This started as a comment, but well..
Williams leaves his Laura pretty much as we found her, but that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss her options.
She could go look up the brother’s friend. But he’s married now, has kids, what’s she going to do? Ask him for a job as a domestic servant? Stalk him like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Start an affair with him, become his mistress who can’t call him at home, spending holidays alone and in tears, while he celebrates with his family, dedicate her life to him in hopes that one day he will leave his wife and marry her, at least until the next pretty girl comes along?
Or she could get out a little more, get to know some people, get a life of her own going away from Mama and those little glass figures, maybe meet someone special, maybe learn a little more about who she is, what she wants out of life and what she has to offer it – and appreciate herself for enough to stop fixating on that one kiss from someone who has his own life and interests – which do not include her.
Maybe if Laura had somebody else to advise her besides the wacky old mother lost in her own faded roses of days gone by, that person might tell her to forget the notion of making the brother’s friend be what she wants him to be. He has gone his own way, and the best thing Laura can do, might suggest some wise person, is to leave him be and focus on her own self.
US politics is business. It is not the sport of those who will find it difficult to make doubled credit card payments because you maxxed your card out in the first place due to insufficient income.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans are about opposing wars, or war crimes, or European-style social safety nets or a thriving middle class.
There is a reason for that. Those things are less profitable for business. And business is about profit. Politicians are there to serve the corporations, they are not there to serve single mothers who can’t afford medical treatment.
Some people have expectations of the Democrats that are not reality based. The Democratic party’s purpose is not to oppose US policies, but to suggest more cost-effective ways of implementing them, and present them in more palatable terms.
No Democrat is going to come out and be Hugo Chavez del Norte and feed the hungry and house the homeless. It would not be pragmatic. Nor is any Democrat going to oppose profitable “military operations” undertaken by the US to secure its natural resources located in its various properties around the globe. That would not be pragmatic either.
If something like that happened, the individual would be summarily run out of town on a rail, his (or her) political career would be over, and his friends would be thanking God that he got off so easy. He could have had a tragic accident.
Nor is it realistic to suppose that some third party Saladdin is going to come charging up on a white horse and save America. Third parties, are, for all practical purposes, not allowed in the US.
I am not a big fan of Ralph Nader, but when he characterized the Democrats and the Republicans as two branches of the corporate party, he was right.
This is just reality. Another reality is that this is neither a road toward a legitimate democratic government, nor sustainable.
Whether you think it is right or wrong is not relevant. It is just another question of pragmatics.
Yes, there are consequences. The world does have its own security to protect, which it will do, regardless of whether the “exceptionalists” think it has a right to or not.
And you don’t have to go far to see the consequences of not having a middle class. There are countries very near the US where gunmen armed with automatic rifles stand guard over the humblest little grocery store, where houses are surrounded by walls and gates, and tiny children hover in the parking lot of Burger King, peering through the windows, asking for the rest of your fries. Until the guard sees them. One’s status is determined by whether the guards are shooting at the children who ask for your fries, or whether they are shooting at you.
But frankly, if you are going to have trouble paying for private security guards without dipping into your child’s college money, you are not going to be able to pay those guards for very long, and so US politics is not going to be your game for very long.
Now if you are the type who says, oh but I hear the Democrats have a terrific plan to send everybody to college, so I will be able to pay the security guards for maybe two or three years, then for two or three years, you just might be able to help out in the phone bank. Or handing out flyers. And when you need that operation you can’t afford, you can count on the Democrats to wish you all the best, and you can be sure that they will do it much more graciously than the Republicans will.
So is the US doomed? Yes, in the sense that Imperial Russia was doomed, in the sense that the French aristocratic regime was doomed, in the sense that Genghis Khan, and Rome, and yes, Hitler, were all doomed. But these are events that will occur independently from the business of US politics.
When the window for political solution closes, other doors open. It is not pretty, or easy, and does not result in Utopia. Think of it as a market correction, from the domestic point of view, and in the case of the threat US presents to the world, well, the world made a mistake in letting the cancer grow, and the world will correct its mistake, and hopefully learn from it.
That does not mean that US politics cannot be a rewarding avocation. Sure, there will be those who say you are dancing on the Titanic. But if you have already learned that your name is not on the list of those who will be allowed to board the lifeboats, who are those people to criticize?
After all, what else can you do? Storm the lifeboats?
Love the prose. It is beautiful. But your fatalism depresses me. Probably because it is based in truth.
And a comment on this paragraph —
Now if you are the type who says, oh but I hear the Democrats have a terrific plan to send everybody to college, so I will be able to pay the security guards for maybe two or three years, then for two or three years, you just might be able to help out in the phone bank. Or handing out flyers. And when you need that operation you can’t afford, you can count on the Democrats to wish you all the best, and you can be sure that they will do it much more graciously than the Republicans will.
Reminded me of 2004 election. I handed out the flyers. And I was at the phone banks. And our governor — Jennifer Granholm — came in for a photo op. And it was one the most vacuous experiences I have ever had. Shaking her hand. Looking into her blank eyes. I was a mere tool in some game she was playing. Disgusting, really.
So I am considering buying some acreage in upstate Michigan. Maybe make it a commune. Maybe arm the gates ourselves. To hold out a few more years. Anyone else feeling that crazy.
I have definitely been feeling that crazy. I’ve been telling my city-raised husband that we need to get ready to bug-out – or at least go buy land, get an aero-motor, sell the house (if we can), load up the flivver and go live off the economy.
Of course, we are too old for that. Or our knees are, at least. And though my dad taught me pretty well how to survive in the woods for a short time, I really don’t think I could manage, like Shirlstars did, to live there, get shelter built, and truly live away from people.
Besides, that sounds just a bit too much like my ultra right-wing distant cousin, whose always sending me stuff that sounds a bit too much like MI militia type stuff.
But living here in the devolution of the city, the state, the country, I’m not sure we can take three more years, and I have little confidence that the Dems will win in 2008 much less 2006. Too much vested interests in the institutional party system inside the Beltway.
I am only half-serious, in my proposal. But that halves poll numbers are definitely on the rise.
Thanks for this.
I guess DuctapeFatwa has never heard of Democrats like:
Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio (who has advocated creating a Cabinet position called the Secretary of Peace, to promote nonviolent international conflict resolution)
Representative John Conyers of Michigan (has led invesigations into electoral fraud in Ohio and US torture of prisoners)
Representative Barbara Lee of California (the sole member of Congress to vote against the September 14th 2001 resolution giving Bush near-dictatorial powers to conduct the “war against terrorism”)
Representative Charlie Rangel (whose push for reinstatement of the draft for EVERYBODY has helped embarrass the wealthy chickenhawks like Bush and Cheney, both of whom have children and other relatives of an age to be eligible for military service)
Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin (only US Senator to vote against the Patriot Act)
But in order to make his point about the TOTAL corruption of the Democratic Party, Ductaper MUST ignore these and other worthy representatives who do oppose American militarism and corporatism. I guess Bush isn’t the only one who doesn’t “do nuance”. It must be easier to live in a Manichean world in which one side is entirely evil and the other entirely good, but those of us who live in the real world realise that human beings and the societies they make are far more complicated than childish notions of “good” and “bad”.
And once again, we have doomsaying…”the US is doomed”…without one single concrete solution. It’s all the same rant, again and again, and it’s wearisome. If there’s no hope, and all our efforts are in vain, then why bother at all? Go eat, drink, and be merry and leave the futility of political action to those of us who would rather light a single candle than curse the darkness.
Maybe ranting, painting with a big picture, doomsaying — maybe that is what Ductape is good at. I mean, I think he/she is good at it.
I think a lot of folks here want to work with Dems you mention, and try to salvage a party. Some thinkers like Ductape don’t believe it is possible, structurally. Some are idealists about the system within which they live — like BooMan, I think in some ways.
So — is your point in writing this to try to convince the majority on this site that Ductape’s version isn’t real? I mean do you want us all to adopt your position? Or is the point to stir up some controversy slash argument because it is fun? Or simply to educate us? Or perhaps to discourage Fatwa from writing? Or is your purpose something else altogether. I’m just curious. And I’m not casting aspersions no matter what your purpose is, I am just honestly wondering.
What I am saying is that there are orbits of events that are separate and operate independently of each other.
Maybe many of us wish there were more interdependence, more cause and effect relationship, but if we are to maintain a “reality based” view, there is not.
For example, victims of US military aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan are neither motivated nor affected by the ticking domestic time bomb in the US.
Their orbit of pragmatism does not really depend on or have anything to do with whether that single mom in Anytown, USA can afford housing or the fact that the lady next to her under the overpass used to work for Delphi.
And the folks in philinmaine’s diary down in Mississippi sleeping on dirt floors and paying 20 cents more a bag for potato chips than the white folks have their own orbit of pragmatism, which is independent from the women smuggling out desperate notes from the Ghraib.
And neither of those orbits have anything to do with the business of US politicians and their devotees, in pragmatic terms.
Now all those orbits are affected by US business interests. In fact, US business interests own all three of those independent orbits, and changing that will take some very unpretty lifeboat-storming and Patriot Act violations, all of which will occur.
The course of human events, if you read history, is a tapestry of predictable pragmatism.
In a less optimistic but what I also look back on perversely as a more optimistic bent, I recall when I discovered, as a small child, that America had an extremely disproportionate share of the world’s resources. (And that we were doing a damn bad job of stewardship of them, too). It was an article in the Missouri Conservationist, a modest little journal put out by the State of Missouri’s Conservation Commission, which manages that state’s forests and wildlife, etc. There was a chart of energy consumption, wealth in dollars, and population, by country.
I was struck by the gross unfairness of it all. We had so much, and so many people other places had so little. I took it to my grandfather. He agreed with me that it was extremely unfair, and said that this same unfairness was even here in this country. I could see what he meant.
I had just learned that four of my classmates got exactly nothing for Christmas (we were living in the county which at that time had the highest number of families on AFDC). I had considered that Santa was unbelievably unfair, and this is when I discovered that there was no Santa Claus. The scales were beginning to drop from my eyes.
I said to him, and I remember it very well: When the children my age grow up, they won’t stand for this. If we don’t share with them, they will come and take it from us. And that will be fair. If we are their friend, we will want them to have as much as we have, or else we should give up some. It can’t be all ours. Be friends and share. Or be their enemies, and they will take it. Fairness. That’s what’s important.
I was eight. Old to have just given up believing in Santa Claus, but I was and still am an idealist of sorts. I certainly didn’t know about corporate personhood, greed, monopolies, or beliefs in the “invisible hand” of the marketplace. I miss that little kid’s sense of outrage and naive justice. And I wish I had been right, that when children my age grew up, they would not stand for the unfairness I saw, which has not decreased.
Some of them aren’t standing for it, but too many are fine with the status. I’m pleased to see some of the former here.
His timing may have been a generation off, but I don’t think it is likely he was off by much.
The chances are not good that the eight year olds of today will be content with the status quo when they reach adulthood.
In fact, that is stretching it. I would not count on their 18 year old brothers and sisters to thank kind master for the generous crumbs, especially as they become parents.
Your deep love is palpable – as is your sadness.
To all you have written here, I say – Yes.
Oddly enough, I have been comforted. Thank you.