the Kyoto protocol, leaving us and Australia as the only two industrialized countries uncommitted to the international effort to respond to the climate change threat.

President Obama has not been much better. At the 2009 Copenhagen Summit, the United committed to a 4% reduction in greenhouse gas emission from 1990 levels by 2020 – a puny and laughable gesture compared to the 80% reduction by 2050 that climate scientists say is necessary in order to avoid catastrophe.

Abrogation of international treaties
Just as a system of laws within nations is necessary to prevent the strong from crushing the vulnerable, and to maintain order with a minimum of violence, so is a system of laws necessary in international affairs – for very similar reasons. Following World War II the need for a strong system of international laws became widely apparent. The effort to establish such a system – The United Nations Organization – was successfully led by two U.S. presidents in succession, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. Truman also played a lead role in the creation of the Nuremberg Tribunal of 1946, which led to the conviction of 16 Nazis for the war crimes which had recently resulted in monumental suffering and death.

I would have been quite proud of my country at the time for taking the lead role in these activities. But since that time the United States has done much to destroy the very system for the establishment of international peace that it had done so much to create, by failing on so many occasions to comply with that system. Its failure to comply has involved its many acts of military aggression directed at sovereign nations and more recently its widespread use of torture.

A great amount of evidence indicates that torture – a war crime – was widespread and condoned at the highest levels of the Bush administration, including George Bush and Dick Cheney themselves. Now Bush has even admitted to this crime in his recently released memoirs, and yet the reaction from our country has by and large been one of passive acceptance.

The Bush administration’s perpetration of war crimes was bad enough. Many Americans hoped that the Obama administration would aggressively pursue investigation followed by prosecution of those war crimes, as a means of sending a message to the international community of nations that it was serious about international law. Yet President Obama has steadfastly refused to have his Department of Justice investigate potential war crimes committed by high level personnel of the Bush administration.

Support of the International Criminal Court (ICC) would have been one of the best ways for our country to signal its support for international law. The purpose of the ICC is to prevent the most heinous of crimes that cannot or will not be addressed at the national level.

Though the Bush administration provided many excuses for its hostility to the ICC, the underlying issue appeared to be that it could not tolerate the possibility that an American could ever be tried before the Court. For example, Bush claimed that the Court’s jurisdiction could not extend to Americans because that would undermine “the independence and flexibility that America needs to defend our national interests around the world”. As Philippe Sands, a lawyer specializing in international law, suggests in his book “Lawless World”, such an excuse amounts to an assertion that U.S. leaders have no intention of adhering to the ICC’s prohibitions against some of the worst crimes imaginable. President Obama has done nothing to reverse that decision. I am deeply troubled by the fact that my country has done so much to destroy our system of international law by refusing to hold itself subject to so many international laws.

Inequality
The United States exhibits the greatest level of income inequality of any of the rich nations of the world. Consequently, as of 2007 a study showed that more than a third of the wealth in the United States was held by the top 1% of households, while about 15% was held by the lower 80%.

Income inequality in the United States plunged during the 1930s with the onset of FDR’s New Deal. It then remained quite low for several decades, until the beginning of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency. It then began a precipitous climb, with a sharp decline beginning during the last year of Clinton’s Presidency, but then another sharp increase beginning at about the time that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy first went into effect, so that by the end of 2006 we exceeded even the peak ratio of 1929 that preceded the Great Depression.

Epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett demonstrate in their book, “The Spirit Level – Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger”, numerous non-economic consequences of obscene income inequality that are independent of absolute income or wealth. These consequences include more mental illness, greater use of illegal drugs, higher imprisonment rate, higher infant mortality rate, more homicides, lower educational performance of our children, lower index of child well-being, lower trust in our fellow citizens, and lower status of women, among other adverse societal effects.

A nation’s level of income and wealth inequality is largely a product of its laws and policies. A high level of national income and wealth inequality generally means that its elites have been successful in arranging its laws and policies to enhance their own wealth and power at the expense of everyone else.


In conclusion

I really do hate all of the things I discussed above. None of these are things that just happened accidentally. They are all mainly the result of a relatively small elite in our country who have fought hard to elevate their own individual wealth, status, and power way above that of the vast majority of Americans.

Thus, in the quest for private profit our elites buy politicians to pass legislation to consistently favor the few over the many. They lead us into one war after another, always with some justification, which often lacks even a semblance of sincerity. They proclaim that the international laws aimed at producing world peace don’t apply to the United States because we are too special to be constrained by such laws. They develop a criminal justice system in which record portions of our population are sent to prison for no good reason, while proclaiming our country to be the “land of the free”. Our democracy is greatly corrupted when their wealth is used to sway elections and to buy politicians who are pledged to conduct our nation’s business in their own interests rather than in the interests of the voters who elected them. And giant corporations spend millions of dollars on propaganda to deny the climate change that threatens world-wide catastrophe for billions of people – in the interest of enhancing their profits.

I hate that my country has done all these things and continues to do them. And I hate that the political party that I have belonged to for many decades is unable or unwilling to even acknowledge most of these problems, let alone make substantial inroads into solving them.

That's a lot of "hate".

Very well stated.

I'm talking, of course, about criminalizing the existence of the republican Party. EVERY negative tenet listed, from global environmental destruction, imprisonment and racial inequality, and an overt and embarassing denial of world input, can be traced directly and specifically to policies mandated and promulgated by the republican Party. We must legally establish connections between the policies of the republican party and illegal, abusive results, the very ones we are experiencing on an escalating basis.

Please note: This is NOT about denying first amendment rights, but denying CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. The republican party has proven throughout the decades that they are the most destructive, evil organization in the history of the planet.

But I've always been saddened by the greed ethic, the ignorance of many Americans, and the corruption in government.

And the people of this country are stupid enough to believe the lies and bullshit spewed daily by this propaganda machine that they don't know who the real bad guys are. This machine has done a brilliant job of turning the people against each other and not at the real targets.

But you know what all of those things have there root in....a lack of morality.
And not the morality that most people think of....sex and all that, but the morality that deals with fairness and human concerns.
And the country I love is the one that believed in the spirit of the constitution, which said in it's preamble....to establish justice.
That morality has been slowly eroded away in subtle ways over my lifetime. And now what we have is a country that is driven more by greed than any sense of morality and justice for all....it is dog eat dog and the big dogs do most of the eating.

Fundamental chang is what we need and I suspect it will be a long hard road to get back to where we once belonged.

"Do unto others...." That's why as an ardent anticapitalist, I look at capitalism as Satanic. Capitalism is the antithesis of the "Do unto others...." morality. Ergo, anything that is the antithesis of morality is of the Devil and Satanic.

Because capitalism is just a economic system...and any economic system can be made to work in "do unto others"
It is the perversion of capitalism that is evil....the perversion comes when you buy into the Ayn Rand philosophy of the virtues of selfihness...and allow it to run the system....which is exactly what has happened to us.

with it's inherent selfishness, IS the capitalism of today. That's the first problem. Secondly, because of the amorality of profit IN all capitalism, it's actually what the logical end result what ALL capitalism IS.

If you agree with the sentiment that all capitalism should not be concerned with anything other than the acquisition of profit (and what capitalist of any age will disagree?), then you agree with the amorality of capitalism AS A SYSTEM.

Now INDIVIDUAL capitalists might try to add some form of ethos into their version of capitalism, but that doesn't mean that the system itself is anything but amoral. The amorality of capitalism leads to only one thing, the exploitation of everybody else in the sevice of profit. Even the "good" capitalists will eventually be sucked into the "profit is all that matters" ethos, usually with the first IPO that happens. That exploitation IS inherent in capitalism and that exploitation is of Satan because it's the OPPOSITE of "Do unto other", the basis of ALL religions and spiritual systems.

The opposite of spirit is EVIL, with a capital "E".

And there have been systems based on free enterprise and capitalism that have worked....I am thinking here of the one Moses gave to Israel when they came into the promised land....it was capitalistic and free market but with restrictions....for one Usury was forbiden...and the land was divided among the people equally and was forever because you could sell your land but every 50 years there was a Jubilee year when all property was returned to the owner....except in the cities where it was just as it is today. If you owned a house in the city you could sell it to someone and they would own it forever....but not so with the land itself...you could sell your land but not the inheritance of your children....so poverty was confined to a single generation....and no one could own so much that they dominated the others.
Without the accumulation of wealth through compounded interest much of the evils caused by greed are not their.

But there is no economic system that cannot be perverted...just look at communism and socialism...it was perverted from the first days of the revolution.

I don't think I would willingly choose a country based on Socialism strictly on the fact that it is Socialist.

The problem is not the economic philosophy a country is built on, the problem is people. It really does not matter if a country is Socialist or Capitalist, someone will find a way to exploit the masses for their own gain. To assign blame to an economic system is to completely ignore the real problem.

I have a friend who is Cuban and his family recently went back to visit their family that did not escape. He has always considered himself a progressive and a proponent of Socialism, for many of the reasons socialist_n_TN has written. He used to get into regular arguments about Socialized medicine and how much better Cuba was, mostly because of what he saw in Michael Moore's documentary.

Since his visit he has completely changed his opinion. He still considers himself a Progressive, but he has been able to clear his head about the root cause of corruption and exploitation. It is not the system of government, economy, or wealth. The root cause is the people and how the people use and misuses the systems presented to them.

This country was on the right path, and I remember a time when people honestly believed in a bright future. Today our government has lost almost all interest in the people in favor of special interest money and partisan politics. It is more important to hold press conferences to bash the other guys than it is to work on real reform to our system of laws that will improve our lives and future.

This new path is the root cause of all the corruption and lost faith in our future. And this path can and has happened in Socialist countries. In Cuba the corruption and exploitation has lead to apathy and an overall dismal life for the people. This is a country that is by all accounts the Socialist dream of many misguided people in this country.

You both generally said the same thing, that there is an equivalency between socialist systems and capitalist systems because PEOPLE screw them up. And I agree to the point that people can fuck up a wet dream. I'm old and NOT naive about people and their foibles. HOWEVER...

Let's look at the goals and ambitions of the two systems. In capitalism, the GOAL is to make as much money as possible for an individual or for a small collection of individuals. The GOAL of a socialist system is to benefit the largest number of people, including the poor and disenfranchised who have problems taking care of themselves. Now which system, if it's allowed to flourish WITHOUT people corrupting it, will be the fairest? BY DEFINITION, a socialist system will benefit the most people by FAR.

So who gets to define what "benefits the largest number of people?"

and they tend to reserve the most benefit for themselves, even in Socialist systems.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Lets throw this out there for perspective. In a capitalist system I can make a choice between options for resources(assuming no monopolies), whereas under a Socialist system I have no choice, it's all the peoples resources. What if the socialist resources suck or do not satisfy my needs?

Socialism is guaranteed to benefit all and be less evil, if you can guarantee everyone involved is not greedy or power hungry. Is that even possible?

In that story about Cuba I told the people live under a very socialist system. The "people" own everything. Those in charge get to decide what is in the best interest of the people. You'd be surprised at what they do without in the name of what is best for the people.

Find someone with first hand experience in a socialist country. You may find your assumptions are a bit naive.

are that socialism is inherently evil, so I don't think I am being naive in the very least. It is founded on class warfare and individual rights and freedoms must be stripped in order for it to be even somewhat effective.

I just figured a socialist, maybe in TN, would be able to give a knowledgable counterpoint, so I asked.

I was shooting the "assumptions" comment towards the socialist.

Capitalism naturally reaches this point because profit, and gathering it becomes some sort of "holy" venture, no matter how many people it hurts/kills in the process.

which is not only deteriorating but trying the take the rest of the world down with it.

Indeed it will be a long hard road to set things right, or even to turn around and start moving in the right direction. In my opinion the biggest step is for people to see and understand what is happening.

For example, I had an argument with my cousin a few weeks ago, and I mentioned that we had by far the largest incarceration rate in the world. His response was something to the effect that that probably means that large portions of our population need to be incarcerated. Few people want to recognize that there is something fundamentally very wrong with our system.

Proves that there is something fundamentally wrong....I am afraid your cousin sees the symptoms as the problem.
And he is not alone in that.
And by the way I think your posts do much to get people to understand what is happening and so I am proud to kick this again.

You continue to demonstrate time-after-time that the art of essay on this discussion board is alive and well, and further, that your essays take an unvarnished, unbiased look at the issues facing our country and our party today. How nice to see someone of considerable intelligence and skill craft more than just the usual rah-rah fluff so often mistaken for essay on DU today. Your words resonate truthfully. Thank you.

It's very nice of you to say those things, I appreciate it.

The essays and other pieces you write are ALWAYS well written and impeccably sourced. Your writings are a pleasure to recommend and even more of a pleasure to read. Again, thank you.

So why do Teabaggers consider themselves "True Americans" while demonizing the left wing? Thank you for posting this. To conservatives, "loving America" means blind faith to right-wing policy (a la Reagan, Bush). They're quick to say "if you don't like America then leave" yet won't move to a tax haven when waving "Hands off my healthcare" signs.

But I'll have to read through it tomorrow.
:kick: & R

A Rule of Law, constitutional nation of the people, by the people, for the people. With liberty and justice and equality for all.

I love your sig line, btw. If 1% do have 99% of the income, then they truly should pay 99% of the taxes.

and as far as wealth goes, we're even closer.

:kick:

and indeed rose from 1933(33.3%) under FDR's watch. It's always been around a third, excepting the oil crisis, and the height of the 1929 bubble (wealth that didn't even exist).

No one can fill Howard Zinn's shoes, but you have the same ability to see and expose how things work.

I'd like to see a Cameron produced 3D horror movie of all you/we have seen and understood based and on your insights forced on every TV watcher. That being a "no," go and develop your voice and the media that will carry it. DU is just a trial beta, and a weak one. Not nothing, but not enough.

And yes, I hate all of the things about our country that you do, but cannot articulate my rationale nearly so eloquently.

:loveya: :applause:

My thoughts exactly!

I`m astounded at what passes for "leadership" these days and what many are willing to excuse. It`s frightening.

I'll bet everyone who reads this will agree. Well Done.

:applause:

The true patriotism, the only rational patriotism, is loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.

who have the power and money. The right wing elites have successfully, with the help of corporate media, framed educated people as the elite class. Those who had the right sperm donors and inherited power are somehow admired as just plain folks. That's the image that was created to sell out our government to the most elite family in America.
The question is: Will Americans be driven to use the Romanov solution?

is that Americans just won't even try to understand the issues mentioned here. Self-satisfaction is a form of hubris. Since I was a child in the 40's and 50's I have heard and seen the sort of people who, without a shred of irony, will support everything the government does and rail against the same actions done in other countries.
I cannot live anywhere else but here but oh to meet those who love her enough to critique her honestly.

A problem cannot be addressed, let along solved, until people first acknowledge it to be a problem. Self-satisfaction, arrogance, hubris, denial -- all these traits coalesce to prevent so many people from ackowledging what's right in front of their eyes. Once enough people recognize these things as a major problem, our elites will have a very hard time in maintaining the status quo.

Sure, she raised me, gave me a place to live, provided things that I couldn't provide fr myself...but sometimes...sometimes she's completely irrational. She'll make up things and then act as if they're true. She'll respond disproportionately to someone she thinks is cheating her, even when there's no evidence.

She's a nurse and there have been a few times she's saved my life - one swollen appendix diagnosis over the phone, one time where she stopped a nurse's aide from putting about 8 inches of oxygen through the IV line. So, I appreciate her. I know I owe her everything.

But sometimes she's nuts. And to listen to her is to accept her craziness as mine. So I just can't. I can't.

That's exactly the way I feel about my country.

I do believe most of this article to be factual or damn close to it but pointing continually to shadowy elites (who don't want to be pointed to but still decidedly exist).

Not to incite violence on anyone...but simply to make visible.

These shadowy behind the scenes people should be brought into the light.

Summers, Rubin, Geithner, Bernanki. CEOs of major corporations, especially Wall St. corporations. Pete Peterson, the Koch brothers, to name a few.

But many of them are extremely difficult to identify.

There are quite a few more shadowy cretins there. I do not want to make the FReepers mistake of assuming a certain level is the the "elites" when they are nothing more than the puppets.

I love the world, I intensely dislike oppression.

Ignorance is the base problem.

And you're stinking up the place!

founding principles, liberty and freedom itself, or international law including the Geneva Conventions; inhumane, wantonly destructive, or imperialistic on its face; overtly harmful to the environment or to the mother earth in general; facilitating fiscal irresponsibility, tax unfairness, burgeoning income inequality, and a laizze-faire approach to governance; allowing our country to fall to or near the bottom among industrialized nations in almost all quality-of-life and longevity rankings, all exacerbated by the lack of some form of universal health care all the while government spends almost as much on national defense/military with 5% of the population as does the rest of the world and fosters and speeds along a much further concentration of wealth among a relatively few as the standard of living for the many plummets and the economy falters. If all this means I'm a liberal or progressive, guess it's easy to see why there are so few of us. ;)

I am so sick of that BS - and how it gets mindlessly parroted by those who never stop to think why we'd be so passionate about wanting to improve something we allegedly hate.

the right wing hegemony. Sure, we have had progressive movements focused largely on single issues, the labor movement in the 20's and 30's. The Civil Rights movement in the 50's and 60's. The feminist movement. The Gays rights and Environmental movement. What all these movements lacked was any cohesion. No singularity of purpose.

You can love the Yankees, or the Red Sox, or the Patriots, or the Knick, but hate the actual players on your team at any given time. IOW, most fans root for the laundry.

The idea of America is a historically radical notion, and its ideals are laudable. It's the people who don't live up to those ideals that are crummy.

Witnessing the continuing disintegration of our species has understandably become a source of fear and anxiety for many of us. I think it's particularly difficult for those of us who see the bigger picture with crystal clarity.

First of all, Time for Change, we mustn't forget that the newest, shiny toys for the 'Captains of Industry' are the electronic voting machines. I firmly believe the Corporatists have developed strategies for "taking the temperatures" of definitive electorates nationwide to determine where they can play with the voting outcomes and insure that their favored candidates get in office. In short, we get to vote, but this 'right' is sustained primarily as a sop to maintain the illusion that We the People play a vital role in who gets in office. What a crock.

Second, we must acknowledge and address the long held perspective of the aforementioned 'Captains of Industry'--that the vast majority of us are silly, infantile, uneducated, pathetic individuals whose autonomy is secondary to the brilliance and "God-given" superiority of the wealthy elite. Ayn Rand's paean to corporatists and Edward Bernays' subversively successful manipulation of the hoi polloi are just two of the many ways the 'Ruling Elite' has secured their control of the 'unwashed masses.'

Third, we can rest assured that the Republicans, the DINOs, and their servile media lapdogs are celebrating a Phyrric victory, since their efforts to secure absolute power and control can only hasten the demise of our nation, if not our entire species.

I recently heard a fellow Democrat adjure an audience (which included Cindy Sheehan and Colonel Ann Wright, among others) to recognize that we all share responsibility for our species' current state of affairs, either through action or inaction. To an extent--at that time--I agreed with him, but I've since come to understand that those of us who do not have political power, or the inordinate wealth that insures such power, have long felt powerless to effect change.

Our sole path to change requires such a radical decision, most of us shun the various analyses that lead us toward this inevitable conclusion. No matter how much we might struggle to avoid the inevitable, We the People MUST have a revolution. My hope has become that we will use the internet and other contemporary technology to accomplish our revolution without violence and mayhem. But, for all of my optimism, I doubt the Corporate Megalomaniacs intend to go quietly into the night...

I agree that radical changes are needed. Trying to figure out the best way to acheive them is a great challenge.

The only book I've read that specifically talks about that is Dereck Jensen's "Endgame - The Problem of Civilization", and Part II of his Series, "Resistence". I discuss it in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8293821

I continue to post this heinous reality: less than 400 people worldwide own and control better than 45% of the world's resources. The uber wealthy are seriously addicted to growing their wealth; the rest of the world be damned.

Starvation in Ethiopia? Thins the unwashed masses! Tsunami in Indonesia? Great opportunity to buy beachfront property! Merapi erupting--again in Indonesia? Awwwww...too bad for the hoi polloi!

After now centuries of externalizing responsibility and refusing to work seriously and sincerely for global peace, and a prosperity that PROTECTS our planet instead of RAPING it, we humans are facing a radical restructuring of our species--one over which we will have little or no control.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving species...

I oppose what certain politicians do but every country in the world has certain despicable policies.

Everything complained about above can be shown to exist in many countries.

As far as income inequality ours isn't that obscenely high, we're right at the average.

does that mean that we should love our own country's despicable policies?

It is not true that we're average with regard to inequality. Among the industrialized nations of the world, we're at the very top:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inc_equ_un_gin_ind-income-equality-un-gini-index

The average is 40.5 and the US is at 40.8.

You don't consider South America industrialized or Singapore?

the poorer, developing nations.

Here's a graph comparing income inequality for just the highly developed nations. Check out figure 2.1:
http://books.google.com/books?id=i1oz6wYHjisC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=figure+2.1+%22How+much+richer+are+the+richest+20+per+cent+than+the+poorest%22&source=bl&ots=9aVV1leJ4R&sig=86zRjMtBu299VXa7KJyuYZgYah0&hl=en&ei=6PXiTLniFcGclgeBjbXDDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=figure%202.1%20%22How%20much%20richer%20are%20the%20richest%2020%20per%20cent%20than%20the%20poorest%22&f=false

going through an identity crisis, which has been brought on in recent decades by the fast changing world, economic crises, the increased use of propaganda and real anxiety about the future of the planet. It is natural for people under stress to seek what is most familiar and comfortable to them, so this brings on a sort of tribal instinct. This has a polarizing effect on society, dividing us into smaller and smaller familial groups.

This state of polarization creates a condition in which some groups' induced territorial instinct puts them on the offensive, while others are forced to go on the defense. I wonder if increased population numbers or density feeds into this. The cycle of war making is the best food that can only increase our built-in territorial instinct.

Parts of America are some of the most diverse places on Earth, while other parts are very homogeneous, so unless leaders work intently upon keeping people unified, a natural alienation will occur. Neo-cons originally thought by creating an 'outside' enemy, via the cold war, would unify America. After that was over, it was necessary to create other enemies, terrorists to look like outside threats. This tactic has been used in religions too, in order to create adherence within the group, there is always a heretic, blasphemer, infidel or witch to burn at the stake. People in this state over defend their definition of their group, what is 'America', what is a christian, what is a human being, and then--who deserves privilege, on and on. If you don't belong to us, you must hate 'us'--hate 'America'.

But these old tactics of enemy creation for the purpose of unifying groups conflicts dramatically with this modern age of internet and global travel, of high education and the quantum leap that every discipline, from quantum mechanics to chaos theory, genetic research, robotics, space travel and the study of anthropology--every bit of knowledge we have has been accelerating exponentially--confirm just how interconnected we all are. So a new paradigm of unity has to take this quantum leap too, the old one is obsolete--ironically the original intent of the neo cons is instead destroying America from within. And the original intent of old religions to discourage dissent has now deteriorated into bigotry and violence.

This does not mean we have to do away with who we are, do away with our ideologies that are so important to our identities, but surgically remove the diseases, the divisive elements that now do not apply to the modern age. We throw out the baby with the bathwater when we reject all tradition, because they are also great sources of inspiration and wisdom. Attacking religion because of bigotry, or any whole group before discerning what of it can remain intact for the greater good, just feeds more polarization. People are deeply emotionally attached to their religions and ideologies, so they need to mostly stay intact, IMHO.

We are at a crossroads and the first step is fully realizing that everything we say or do is a CHOICE. There is a small moment before we speak, before we act, before we decide how to relate to everyone and everything in our environment. We have to fully come into awareness of our free will. Also all of us, individually and in groups, can decide to act in ways that unify and harmonize with others or not. This does not mean give in to them! It means as many of us unify as possible, and decide what to do about the predatory groups and individuals--because the only way to get past this crossroads is to use our intrinsic tribal instinct to create the biggest tribe we can, recognize and override our polarizing instincts, and redefine our method of creating unity. Perhaps we can help many people by discerning their bad behavior from who they are, to give them an opportunity to belong to the group. This distinction is vital.

Personally I wrestle with what is within my own power, and simultaneously what is within the power of the collective, America, and the human race. What do we have power to do? I really struggle with this one, some days I feel more positive than others. It is delusional to think America should be some kind of utopia, but I think it is reasonable to hope for a workable form of unity.

This age demands better human skills in dealing with difficult personalities, especially the sociopathic influences, by bringing them out of the periphery of our awareness into dead center. This seems to be happening already which is really good. Isolating the destructive and divisive influences on our society must happen for us to continue. I enjoy DU for the opportunity to have discussions like this, with our diversity we still show up and work toward understanding.

Thank you for another thought provoking post, Time for Change.

Yes. How to do that when they have control of the national media will be a great challenge.

Great post!

I have a list too but I'm not going to post it here. I will

just say, I HATE this country. All of it. Sadly, these weren't always

my feelings.

blah, blah, blah...

Thanks for the thread, Time for change.:thumbsup:

Think it is "hate" to want to improve your country. Sadly Americans have been dumbed down through ruthless rw propaganda for decades and can no longer think critically.

both sides do it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/why-do-so-many-republican_b_208343.html

:kick:

Talk about taking oneself seriously...

Or is this just a gratuitous insult?

I reply "because it's full of assholes like you!!"

:rofl:

It can be overused and abused, and in that case such overuse could be construed as torture.

IIRC, the Bangkwan Prison in Thailand requires all new inmates to spend the first three months of their imprisonment in leg irons. They can walk slowly, but cannot spread or cross their legs during the entire time, and then there's the problem of using the squat toilet in the back of the cell. You could consider this a form of torture, although it appears to be a form of conditioning to discourage you from trying any sort of escape attempt.

a Day Treatment Center..a new project in NC, as of March, 2010, has been eliminated. It is filled with such a remakable staff, including professionals at all levels. My husband was Medical Director. Yes, it was new and Yes it was needed. With all the cuts, this makes no sense. They are helping those who are "at risk" due to many factors. I don't underatnd this kind of "budget" crap, and I'm furious. Thanks so much CABHA for continuing the downward spiral ilnto POVERTY and DESPAIR.

When I say I love my country, perhaps what I mean is that I love what my country can be.

I'm speechless. I am without speech.

:wow: :thumbsup:

And that we have let our mass media be dominated by corporate interests that continue to promote divisive propaganda for the sole purpose of enlarging their quarterly profits -- public interest, national security, and our very survival be damned.

Our Democratic party was supposed to be the vehicle for some balance in our society. To speak up for the poor, the workers and our environment. We were supposed to push for the regulations and government jobs to enforce them to keep us safe over the long term while our private companies strove for more profits and success.

But in the 90's we got jealous of Republican Big Money and wanted more of it and tossed out Glass Steagal. And cut welfare and taxed Social Security to prove we could be cruel too. Oh, um uh, I mean to prove we were not bleeding heart liberals.

Other countries preserved some union power and regulatory agencies because they knew that balance was critical to their long term health. Better paid workers can buy more consumer goods. Unionized workers will fight to keep manufacturing jobs at home to balance out the heartless imperative of ever increasing quarterly profits uber alles.

Privatization can be very destructive. Build more prisons and you need more draconian laws to fill them. SB1070 is a good example. Shameless that Jan Brewer's connections to the private prison industry are not a scandal that leads to her impeachment. But I guess after having Cheeneey as Sec Def speed up military privatization then become CEO of Halliburton to reap the rewards and then return to government to start a new war on false pretenses, Brewer's scandals are chump change?

I thought surely a pragmatic, practical president would recognize the similarity between Plutocracy in the 20's and the 2008 crash and roll in with all the Democratic legislators as a solid block pushing for re-regulation and foreclosure/eviction moratoria and Medicare for All, just for starters.

So hearing about compromises again now is really rough for me. But earlier than that, hearing that my president had even created a "deficit commission" populated with the likes of Alan Simpson and Erskin Bowles, was like a kick in the stomach. The only way they could make things tolerable for me would be by lowering Medicare eligibility to age 1 and cutting all defense contractors with fraud convictions out of the military budget before even talking about extending the disgusting tax cuts for the very rich or raising the age for social security for those of us struggling to find work even at 50-something.

And I think that disillusionment is behind the giant stay-home of Democratic voters in 2010.

That and not tossing out electronic voting in favor of paper ballots and the exit polling that worked so well for decades, and that we use to evaluate the fairness of elections in other countries. But that's another long story. That my party didn't take the issue to heart after 2004 was also disheartening. And we surely could have used those government jobs counting ballots by hand.

And for much the same reasons. I strongly believe that that was the main reason behind the huge losses that Democrats suffered earlier this month.

But they don't go around killing and torturing people. If they did I might feel very differently about them.

I don't hate America. I just think we can do better for our own people.