The Abscondo Weblog

Fear of authority

It is foolish to always trust authority.  It is equally foolish to always resist all forms of authority.  So, the question must be asked, when is it healthy to fear and resist authority?  Alternatively, when does a fear of authority represent nothing more than paranoia? 

It is first necessary to consider the purpose of authority.  In a democratic society, authority is given to government functions by the citizens (and is, theoretically, not imposed upon them).  Perhaps the most legitimate purpose for authority is in keeping us safe from others.  If someone else is pointing a gun at me, I want that individual restricted and the gun taken away.  If someone is actively building a bomb, I want the materials confiscated and the individuals involved arrested.  If someone is driving drunk, I want that person punished in order to keep me safe.  And if it should be the case that my actions are threatening the safety of others, I also accept that the authorities have every right to restrict me or punish me.

However, what I see more of these days is another kind of authority altogether.  I see airport security questioning people about where they traveled and why, I see people being arrested for smoking marijuana (doing no harm to others), I see people being turned away from night-clubs for the crime of being 20 years old.  Much worse yet, I see profit-hungry corporations taking over the authority of democratically-elected governments in order to maximize profits by dropping more bombs, making more fighter-jets, or filling more (for-profit) prisons.  I see a government that spies on citizens with no reasonable cause.  I see cameras spying on us in every public space.  I see a government telling gay people they can't marry, immigration officials telling human beings they can't work without documentation, and I see scared people taking their shoes off to pass through metal detectors just to enter a government building or get on a flight.  What I don't see is probable cause for how any of these behaviors are examples of people threatening harm to others.

Authority has pushed too far. As individuals, we do not have the power to resist illegitimate authority in every case.  To do so would be self-defeating and foolish.  However, it is our shared responsibility to recognize illegitimate authority where we see it, to make no justifications of it, to detest it, and to push back on it whenever and wherever some small battle can be won.

I no longer approve of President Obama

I'm glad that I wasn't one of the millions of hopeful Americans giving as much of their time, energy, and money as they possibly could to get this man elected.  He campaigned on "hope" and "change" and I wondered back then when the hell we were supposed to be hoping for.  His promises looked thin.

Of course I understood that democratic change was impossible in the USA because, after all, the USA is no longer a democracy.  It is a corporate-controlled state that maintains its democratic functioning as a sport-like side-show to pacify its subjects.  Indeed, American democracy died off in the 1960's.

How can I make such a claim?  The simple truth is that no significant, positive democratic change has come to the American people through its government during the past 40 years.  I challenge anyone to name one.  The democratic system is not functioning in the sense that it is possible for "the people" to shape policy according to their needs or desires.  To the contrary, only the most powerful corporations have any power to do so.

So, as expected, I'm looking at the Obama presidency and realizing that nothing at all has changed.  We are still fighting immoral and illegal wars, based on lies, in both Iraq and Afghanistan because the military industrial complex wants it so.  On top of this, Obama easily approved the biggest mafia heist in history when he turned over trillions of borrowed dollars to the financial institutions who threatened to destroy the economic system as a result of their own corrupt behavior.  Now he begins to tell us that no real health care reform can be expected because the insurance companies don't want to allow anything that will hurt their profits.

So, the country is heading straight toward collapse (due to the impossibly large budget deficit created only to fund the looting) as people are being killed and lives are being ruined (in wars and through lack of a health care system) and all as the environment is simultaneously being destroyed.

So we're supposed to sit back and love our "nice-guy" President?  OK, in fairness, maybe real change isn't possible.  Maybe the CIA will take him out JFK-style if he orders the troops home or does anything meaningful.  So this is about self-preservation?  In that case, he can piss off because sending others out to die in a war to save your own life...watching others suffer and die needlessly in a non-health care system for the purpose of self-preservation...watching the country and the planet plunging toward destruction while telling us that change doesn't happen overnight...those are hideous, unforgivable acts.  You should never have run for office. So which is it, are you a coward or are you simply not on our side at all?

If you become President of the USA, you ought to change something or die trying. 

I'm glad that all did to support this President is give him $100, because that's about all he deserves so far.

The Achilles Heel of the Obama Administration

On October 28th, 2005, I wrote a post about the Achilles Heel of the Bush Administration.  I was correct in that analysis.

Today I think it is also apparent that what was once Obama's greatest strength will prove to be his greatest weakness in the years to come.  Barack Obama got to where he is largely because of is win-win approach to problem-solving.  He'd much rather work together than pick fights.  He'd rather work with the Republicans than work against them.

I agree with this philosophy to a large degree.  It is, after all, how I conduct my life.  I don't wage wars I can't win.  I look for a win-win-win in every situation and believe that, in most cases, there is no real conflict in a situation.  However, I don't think this philosophy works in the position of President of the USA. 

When faced with the bankers robbing and looting the treasury, when dealing with the fact that the Bush Administration committed war crimes, it isn't enough to play nice.  If the current government fails to punish war crimes, fails to punish the subjugation of the U.S. Constitution over the past 8 years, fails to convict the hundreds of bankers who have committed fraud against the American people, then all of these behaviors will only continue.

By definition, until someone enforces the law, the rule of law is dead.  Good intentions fall far short.

Even the best man cannot rule in the absence of the rule of law.  If President Obama is unable or unwilling to fight, his Presidency will fail and so will our country.  To a large extent, when it comes to military and financial matters, his Presidency is demonstrating as much puppetry as did Bush.  We are being ruled by the same runaway system.  If there is any hope at real change, President Obama needs to fight criminality and corruption or die trying.

The day the outsiders became the insiders

I usually avoid the topics everyone else is discussing.  I like to see myself as a person who lives in an emotional and intellectual space that is a bit independent from current events. So what am I to say about Obama's victory?

Whether because of skin color, ideology, faith (or lack thereof), nationality, or sexual orientation, so many of us have grown used to self-identifying as "outsiders".  Perhaps I, like so many others who identify as being outside the mainstream, have actually become quite comfortable living in that space.  As difficult as it is to live on the social fringes, there is comfort to be found in pointing blame at an obvious "oppressor".  In so doing, we are able to avoid a degree of responsibility and burden.  We are comfortable in a space where we suspect that all that is wrong with the world is not our fault.

Perhaps it is human nature to scapegoat other groups: Christians blame the world's problems on "non-believers", conservatives scapegoat liberals for their own failed attempts at governing.  It is well-known that "the majority" in any population tends to scapegoat "the minority" for it's perceived problems, but perhaps I've forgotten that it can also work the other way around.

That isn't to say that the Neocon rule of George Bush and the Republican Party over the past several decades, and particularly the past 8 years, hasn't done every bit as much damage as we accuse it of having done.  Through a toxic combination of greed and incompetence, these people...this misguided movement...has done immeasurable damage to countless people around the world -- to the very earth we all depend upon.  Pointing a finger at them, hating them, laughing at them, and calling for revenge has felt quite good and right, indeed.

But on November 4th, something changed.  The powerless seized a meaningful amount of power.  The oppressed took the position of its former-oppressor.  Obama is just one man, but his election represents so much more.

By getting Obama elected, we have raised our hands and stepped up to the challenge.  It will no longer be enough to point fingers and complain.  Now the blame is heading squarely in our direction and we will have to show the world exactly what Progressivism, Justice, Openness, and Sustainability look like in practice.  We finally have the opportunity to prove the value of our ideas, to measure the extent of our correctness, in the world as it actually exists!

All that said, I don't doubt that we do have the superior ideas and skills.  I don't doubt that we are more capable of providing the leadership the world needs at this time and into the forseeable future.  I just mean to say that I am adjusting to the weightiness of the responsibility brought forth by this new era.

Obama vs. McCain

I’m not going to waste my time arguing why every single American ought to be voting for Barack Obama in 2008. I think the choice is so entirely clear that, if America fails to do so, it knows exactly what it is choosing and, therefore, deserves exactly what it would get under John McCain.

There was a time, between the year 2000 and 2005, when I felt it was every thinking-person’s responsibility to fight the propaganda, nationalism, and the big lies put forth by our Corporate-controlled government. In doing so, my hope was that we would one day have a clear choice...a Party and a Presidential Candidate more-or-less funded by the people who would actually bring about the changes so obviously needed (developing alternative energy, ending the Iraq War, paying down the national debt, healthcare for all, improved educational opportunities, etc.). My dream was that, if only there was such a Party, such a politician, and if the media was somehow forced to treat that person in a more-or-less fair way, then the people would see what has been lacking all along and would find it in themselves do the rest – to make the right choice.  

In my wildest dreams, I never imagined we’d be looking at this reality by 2008. Barack Obama is that person and the Democratic Party is becoming that party. What I’m saying is no secret. By now every person in the modern world has had more than enough opportunity to see who Obama is in contrast to John McCain. Furthermore, every American has had 7 years to see exactly what the Republican Party is…to see and feel the direction the world is going under its policies.

If America doesn’t make the right choice this November, there is truly nothing that can be done to help these people. This time I actually believe that they will.

The somewhat flawed ideology of Barack Obama

When I originally started listening to what Barack Obama had to say, I had some serious doubts.  There was a lot of talk about whether Obama's message was simply "fluff".  But what exactly did we mean by this?

Recent events have shown me how his ideology and his approach to politics is sometimes backwards.  He says that change can only happen *after* we have united people with a shared sense that we are all Americans.  What a claim...that it is possible to unite such a population diverse in race, political affiliation, and thought.  In fact, he claims that not only is it possible, but it is essential if we ever hope to get "beyond" politics as usual and get something done.

But the question that remains largely unanswered is...what is it that we are supposed to be getting done?

He wants to bring hope to this fat, bloated, crumbling empire on the verge of destruction.  But the question remains...what exactly are we hoping for?

Yesterday he said that the reason we are unable to address issues that concern people is because we are unwilling to first "unite".  In making this claim, he is making the classic mistake of defining reality incorrectly...making the wrong assumptions about reality...and then claiming that things aren't turning out as he had hoped because people aren't behaving according to the way he imagined reality.  That's pretty much the approach of every ideolog, and that's where ideology always goes wrong (the point at which it confronts reality).

This flawed approach does have a lot to do with the mess he got himself into in the past weeks.  He might have admitted from the very beginning that, of course Rev. Wright has some crazy ideas...I don't agree with most of them but he's free to express them.  He might have admitted that he sometimes attends that church, but has his own ideas when it comes to religion.  He might have admitted that he attended this church because it was a good way to organize and get things done in Chicago.  But, instead, he was blinded by his own ideology...his own belief that everybody would come around to his way of thinking and completely change.  How foolish it was to expect Rev. Wright, or anybody else, to change what they can and can't say simply because he's running for President.  How foolish of him to expect white America to somehow understand where Rev. Wright is coming from...that this was somehow possible to do by wishing it were so.

This is not the way to unite people and not the way to get anything done.  The way to unite people is to present an idea they believe in or a vision they can hope for.  Unity isn't the first step or even the goal...it is the inevitable result of visionary leadership.  Visionary leaders don't tell us to consciously unify, they inspire us to unintentionally unify around a great vision.

Barack Obama is still my only choice for President, as flawed as he may be.  But I really wish he'd drop the Unity, Change, and Hope nonsense...and finally start giving us a clear vision of what that change will look like and what we are to be hoping for.  My gut told me from the beginning that there was a problem with his approach, and now we are starting to see the messy reality. 

I, personally, don't really care all that much about uniting with everybody "as an American". I care about my progressive values: ending the destruction of this planet, single-payer health care, free college education, establishing a better social safety net, ending war-profiteering, promoting true democracy in the US and around the world.  Maybe its time to start articulating some specifics.  Maybe its time to treat us like citizens of a democracy and let us decide, as adults, who we are going to unite with and why.

To prevent democracy and to prevent personal freedom is to interfere with the free market

We live in a time of presumed consensus when it comes to economics.  In recent decades, the logic of "free market capitalism" has been accepted without much debate.  Indeed, the basic laws of supply-and-demand are elegant and true.  We ought to allow people to trade freely so that market forces will allocate resources most appropriately.  This will theoretically encourage innovation, create prosperity, and minimize waste.  Besides, to allow people to trade freely agrees with our natural impulses which favor individual liberty.

Those who argue on behalf of the free market have baited us with pure logic.  But there is a gap in their logic when we are told that the market must not be "interfered with" by governments.  Governments, we are told, ought not regulate trade, create labor regulations, set minimum wages, and absolutely must not provide nationalized services such as health care.  We are also told that labor unions are counter-productive because they "interfere with" the market, which will naturally provide the best deal for employees over the long-run.

What these free market economists fail to recognize is that economics cannot be separated from people.  The market works when people trade products and money...not when products and money trade themselves.  In fact, a market cannot exist at all without "interference" by people.  Every transaction that takes place is a human reaction to the market. 

When people organize a company to create a complex product, that product is a reaction to the market.  Similarly, when people organize a trade union in order to fight inhumane working conditions, this too is a human reaction to the market.  Therefore, the union is a product of the market.  It is also true that, when people form a democratic government, then this government is a reaction to, and therefore a product of, the market.  In fact, there would be no need for socialist policies if not for the reality of the market.  So if people vote for nationalized health care, the establishment of trade policies, a minimum wage, or social security, then all of this is a product of the market itself.  There is no conflict or inconsistency between any of this. 

How can it be logically argued that people ought to be free to buy and sell, to hire and fire, but ought not be free to unite?  We ought not be free to establish a democratic government to represent our collective interests?  We ought not be free to decide, out of our own free will, to form a trade union?  We ought not be free to create regulations and then abolish them if they prove ineffective?  On what basis, and from who's perspective, can such an argument be made?  Are those in positions of influence in just a bit of denial when they convince themselves that all things which interfere with what they want are interferences with the market?

The most brilliant economists are baffled when they observe economies which appear to conform more-or-less to their free market ideals, but then fail to deliver the results they logically expect.  They are still baffled by all that which has gone wrong with those countless free market experiments launched in Latin America and the former U.S.S.R. over the past decades.  They blame any and all problems on "market interference".  Yet ironically they, themselves, are the only ones interfering.  Only they -- those who stand in the way of personal freedom and authentic democracy -- are to blame for perceived market failures.  When they handcuff market participants, unfairly favor the powerful, rig elections, and muzzle free speech, then they make it impossible for the market to function fully.

Countless free market economies have been brutally enforced by dictators who have been faithful to the idea of minimizing perceived interference with the market.  When dictators brutally shut down unions, eliminate worker safety standards, remove trade tariffs, abolish minimum wages, and stifle dissent, they do so at least partially under the guise of letting the market function without interference.  What they have failed to recognize is that when you eliminate personal freedom, take away free speech, make it impossible for workers to unite, and make it impossible for the collective voice of people to be heard in the form of a democratic government...well, it is only then that you have interfered with the market.

A free market cannot exist without freedom.  It cannot exist without democracy.  In fact, it is all part of the same thing.

No Justice: why I'm not ready to move on

The corporate media is now telling us how the American people are tired of arguing over Iraq and tired of talking about George Bush. They suggest that we are tiring of the bitter, "partisan" arguments that have divided us. They echo Obama's message when they tell us that we are ready to come together, put the past behind, and start dealing with the issues of tomorrow.

What they are asking us to do is to make nice, to forgive and forget.  "We all agree that George Bush is a bad guy and maybe we did mess up Iraq, but that's behind us."  So we're told.  But there is one thing missing.  Do we believe in justice or not?

Maybe we're living in a post-justice era.  I mean, if someone were to murder a member of my family, I'd probably just forget about it and move on.  You know...the loved one is already dead...what's done is done. I wouldn't let it eat me up.  Hell no, I'd expect justice! I'd expect someone to be punished for the wrongs they have committed.  Only when justice has been served can one even contemplate moving on and starting the healing process.

So we've had 8 years of rule by not just war criminals, but white collar criminals who have bankrupted our country for their own personal gain. Billions of dollars of our tax money is unaccounted for in Iraq. The list of criminal activity that *we know about* is too long for anything shorter than a book.  Yet, the "opposition party" isn't able to assure us that anybody will be brought to justice? Let's all just pretend that the murderers and thieves who have exploited us are good guys who can continue with business as usual! Come on!

First justice, then we move on.  Without justice there can be no healing.  Our society can never be healthy if we are not able to speak plainly about what was done to us, and by whom, and punish them accordingly.  Until that day all hope is empty, all unity feeble, and all progress reversible.  If a society is no longer capable of bringing its own corrupt elements to justice, then it is no longer capable of maintaining its own existence.

But never mind all that.   We're Americans.   We obey.   If we're told by NBC, CBS, Fox, and CNN to move on, then we shall move on.

Creating change

It is common knowledge that the peaceful protest can be an effective method of creating change in a democracy.  Representatives are elected by the people, and when those representatives see the people collectively engaged in a statement of disapproval, the thinking goes, they will surely be motivated to make things right for fear of losing the next election or damaging the party.  The non-violent, peaceful protest...and its "virtual" manifestation, the petition...is perhaps the most straight-forward tool available to the average citizen to voice our collective disapproval in hopes of creating change.

But peaceful protest is entirely ineffective without democracy.  What would have been the outcome of a protest in the U.S.S.R.?  What about Nazi Germany?  What about today's China?  Look no further than this week's headlines...what about peaceful protest in Burma?  Peaceful demonstrations of protest taken outside of the context of democracy are, at best, a complete waste of time and, at worst, a death-wish.

Peaceful protest as a mechanism of change is only effective within a democracy that is functioning well systemically and in which a critical mass of leaders actually care about justice, bettering society, etc.  Peaceful protest in Norway or France is often effective.  In the United States, it hasn't been effective for probably the past 30 years. 

I have asserted elsewhere that the U.S. is now a democracy in name and image only.  The biggest problem is that the only two parties which can win an election are both entirely Pro-Corporate and have accomplished absolutely nothing on behalf of The People in at least 30 years.  It is a nation governed by Corporations for Corporations, and The People are only relevant to the extent that they serve corporate interest.  The problem has become entirely systemic and the consequences are plainly visible in every cog of the machine: a military-industrial complex in which military spending is out-of-control, a health care system where costs to the individual and access to care is secondary to corporate profit...to continue with a list of examples at this point is unnecessary.  Any thinking and seeing person who has experienced modern-day America knows this status quo to be true. 

The question for those who don't agree with this status quo is what to do about it.  We analyze and dissect every outrage and every injustice.  We organize, protest, educate our friends and family, write our politicians, and vote.  Yet, eventually, we come to the conclusion that the game is entirely rigged and the system is impenetrable to honest ideas, critiques, and pleas.  The system merely does what the system is designed to do. 

For many years, I've been asking myself what my life means in the face of this reality.  What do I do as a Progressive thinker, a Green, a Social Liberal?  Do I go to the protests on Saturday morning so I feel good that I'm doing something?  Do I reject the high-paying job lacking any sense of purpose?  Do I dedicate my life to improving a village in some third-world country?  Am I to be satisfied merely by consuming less energy and polluting less in my own life?  Following that logic, the right thing for me to do would be to commit suicide; a scenario in which I will pollute no longer and do harm no longer. 

OK, so I've been enlightened and I see what's going on.  I can name dozens or maybe hundreds of causes which deserve attention and fighting for.  But, at least in the U.S., I've seen so little evidence that I can do anything to change anything.

I've come to the conclusion that only one thing can be done to fight a powerful system that cannot be made to change.  We as individuals, and as a collective, can simply choose to opt-out.  We can stop brainwashing ourselves through corporate media.  We can stop killing ourselves with corporate food.  We can stop living in fear at work and stop doing everything the bosses say.  We can stop getting ourselves into debt so that we have to live in fear at work.  We can stop competing with our neighbors on materialistic terms set forth by corporations.  We can reclaim our mind, bodies, and personal lives as something that belongs to a higher order -- life itself.  These actions may not dismantle the system altogether, but it can drastically weaken it while opening our lives to the possibility of alternatives.

The language of art and ideas is the most powerful mechanism to free us from the grip that corporations have on our lives.  The best art can distract us from those countless corporate-fueled distractions...reminding us of those forgotten places deep inside of us which are, in fact, far more authentic than the material world around us.  One line in a song, delivered with authenticity, purity, and brilliance, can over-shadow those countless inauthentic words spoken to us and at us each day.  An honest novel written by an author with character and a life of experience can make us feel, at our deepest levels, connected with that life so far away from and different from our own.  An honest idea, even delivered within an inauthentic, corporate-controlled environment, can spark something in the individual which begins to sever him or her from the corporate-controlled system of thought and action.  I'm talking about reclaiming our minds, bodies, choices, and our time as our own.  I'm talking about minimizing our contact with the corporate world (while recognizing that some contact will always be necessary). 

How can we become inspired to live this way?  The language of art is far more powerful than messages of morality, obligation, or even fear.  The right song, even from a previously unknown artist, can infect the minds of millions overnight.  Art inspires!  What's more, it inspires us to inspire! 

The language of art and ideas is the superpower which every self-centered and corrupt government, system, organization, and individual has to fight.  Even they always try to use art and ideas to their advantage.  The Church commissioned countless works of art, the U.S.S.R. took socialist propaganda very seriously, and Corporations spend billions of dollars each year on films, programming, music, and other entertainment.  But inauthentic beings, systems, or institutions create really shitty art. Independent, free-thinking artists and intellectuals have a clear advantage here because art which resonates with the human spirit in a deep way has to reflect deeper truths.  Art-as-propaganda can never reach this level.

I'm certainly not suggesting that every artist should expect to have some kind of influence.  Some of us simply aren't talented enough.  Sometimes only after years of perfecting our craft can we inspire.  But the pursuit of honest, meaningful art is always worthwhile, nonetheless.

So I remain in exile as I work on the solo Abscondo debut album, which will be called "Morning Rain and the Midnight Snow".  These are deeply personal songs.  Part 1, "Midnight Snow, illuminates the authentic space of love and desire.  Part 2 reminds us of the inevitable "Morning Rain", the struggle of living a life of beauty and authenticity within an inauthentic consumerist society.

The USA is not a democratic state

I won't be the first to say it, but allow me to say it my way: the United States is not a Democracy, but is instead a completely corporate-controlled fascist state. 

Ask any American who would argue otherwise; what is the last thing that THE PEOPLE of the United States were able to accomplish through democratic methods?  They might argue...well, we elected the Democrats to congress in 2006.  To that, I would ask what the Democrats have accomplished on their behalf.  What tangible, measurable, real thing or outcome has been actually achieved through the supposed Democracy not just this year...but in the last decades?!?  Yes, it's that bad!

Don't get me wrong, in fact the government has taken tangible action...every time corporations want them to.  Invading Iraq was an oil industry and military-industrial-complex decision.  Health care policy is set by the insurance companies.  Every single bill that comes out of our government is really a bill pushed for, debated by, and and created for corporations.  Governance is now nothing other than a battle between the most powerful of corporations.  The people are not even a factor.

Democratic supporters often wonder why the vast majority of Americans are so politically apathetic.  They believe that every vote counts and everyone can make a difference.  Really?  Isn't it smarter not to spend time, effort, and money playing a game that is completely rigged?

And that's what American politics has become, a game...a sport.  Its a battle of nothing more than ideas...ideology that ultimately translates to nothing tangible in the real, actual world.  We want to be right, with arguments, to defeat our enemies...yet in the process absolutely nothing ever gets done.  And so many well-intentioned citizens continue to believe that all of this will change at some arbitrary point in the future. 

Well now we have a Democratic congress that was elected specifically to end the war in Iraq.  We have a President who disagrees with them, but has an approval rating at 29%.  If there ever, ever was a time to represent the people In a clear, decisive way...this was it.  It isn't going to get any more straightforward.  Yet they couldn't do it.  They couldn't imagine actually doing something that the people actually want...damned the consequences.  Why?  We are told that it is because of what might happen in Iraq after we leave.  You're telling me that a Senator or Presidential candidate is going to throw away his or her political future because they're worried about what might happen to Iraqis?  You really believe that?  Come on.  So let me ask again...what are the real reasons?

Democracy isn't, as Americans have come to expect, intellectual masturbation.  I had to learn this by leaving America.  Now I live in Slovakia, and this is a Democracy.  Democracy is when people elect a representative who gets things done on their behalf.  Want to end a war?  Want a health care system?  Better schools?  College tuition covered?  In a democratic country, your elected representatives actually do these things for you.  And yet Americans have so little confidence in their representatives...even the ones they voted for....that it is necessary to call, sign petitions, and write letters to politicians begging and pleading with them to take a stand on a position which they shouldn't have to even be reminded about.  And even this effort goes ignored...perhaps explained by the media construct that "the American people" would not support such a policy.  Really?  We're gonna let the Corporate system, the Corporate Media, tell us who we are as a people and what we would or wouldn't support?  This means more than listening to what the actual supporters actually support?  Or maybe the corporate definition of the average American is true, maybe they were actually able to manufacture such a creature with enough propaganda through enough years.

I don't have any answers, but I do know that the only way to turn a corporate-controlled, fascist state into a democracy is through revolution.  You can't work within its rigged, corrupt framework.  This is precisely what has happened in the countries of the world which do have Democracies...and there are many: France, Portugal, Brazil, the countries of Eastern Europe, certainly many more...in these countries real change actually happens as a result of elections.  Health care systems are socialized, college tuition is covered by the state, decisions about war are a reflection of public opinion.  And yet Americans continue to feel that the way things are are simply the way they've always been and always will be...expectations are nil because experience tells us that this is reality.

We no longer have the freedom that Democracy brings, but at least we owe it to ourselves to embrace the freedom that the pursuit of truth brings.  One of these truths is that America is not a democratic state.

Read the response to this post at the famous Democratic Underground.