Greater good

Bernie at least presented an inspiring vision. 

That vision made anything less become more difficult to accept anymore. 

He put a lot of what people felt such as "Enough is enough."   

Now, we can analyze every single phrase he said and see where he isn't quite correct here or there; and that is what will happen in the years to come.

Yet it is the resonance of his vision that captured many of our hearts and minds..."A future to believe in."

People caught up in that resonance want to move forward with that vision, unsullied by fear:  inspired vision is not born of fear.

We are overcoming many fears as we stand for  our ideals.   We have become delegates. We have got involved inthe politidcal process.  We have blogged.   We have reached out to new friends in social media.  Some of us have dedicated our websites to the progressive movement.  Some of us have lost friends.  We have endured rumors of voter suppression.  We have seen Bernie snubbed at the convention as his speaker, Nina Turner, was denied her speaking slot.  We saw the full weight of the establishment support his rival without addressing the bias of the party against Bernie, and while discrediting and neutralizing his platform ideas.

Yes, Bernie endorsed Mrs. Clinton; and at the same time he went back to the Senate as an Independent. 

And he always said Trump must be defeated no matter what. 

This is true.

I respect that.  Yet I also  think a Trump or Clinton presidency will strengthen the progressive resolve, if we survive the wealth continuing to move upward and the no money for domestic programs as we spend it all on foreign wars and defense contractors that would come from either of them as president. 

I will vote, not out of fear, but in the way most informed by the best values I aspire to. And for the person who most closely represents those values.  

Elected officials are representatives.  They embody the will of the people.  And I believe the will of the people, at least my meager will is one that wants to be rid of fear...


I am truly heartsick for the people who are so consumed with fear that they feel they have to vote for Hillary to save us from Trump. 

Hillary is no savior. She has a record of flipping on issues; she is very savvy, like her husband Bill, and she still hasn't shown her speech transcripts.  
Bernie has been on Meet the Press more Sundays than not during this campaign.  Hillary is very guarded about talking to the media.

And the conduct of the establishment Dems, up to and including the president during the convention has shown a terrible lack of concern for the real problems of our system in favor of cronyism and business as usual. 

I don't endorse that...

Berrnie's strategy is to stay in the game and keep advocating for the changes he has  been working on since the early 1960's.

But the mainstream, whether the corporate establishment, or its apologists who repeat the "We have to defeat Trump" mantra as if it is a mandate for Hillary:  answered  the progressive vision with callousness , fear mongering, and ignorance toward Bernie and his supporters. 

So the compromise is not coming as quickly for us as it did for Bernie...and we are looking for the best solution without the fear mongering.

And we'll find them.

Resonance Frequency

I love the Bernie supporters:  you’ve put everything into this:  money, time, phone calls, energy...  

 You’ve been in up to your necks for this wild ride! 

 And you will never know that sick, middle of the road neutrality that causes inaction. 

You got in, you got dirty, and you fought! 

You put it all on the line. 

And you will again, and again for this right vision.  

You responded to the call of inspiration. 

You resonated with it. 

You let it move through you.  

This year we shared a heartbeat. 

We celebrated a new birth; a new vision; and a new path.  

The old vision of power, corruption, and greed which permeated all of our social, governmental, and economic systems is dying and that’s why their agents pulled out every stop to crush us:  

They know their time has passed.  

They used the full weight of the machine to crush this new vision

…and they couldn’t. 

They can’t.  

Even if they win this battle, they have no support for the war. 

Their position is unsustainable, and they know it.

You’ve done it.  

 We’ve done it.  

 Don’t forget that.  

This is our time.

Through it all, don’t forget that when the call came you didn’t sit on the sidelines.  You got in the game.  And that separates you from the ones who will never know the joy of taking a leap of faith…

Clinton and Kaine on Citizens United

Mrs. Clinton and her VP pick Kaine have certainly said they endorse a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United...will they campaign to get this proposed amendment ratified by 2/3rds of the state legislatures as it needs to be? Will you? And in a timely fashion? Or is this the politics of inaction, not unlike the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment), which was first proposed in 1923, and which has not yet made it through the ratification process, though it is an excellent proposed constitutional amendment? And do you not think Mrs. Clinton is aware of this history and the odds of a constitutional amendment getting passed by 2/3rds of the state legislatures in this political climate? The ERA was introduced almost a century ago and still has not passed, though it comes up from time to time, gets some press, looks like it may pass, then somehow fails. 

It is not a decisive measure, nor a certainty of action to introduce a constitutional amendment, and I believe Mrs. Clinton is well aware of this...and introducing a constitutional amendment is not as decisive as overturning this terrible judicial decision on the judicial level, which could happen in her first term as opposed to one hundred years.

So, no, I don't see her actually giving support to this initiative to overturn Citizens United. I see her making dramatic statements designed to placate people who, unaware of the process to get a constitutional amendment passed, can go on expecting results for the next hundred years as far as she is concerned. People support Bernie because his record shows plain talking and strong opposition to the politics of doing nothing. He demonstrates respect for the people as evidenced by his plain talking and not hiding behind political procedure to cover inaction. He doesn’t condescendingly promise the world or play word and procedure games; he makes a case for change and stirs a vision of it in the minds of the many. This is a vision for Alaskans, this nation, and the world.

All Lives Ideology

Let’s face it:  there would be no “All Lives Matter” movement without Black Lives Matter” .

All Lives Matter is a reaction that demonstrates the power of mainstream culture, mainstream systems, and established mainstream norms in the United States.

It is a less than kind rebuke, like a parent saying ‘No, child, you’re wrong to be upset; other people have been hurt too.”  This is an ideological mindset.

“Ideology” is often bogged down with material interest and compromise  (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 2011), which some might call “corruption.”

When our laws and traditions which structure our actions are at odds with our stated values, we create dissonance.  When our actions don’t align with our values there is no harmony; no “vibe”; no resonance with the spirit of the thing.  It is inharmonious.  Out of balance.

Disturbing, for some, on a spiritual level.

And we are left with a choice:  change our values, which we can do; or change our actions to match the values we have (lower our standards, some might say).  Changing one must eventually change the other…

 “Our beliefs about ourselves, our relationships, and our societies influence our action, which in turn may validate (or refute) a…perspective” (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 2011).

 “All Lives Matter” is an ideological response that says the mainstream knows more than the oppressed. 

“Our voices are louder.”

It’s usually a cry of reaction and backlash from angry white people. 

“My life matters too!” 

These are the same people who buy the idea that white people, Western European Americans and Anglo Americans will be a minority in America by 2050 or so:  this is only true if you count Caucasians against all the other minorities lumped into one.  Latino, Asian, Native American, African American…This is an “Us against them” fallacy which refutes any point of view that does not support the “us” part first and foremost.  I say this kind of point of view is damaging to the spirit of any innocent born on this planet and lucky enough to be born into the American system because it immediately singles you out if you weren’t born of Western European or Anglo descent, and allows the system and its apologists to continually punish you for it, subtly and overtly.

Dissonance happens when our actions don’t match our values. 

Our actions or our ideals must eventually change.

White supremacist ideology has been trying to become an established value in US culture since its inception and before. 

Howard Zinn said the color line was drawn to help establish a buffer between rich and poor:  they called it the middle class (Zinn, 2003).

I lived among the middle class for a while when I was younger:  they are the ones (and again, not everyone because I met some people whom I consider in my limited view to be some of the greatest people I ever met) who shout the loudest when their place in the hierarchy is threatened by cries that other lives matter too.  When non-Anglo and non western European types are allowed to partake of the benefits of this society, they scream!  Apparently they believe that they, as Anglo's and western Europeans work harder than anyone else and deserve everything they have.  No one else deserves any benefit; not in this system.  It’s mine, mine, mine!     They are afraid of property values going down, paying property taxes, and anything that infringes on their right to private property.  They are afraid non Anglo and nonwestern European types haven’t worked as hard as they have had to.  Again, Zinn diagrams the idea of giving property (making it easier to acquire) to some as a way of incorporating them into the existing system and making them staunch guardians of it.  Enfranchising a middle class in the American colonies and throughout US history has always been a racial endeavor:  from allowing European indentured servants to gain tier freedom and become property owners while not allowing same for African slaves, to zoning laws during the Black migration from the south from the 1880’s through the 1950’s which created restricted neighborhoods and slums.

“All Lives Matter because we’re going to be a minority in thirty years…”

This is the dissonance greed and fear produce; this is the disharmony.

Change your values or change your actions?

Our system isn’t bad.  In fact, the US system is one of the best theoretical systems that allows class mobility and the free discussion of ideas in the history of the world!

But any system which allows its personality to be influenced by values based on fear and greed and thereby limits the amount of input and feedback it gets from others in the environment must stall; will stall; will cease to be a functional part of the environment. 

Systems come and go; lives come and go.  I say we still have an opportunity to allow our system to refresh itself if we take in the feedback of others instead of refuting it.  Human capital is valuable.  Feminist standpoint theory says everyone along the spectrum has potentially valuable input for the system.  We can consider the perspective of others and thus figure out how to better align our actions and our values.  We can say “Black Lives Matter, and yes, All Lives Matter Too.”  Or we can acknowledge “Black Lives Matter” and ask “why would you say that?” I think curiosity about one another would serve us better than fear.  But of course this approach requires an admission that the fear exists.  That the reaction “All Lives Matter” may be more fear based than altruistic.

And it requires a leap of faith:  Anglo or not, it doesn’t hurt to consider another person’s perspective, historical experience, and point of view when forming your values.

The password is: "Empathy"

Apologists for law enforcement say Tamir (Rice) and other victims of color of police brutality deserved what they got. It doesn’t matter that they were disproportionately people of color.  I myself hear all too often phrases from the majority white privilege set such as “They wouldn’t be in a court if they didn’t do anything wrong,” or “If they obeyed the law they wouldn’t have been hurt.”  

          Since I first wrote this in January 2015 there’s been many other shootings:  Sandra Bland killed in a Texas jail, her offense was allegedly not using a turn signal to change lanes; the South Carolina church shooting, which wasn’t by law enforcement, but still involved violence against people of color that was quickly digested and dismissed by the white majority.  One striking incident since Tamir was the South Carolina office that shot a fleeing man as if he were at a target range:  the "suspect"  was fleeing and the cop squared off and emptied his clip into his backside; then cuffed him and watched him bleed out before calling for EMS.  It was caught on his dashcam, to the cops chagrin, because the cop said the "suspect" tried to steal his Taser, which was not shown on the dashdcam...

Yeah. It’s a mess out there.  And people of color, oft times products of inter-generational oppression and poverty, turn to solutions that further marginalize them in the national psyche often enough such as gangs and the like to gain a sense of stability and safety in this majority white US culture.  This is nothing new:  gangs have been prevalent throughout US history as a way for the marginalized to gain a sense of belongingness society, for better or worse.  And there’s always the story of the gang member who transcended his upbringing and reached back into the cesspool to help others to believe there can be a better life in the mainstream; though it will never be easy for the some of the marginalized who are so easily distinguished from the majority by color.

Unfortunately there are plenty of opportunities for people to unify under shared grief and sorrow that transcends ethnicity:  humans feel injustice as a rage against that which shouldn’t be.  And in the moment between stimulus (the act) and response (the rationalization by the majority culture; or outrage by others) is the opportunity to make a good choice, to paraphrase Viktor Frankl.

Fear influences the choice; especially the choices made by many enjoying the security of being in the majority white culture.  Fear of losing status leaves them easily manipulated by the guilt of past unresolved atrocities on which this society is built. Of which they are reminded when they see the refugees of slavery and Native American genocide. It’s ironic that their guilt drives them to oppress them more, or turn a blind eye to the institutional oppression they benefit from.

This is true because many of the beneficiaries sacrifice the opportunity to share their grief at the historic injustice for the power of defending and protecting the franchise which gives them benefits and a sense of security.  It doesn’t matter that their security is based on the oppression and subjugation of others.  And they tell themselves if “the others” obeyed the law they would enjoy the same sense of security, which is a fallacy, of course, because a level playing field would mean their security would have to be based on something other than unspoken oppression.

Nick Nolte’s character in the movie Forty Eight Hours explains to the convict character played by Eddie Murphy that part of his job is to keep him down.  Whether it’s because he is a convict or a person of color is irrelevant since people of color are disproportionately represented among the ranks of convicts anyway.  And the connection in the mainstream psyche is hardwired by now thanks in part to pop culture.

          They are not empathetic simply because they don't have to be; until it happens to someone they can relate to; to someone of the privileged; to someone whom this outrage shouldn’t happen because they, by mutual assent verified by the color of their skin are good; the law  is not designed to keep them down, but others. Their color alone says they never break the law; that they are better, hardworking, God fearing people to whom nothing bad should ever happen, and if it does it's Gods fault.

Certainly not theirs.

Or it's the fault of those sub humans, which is why they need so much protecting!

And the world looks right again when the oppressive system is once again balanced in their favor. 

When they are angry everyone should be angry.

When they are indifferent, then the issue is a non-issue; and threats to that indifference must be ignored and shouted down so as not to disturb their unresponsiveness. Their bliss comes from knowing they will never be on the short end of the stick in this society.  And if by some fluke they are, they know they will get justice.  Someone will pay. 

I wonder how many white women reported being raped by a black man that led to his lynching?  Or false imprisonments.  These stories pop up from time to time.

In Cleveland recently a person of color wrongfully imprisoned for thirty nine years was given a million dollars compensation.  Twenty five thousand a year.  For the indignation, and the pain, and the sodomy, and the dehumanization.  

 No.  Because they figure that’s what he would have earned each year.   

The tax and lawyer fees will be ugly.

Some of the wrongfully incarcerated in other states got multi million dollar settlements...

          This mindset of justice for some and oppression for others as the way things ought to be is a fallacy that dismisses the historic facts of oppression toward people of color; dismisses racial criminalization and profiling of people of color; and the intergenerational anxiety of perpetual poverty which is well documented in US history in films and literature.

And it ignores the opportunity to connect with others on the level of shared human grief in response to tragedy.

These missed opportunities for empathy supports the widely held belief that the disproportionately black and Latino victims of the system somehow deserve their oppression as either a punishment from God for not being hard workers, or because they are criminals; either way they get what they deserve in this privileged society; otherwise they wouldn’t have run ins with the law or be poor.  

Another incidental form of inter-generational oppression is vilifying the poor as welfare cheats.

And the space grows: a space that is protected with guns,  and uneven distribution of justice by enforcers who are condoned by society for taking brown lives, and the silent majority who buy into the security of the privileged system:  these beneficiaries never cheat, never steal, never harm anyone by thought, deed, or action, and deserve only good things from this life and God.

                   Having to argue for empathy is sadly elementary in my opinion; but it is a good fight.  Because none of us are righteous, as the psalmist said.

                    If this is the fight you choose, .you are courageous amid your peers in my opinion. Empathizing for the oppressed does not automatically mean you hate the author of the violence. It simply means we would like these things addressed; we would like these incidents to cease immediately, without somehow making it seem like the victim, in all his or her human imperfection, deserved the oppression. :D