from”The Electile Dysfunction Chronicles”: the climax of Chapter 2018

25 11 2018

My apologies for being so late with this show, our first live show since the election. The first thing that happened to me was, “Climate change ate my homework.” Two weeks ago, heavy rain took me offline for enough of the week so that I couldn’t get the show together in time. Last week a close member of my extended family passed away, and his family scheduled his memorial gathering for….Sunday evening, so here I am, the Sunday after  our Continental Native American Day of Mourning, finally getting on the air with an election report.

Honestly, it was not a great election for the Green Party.  We had a few candidates whom we thought might pull off Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez-type upsets against Democrats in races where the only candidates on the ballot were a Green and a complacent corporate Democrat, but none of those races were even close. Beyond those few contests, Greens rarely polled as high as five percent.There’s even one instance of a Missouri Green running against a Republican, with no Democrat in the race, who allegedly received no votes. He didn’t even vote for himself? I find that a little peculiar. I’ve had friends  who voted Green in precincts that later reported no votes for Green candidates, so I have to wonder if that’s what happened there, only on a grand scale. More on that later.

The “successful losers,” especially Kenneth Mejia in California and Samson Lebeau Kpadenou in Florida, along with many of our other candidates, are philosophical about their losses, saying they understand that, the first time you run, you’re mostly just getting your name out there, and are likely to do better in future elections. There are plenty of examples in other countries of parties that have experienced a meteoric rise in popularity as the public camr to the understanding that their countries’ traditional major parties are either utterly clueless about how to meet changing conditions or actively making matters worse, but that has happened in countries that have much more open democracies than ours. More on that later, too.

Perhaps The Green Party’s biggest win in November of 2018 was in a race that didn’t have a Green running in it. Read the rest of this entry »





GREEN FUNDAMENTALISM, GREEN REALISM, AND NASHVILLE’S BUDGET

8 07 2018

The Green Party originated in the pro-environment, anti-nuclear power, anti-war movement in Germany in the early 1980’s. That movement, both in Germany and elsewhere in the world, both then and now, has two distinct and somewhat contradictory dynamics.

The first is radically, fundamentally, and uncompromisingly revolutionary. “All these apparently separate problems spring from a common source–corporate capitalism’s determination to monetize–and own–everything. The only way to solve these problems is to end corporate capitalism.”

greens-nudes-300x199

Green “fundis”……

The other “wing” of the Green Party says, “Let’s be realistic. Do we have to wait until after the revolution to shut down this polluter or give people the better life that comes from better wages or stop governments from indulging in military adventures? Reforming the way all these things are done might just be an important step in that revolution in values that we both agree needs to happen. Our revolution won’t be a true success if there are people who feel that they’ve been ‘vanquished’. There’s no point in being confrontational and alienating our fellow human beings who happen to be supporters of corporate domination from acting in what, ultimately, is their own best interest.”

germany-greens-kretschmann-

…and Green “realos”

To that, the fundamentalist Green responds, “If you try to change economic conditions without altering who has the power, those with the power will find a way to snatch back whatever you take from them. Look at what happened in the US in the 30’s. Roosevelt implemented many of the economic demands of the Socialist Party–easier recognition for unions, Social Security, the eight-hour day, a federal public works/employment program, and some other things–but left business in the hands of private owners, who were coerced, not persuaded, into making changes, and who, over the last eighty years, have worked steadily at undoing all those gains. At this point, they’ve all but succeeded. It’s time for a revolution!”

Then the “realist” Green asks, Read the rest of this entry »





LATE BREAKING NEWS

17 06 2018

Three big stories have been in the headlines as I wrote this week’s main blog post. The possibly good news was from the N. Korea summit, where for the moment, at least, one of the world’s ticking time bombs may have been defused. When I first heard this , the cynic in me wondered when Trump will screw this up, or if the Democrats would have to screw it up for him. Since then, the Dems have done all they can to point to this as a dangerous, radical move that conclusively demonstrates that Drumpf is in Putin’s pocket, and that we absolutely must continue our policy of regular practice bombing runs and invasions of North Korea which, the North Koreans have repeatedly stated, is why they feel the need to develop nuclear weapons. What this uproar actually “conclusively demonstrates” is that the Dems and the media are firmly in the pocket of the Neocons and the hawks who want to show the Russians and the Chinese who’s boss, even if they have to vaporize Pyongyang to do it. Could somebody please tell me what threat North Korea poses to the continental United States, beyond the fact that if we nuke them, the fallout will end up here?

The Supreme Court decision allowing Ohio to kick people off the voter rolls if they haven’t showed up for a while and don’t respond to a written inquiry mostly reminds me that it’s important to vote in every election, not just in Presidential years. I think that the more local the election, the more important it is to vote, because we the people have a lot more control over local officials than we do over the big players. Here in NW Nashville,, we have a Metro Council runoff between “a local businessman” and a woman involved with Nashville Organized for Action and Hope, a local social justice organization. No question which one of these two I want representing my interests in Nashville. The “businessman” even boasted about keeping low-income housing OUT of our district. How’s that for “Christian values”?

Speaking of “Christian values,” Jeff Sessions really showed us all how much he lives by his faith when he declared that people fleeing domestic or non-state violence will no longer be considered candidates for asylum in the US. Take “the least of mine” and stick ’em where the sun don’t shine, eh, Jeff?

And, speaking of Christian values and stickin’ ’em where the sun don’t shine, how ’bout if the Egyptian equivalent of ICE had separated Joe and Mary from their Baby when they crossed the Egyptian border? Wonder how baby J’s Real Dad woulda resonded to that? You think the Mosaic plagues were bad? Whohoo! :-)

music: Terry Allen, “Southern  Comfort





STORY

15 06 2018

This is another chapter in our continuing reading of Charles Eisenstein’s 2013 book, “The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible.” You can buy or read the whole book here. I hope you will choose to buy it.

 

One day Confucius was walking along with some disciples when they came upon two boys arguing. Confucius asked the boys what the dispute was about. They told him they were arguing about whether the sun was nearer at dawn and farther away at noon, or farther away at dawn and nearer at noon. One of the boys argued that the sun appeared larger at dawn and smaller at noon, so it must be closer at dawn and farther away at noon. The other boy argued that it was cool at dawn and hot at noon, so the sun must be farther away at dawn and closer at noon. Confucius was at a loss to determine which one was correct. The boys jeered at him, “Who said you were so smart?”

This story is from the ancient collection of Taoist allegories known as the Liezi, as rendered by Thomas Cleary in Vitality, Energy, Spirit: A Taoist Sourcebook. Cleary explains, “[The story] illustrates the limitations of discursive reasoning, thus hinting indirectly at a more comprehensive mode of consciousness. Presented as a joke at the expense of Confucius, it illustrates how logic can be coherent within the bounds of its own postulates yet be ineffective or inaccurate in a larger context.”

…..

The reason that the defiance of the Shuar moves us isn’t that they are willing to kill for their cause; it is that they are willing to die for it. This is, in pure form, service to something greater than oneself. This is what we must emulate if we are to cocreate the more beautiful world our hearts know is possible. It is also a way to transcend the separate self, since to bow into service is to merge with something greater, something whose power to precipitate change extends beyond our understanding of causality. Then, the unexpected, the improbable, the miraculous can happen.

The more firmly we stand in a larger Story of Self, a Story of Interbeing, the more powerful we become in disrupting the old Story of Separation. I think questions of violence and nonviolence, ethics and principles, right and wrong, lead us into a conceptual maze. See, the sun is nearer at noon. No, it is at dawn. Every evil deed and every cowardly inaction that has ever been perpetrated on this earth has been justified by principle—the logic of a story. As we sober up from our long intoxication with the Story of Separation, we have the chance to enter a “more comprehensive mode of consciousness”—the consciousness of story. In it, we ask ourselves, “What story shall I stand in?”

(I was unable to find the music in this video in a form that I could play on the radio show, but the video and music are definitely worth watching. Instead, I played “Hungama Hai Kyun,” by Ghulam Ali. The link goes to a different version of the song than the one I play, but just as good.)





NASHVILLE’S BREXIT VOTE

13 05 2018

th+graph+1I recently wrote about Nashville’s plans for a better transit system, calling it “another big-ticket neoliberal scheme to make the rich richer,”  and now the voters have spoken. By a nearly 2–1 margin, with nearly twice the expected turnout, the transit plan was voted down. The analyses of the issue that I have read treat it as a failure of strategy and tactics, and largely ignore the fact that the funding mechanism was pure neoliberal flim-flam: they were going to do this wonderful thing for the low-income people of Nashville, that the lower-income people were going to have to pay for themselves. According to the Tennessean, nearly 90% of the revenue for the project would come from an increase in the sales tax. If you are reading this, I probably don’t have to remind you that sales taxes are highly regressive in nature, paid disproportionately by low-income taxpayers. The other sticking point was the widespread perception that the plan did not do nearly enough to address the already rampant issue of gentrification in Nashville, which even proponents of the plan admitted would likely come to neighborhoods with better public transportation. Indeed, Metro sees increased property values as one of the benefits of infrastructure projects, whether they’re sewers or light rail lines. Liberals in the city can make all kinds of cluck-clucks of sympathy about the plight of low-income Nashvillians, but their actions, which promote gentrification, belie those words, and lower-income Nashvillians were rightly wary of the latest set of promises and the likelihood of increased exploitation.

Let me spell that out: people earn low wages in large part because their labor is being exploited. By “exploited,” I mean that their labor produces considerably more value than they are paid for, with their employer skimming off the difference. Nashville’s largely Democratic/neoliberal power brokers blithely assumed that they could successfully exploit the exploited still further, rather than ask the businesses who exploit those workers, and who are disproportionately wealthy as a result, to pay a fair share of the cost. As with Brexit and Trump’s upset victory, the exploited took advantage of the ballot box to do what they could to indicate that they did not want to be exploited any further.

Like Brexit and the Trump Presidency, this is a three-sided issue, not a bipolar one, although every attempt is being made to portray it as such. I hated to see the GOP screw-the-poor crowd get to chalk this up as a victory about as much as I would have disliked seeing the plan win, since, to say it again a little differently, it screwed low-income people by making them pay for the plan and not doing enough to address the rampant gentrification that was all too likely to follow the tracks. The big-ticket construction plan, and the gentrification, would further enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor, in the name of “doing something for the poor.” Excuse me for repeating myself, but I think this is an important point to make. That’s how the Democrats roll.

The third position is the one taken by The People’s Alliance for Transit, Housing & Employment, which, in its recent “People’s State of Metro” called for the following: Read the rest of this entry »





TENNESSEE’S BALLOT ACCESS LAW IS DESIGNED TO DENY BALLOT ACCESS

12 05 2018

I wanted to touch briefly on The Green Party of Tennessee’s candidate and prospects in the 2018 election. This is an issue we have litigated for years. We went through a frustrating cycle in which we would win court cases, and the judge would order the state to loosen up its ballot access laws. The state would ignore the decision. The judge would order the state to include our party name with our candidates’ names, and the state would do so for an election, and then drop us when none of our statewide candidates achieved the state-mandated minimum number of votes to stay on the ballot. Recently, the judge who saw things our way retired, and the last time we went to court, we got a different judge, who, in spite of numerous rulings in other courts holding laws like Tennessee’s unconstitutionally exclusive, upheld the state law. The gubernatorial candidate we are running,  Yvonne Neubert, is running as an “independent.” Even if she gets more than 5% of the vote, her win will not help get The Green Party back on the ballot.

yvonne

Barred by law from decaring herself “The Green Party candidate,” she sends the message subtly.

Let’s face it: Tennessee’s so-called “ballot access laws” are actually designed to keep other parties besides the D’s and R’s off the ballot. First of all, they were initially enacted in the early 60’s, as the “Dixiecrat” rebellion, conservative Southern Democrats opposed to racial integration, was gathering steam, in hopes of keeping George Wallace off the ballot in Tennessee. As it happens, there was enough support for Wallace and his “American Independent Party” in the state so that he and his party actually fulfilled the law’s requirements, collecting the nearly forty thousand signatures needed to get their party’s name on the ballot. No party has succeeded since.

There are two ways the law works against an up-and-coming party. The first is that the number of signatures required to place a party’s name on the ballot is large enough so that professional  petitioners are a necessity. That costs about two dollars per signature. Since not everybody signs correctly, or is even entitled to sign, it’s advisable to gather around twice the number of signatures needed. That means that a party that wants its name on the ballot needs to raise somewhere between sixty and a hundred thousand dollars just to get its name on the ballot for one election. If none of the party’s statewide candidates win 5% or more of  the vote, the party is back to square one, and has essentially been fined a very hefty sum just for trying.

Here’s the other way this law actually discourages new parties. Read the rest of this entry »





THE BOUNDARIES OF COMPASSION, pt.2

15 04 2018

In a post a couple of months ago, I wrote about a dustup I was having with some old friends over Caitlin Johnstone’s posts, “Please,, Just Bleeping Die Already” and its follow-up, “Good,” written after McCain had been diagnosed with brain cancer. My friends were horrified that she seemed to be wishing death on someone, even a bloodthirsty maniac like McCain. I thought Ms. Johnstone’s view might fall under the rubric of “radical compassion,” doing whatever it might take to keep him from doing more damage (after all, hurting other people hurts oneself, as well), and decided to ask the opinion of a person I regard as an authority on what is, and is not, compassionate. After that conversation, I communicated with Ms. Johnstone, and on those bases, here is my response to my friends in that discussion group.

First, I want to lay out some context for the statement that “Caitlin Johnstone wishes John McCain was dead.” Here are a few statements that I think fall into the same category as this allegation about her. Read the rest of this entry »








%d bloggers like this: