The Brotherhood, Fundamentalist Islam and Democracy

-->

Fundamentalist Islam is no better or worse than fundamentalist Judaism or fundamentalist Christianity, except for the fact that jews and christians have already had a far greater impact on the modern world, and whether they call themselves fundies, moderates, liberals or conservatives that impact has meant wonderful progress for some and endless tragedy for too many others.

Reaction to this global situation by any political or religious group needs to be seen in the context of that material reality, without special and unique regard for various people believing it occurs because the universe in all its incredible vastness and mystery is the creation of an eternal entity with a penis - possibly circumcised - or the result of a "big bang”, with no explanation yet offered as to what it was that exploded and what it was that created this primary "banger". There are political economic matters that must be considered, of earthly and human origin that are not supernatural and certainly not unknowable mystery that can only be explained by mythology or science based religion.

Whatever the faults of the Muslim Brotherhood, they were elected in a vote possibly more democratic than in some societies that have been falsely calling themselves democracies for ages, which is small praise but should at least be seen as a lesser evil among even greater hypocrisies that support master race-chosen people doctrines far more damaging - so far - than any backward superstitions of the fundamentalist Muslim creed with all its old testament patriarchal roots which only differ from the dominating judeo-christics in that, for one example, its females treated as secondarily human must be covered in fabrics to hide their femininity and not arouse old testament garden-of-eden descendants who might be overcome  by lust at their sight and want to have sex with them ( horror! this could lead to mindless  pleasure and even - more horror - love?), rather than covered in painted cosmetics which is the western, civilized form of reducing women to chattels and sub-humans who, if viewed as they really are, might *not* provoke feelings of lust ( horror! This could lead to no further commodity consumption of cosmetics!) . They can, nevertheless, drive cars, have credit cards, go shopping and serve in positions of political power as long as they conduct themselves in the same dominating and murderous capitalist profit making behaviors that bring the world to its present place.

The Brotherhood may have just as many faults as any other governing groups in alleged democracies, and possibly even more given the fact that it has had no previous experience at being anything but an outsider, often suppressed and imprisoned class trying to stand up for a population regularly ground into submission by “civilized” ruling powers, many of which are their critics. Those who rightfully clamor for democracy anywhere and not just in Egypt need to understand that nowhere on earth has there been any society ruled by a democratic majority of its people, with protection of the rights of its minority, and the Muslim Brotherhood is hardly the primary exponent of what too many are calling anti-democracy because someone else won the election and they didn’t.

Repeat: nowhere on earth has there been any democracy. Yet.

Especially since “progress” destroyed smaller groups of humans who might (we don’t really know) have achieved something approaching this ages ago when it was easier with smaller numbers. The flaws and faults of the Brotherhood need to be seen in this context and not simply as the seemingly backward sexism that prevents equality for women to perform as equals to men, this all too often meaning – in the west – to be just as stupid, obnoxious, sexist, racist and most especially, murderously master race-chosen people in theory and practice.

Egyptian Democracy = American Hypocrisy

In their rush to bring about collapse of not just ecological but political systems as well, the USA and its puppets quickly endorsed a military coupe in Egypt. Keeping true to the moral double standard that makes profit and loss capitalism the center - if a slowly crumbling one – of the global economy, what’s good for business, banks, the military, the jews, other identity groups (pick one or add your own), is okay no matter how bad it may be for everyone else.

A class of Egyptians seen as unthreatening is supported because another class which wasn’t really that much of a threat seemed to possibly represent less of a profit margin. So what passed for a democratic election in Egypt – at least as democratic and probably more so than any American vote, in that a party founded and led by former social outcasts and imprisoned rebels actually won – is dumped in a military takeover resulting in more protester deaths than in the original uprising against the Mubarak regime.

Like the army, that regime was a corporate client of the ruling western powers, with Egypt comprising a very large mall in the massive market that passes for civilization, which is how we refer to those who can afford the food, clothing, shelter, toys, pets and countless other purchasable commodities that pass for civil (?) society. Meanwhile, several billion inhabitants of planet earth live in poverty, are endlessly hungry, wear unstylish clothing at best and live, if they have homes at all, in crowded ghettos and both relative and all too real squalor.

 A near majority of Egyptians are among these poor, but rest assured the supporters of the military are nice democracy seekers and hypocrisy acceptors more among those who can afford personal relations with pet animals, while the followers of and dependents on the Muslim Brotherhood are more likely to desire eating animals, if only they could afford the prices.

 Of course that group's ruling powers and leadership were doing quite well, thank you, in the first place or they’d never have been able to run for office let alone win an election. And their collusion with the capital class of Egyptians and membership in that group or at least its fringes were also necessary in order to be allowed to sit at the table of power. Americans should remember, if they ever knew, that during slavery and for generations after, “house negroes” exercised power over those in the field on behalf of their owners, and often did – and do - so in a benign, helpful and sometimes nearly radical way. But if they get too far out of line the master cracks the whip, and obviously, the brotherhood got out of line, even if unintentionally.

Lack of experience in running a country played a role but it should be understood that they were not given any help from those who knew how to run things and in fact were set obstacles to make it nearly impossible. Their mistakes were numerous but look at the mental health crisis center of an american government, consider its wealthy owners and a history of at least feigned democracy, and be ashamed at yourself if you feel superior to the Egyptians who undertook a herculean task with none of the material if not intellectual and moral privileges available here.

The watchwords for Americans regarding Egypt should be:  humility, respect, and to clean up the sordid mess in our own house before interfering in matters we play a role in screwing up in the first place.

Obama Focuses on Economy, Vowing to Help Middle Class

poor people? poverty? where? here, in america?

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged?

The decision in the Florida murder trial of George Zimmerman is being treated as a case of racism, but while the murder itself could well have been motivated by race, the jury decision hardly needed to have been.

The crippling social disease of American racism is all too often dumped on individuals or groups or locales thereby leaving the social order relatively unquestioned and allowing certain Americans to feel free of the disease and superior to those who seem to more obviously suffer its worst aspects. Thus we have divisions of the public into “minorities” and Red state – Blue state and ethnic-religious-sex Balkanized groups. These prevent coming together as a democratic majority to confront and solve social problems for the benefit of all and not just a minority of rich people and their professional class multi-cultural servants who help perpetuate their system.

While Trayvon Martin’s death seems an obvious outcome of racism in America, the jury decision finding George Zimmerman innocent is no more obviously racist than the jury decision was in the famous O.J.Simpson case. The law itself – and it should be remembered that the law’s purpose is the foundation and maintenance of the system, not its replacement or radical change – and the ineffective and amateurish performance of the prosecutors may have played as big a role for Zimmerman as that of the prosecution in the Simpson murder case in which many believed the decision of innocence was for reasons of…reverse racism?

Much of the “white” public was convinced of Simpson’s guilt, partly because he was “black”, while much of the “Black” public was convinced of his innocence, also partly because he was "black". Did racism play a role in creating that dichotomy? Does a snake have wings? 

While a highly paid defense team, greatly aided by another group of ineffective and amateurish members of a prosecution team, convinced a jury of Simpson’s innocence, many still believe he got off because of race and not evidence. Is there a relationship between the two cases? Is a bluebird blue?

What some called an affirmative action decision for Simpson could be seen as exactly the reverse for Trayvon Martin. His representation (?) was as botched as that of the two murdered “white” people in the Simpson case, but with a jury of none of his peers, while there was allegedly racial fairness in the O.J. jury. But just as Affirmative Action has been to the great advantage of a small minority of beneficiaries while totally neglecting a great majority who truly need help to overcome socially created obstacles, the legal-judicial process has hurt far more than it has aided while strengthening a failing system that punishes more while it rewards less. That point may be lost in the individual focus on one victim or assailant that misses the social victims who pay a heavy price of being assailed systemically, and not only by a jealous ex-husband or wannabe-vigilante.

Trayvon Martin was killed because he was young and black and thereby considered a menace by a self appointed protector of his community from such “criminal types”. But Zimmerman was hardly alone in accepting that characterization and in truth, many American communities with signs claiming “neighborhood watch” or “we report suspicious activity” would have found middle class dwellers phoning the police to report a young black man wandering “their” streets. And one of those callers might well have been an upper middle class “black” wondering what that person was doing in his or her upscale neighborhood. The confrontation between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin might have been unique in its terrible outcome, but the suspicions that created it are far too common in America.

The repeated characterization of Trayvon as a “child” and not simply a minor only helped to twist material reality almost as much as the other side’s depiction of him as a thug because he had gold teeth and smoked pot. The infantilization of this young man might have provoked him into cursing someone out if it had been done to his face, and in truth hardly any seventeen year old would like being called a child. But Trayvon certainly was not killed because he was a child. He died because he was seen as a young black man and thereby as a potential criminal threat, with no more evidence for that suspicion than the fact that he was: a young black man.

That crippling social disease is hardly a problem for only Florida, or one vigilante, or an alleged racist jury, which though it contained absolutely none of Trayvon’s peers could easily under the circumstances find the killer innocent of murder and do so without any trace of overt racism.

The crime itself was an aspect of racism in the USA – not just Florida – but the jury decision was hardly an expression of the white-is-evil analysis coming from too many who strengthen continued divisions among Americans and make it more difficult to bring about real and not cosmetic social change by acting as a people and not just a gang of minorities in endless combat with one another. That is the law of the marketplace, but it has nothing to do with a democratic system that not just theoretically but in practice treats all people equally. Identifying some of us as being more if not totally responsible for problems that all of us share is a program for continued and greater social stress that will make solutions less possible. That’s exactly what our rulers want and what we should work against.

Those ignorant enough to think Florida is uniquely racist should remember that Oscar Grant was not murdered in Florida, but in the “hip” Bay Area. Those who think Oakland, Grant’s hometown, is uniquely racist should remember that Amadou Diallo wound up with nineteen bullets shredding his body, and he was in “hip” New York City. The idea that one locale or community is somehow better or worse than another in matters like race relations makes it easy to continue the disrespect and contempt that too many Americans hold for their fellow citizens.

The ugliness that led to the killing of Trayvon is a national problem. It closely concerns our history and divisions of class that make it possible for some people - of all alleged minorities - to make it,  often big-time, while most people struggle to survive. The strugglers need to identify the roots of their problems, and simplistically reducing them to skin tone, immigration status, sexuality or dress code will do nothing but add to the woes we face if we don’t change an environment that threatens all of us by hyphenating our citizenship and reducing us to minorities. We are the majority and we need to start acting that way.

A more direct focus on the political economics at the root of our society’s problems would be a bigger help in ending racism than any false concentration on only certain political parties, geographic regions and demonic individuals as being responsible for all that is wrong with America.  

A Diplomat From Hell: Samantha Power and The Quest For Eternal War

 "Why don't I quit my job at Harvard and come and intern in your office and answer the phones or do whatever you want?"

-----Samantha Power to Senator Barack Obama, 2005

Before Samantha Power is buried in shrill hysteria by the fantasy-obsessed GOP, it might be a good idea to recognize that she is a poor choice to be U.N. Ambassador not because she will aid Washington's enemies with her preoccupation with "human rights," but because she will continue anti-human rights policies that earn us enemies we needn't ever have had in the first place.  Ho hum.  What else is new?

Power, a self-styled "genocide chick," wrote the shelf-busting tome, "A Problem From Hell:  America and the Age of Genocide," which places the problem of genocide squarely on the shoulders of others, a neat trick in a world regularly subjected to invasions and/or massacres by Washington and its client states, with quite a few of them meriting consideration as genocides under current definitions of that term.  But you don't get to work on "human rights" for the President of the United States by stating the embarrassingly obvious fact that the U.S. opposing genocide is like Coca Cola opposing sugar.

A good place to bring Power's thought into focus is by contrasting it with that of a genuine human rights advocate.  Here's how she characterizes U.S. dissident intellectual Noam Chomsky's work (which has its flaws, but not those claimed by Power):

 "For Chomsky, the world is divided into oppressor and oppressed. America, the prime oppressor, can do no right, while the sins of those categorized as oppressed receive scant mention. Because he deems American foreign policy inherently violent and expansionist, he is unconcerned with the motives behind particular policies, or the ethics of particular individuals in government. And since he considers the United States the leading terrorist state, little distinguishes American air strikes in Serbia undertaken at night with high-precision weaponry from World Trade Center attacks timed to maximize the number of office workers who have just sat down with their morning coffee."

Here we see the usual fanciful invention characteristic of liberal intellectuals, who are actually more dishonest than their reactionary jingoist counterparts in the GOP, who freely lie to achieve their goals, but far less often delude themselves as to what they are up to.  In any event, Chomsky has never taken the dogmatic position that "America can do no right;" in fact quite the contrary, since Chomsky as recently as the Libya disaster cautioned anti-interventionists not to adopt a knee jerk opposition to the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya, on what he regards as the mistaken assumption that an imperial state can do no right.  Admittedly, Power wrote her critique of Chomsky before the Libya intervention, but Chomsky has evidenced this capacity for ideological nuance throughout his intellectual career.  More importantly, Chomsky regularly pushes for a citizen-controlled U.S. government, one that would be far more likely than the current government to "do right," because the people would be motivated to avoid the hideous blowback that inevitably accompanies U.S. empire around the world.  Establishment elites, on the other hand, are only too happy to incorporate such catastrophes into their plans for universal and permanent domination of the world and outer space.  Power evidences no tendency to challenge this insanity.

As to Chomsky's views on U.S. empire, the words he uses most often to critique it are not "violent" and "expansionist," but "greed," "domination," and "deceit."  However, Power is right that Chomsky is relatively uninterested in indicting individuals, since the structure of power guarantees that greed, domination, and deceit will be the primary values of those individuals who have any chance of holding power.  This stance is perfectly reasonable, but it leaves no role for people like Power to engage in the ideological hair-splitting that allows her to land a comfortable job assisting war crimes for a Democratic administration, while the Rumsfelds and Cheneys of the world peddle a rival brand of murderous nonsense for the GOP. (Incidentally, what are the chances that Obama's much ballyhooed "cabinet of rivals" would ever have entertained offering an appointment to a genuine human rights advocate like Chomsky?  Zero.  Jobs are reserved for the ideologically subservient, and Samantha Power excels at placing herself among them.) 

Anyway, surely most pathetic is Power's attempt to justify Washington's 78 days of air strikes against Serbia in 1999, undertaken to destroy an entire country, at the same time as she condemns the retaliatory violence of 911, which Osama bin Laden considered justified on the basis of 80 years of the West's subjugation of Arab and Muslim peoples, with a death toll far beyond that of New York, Pennsylvania and Washington on 911.  Of course, Power juxtaposes the "precision" bombing of Serbia with the indiscriminate killing of the 911 attacks in order to justify the former, but mass killing is mass killing, and destroying a country in order to achieve foreign control of it is considerably worse than mass killing out of revenge.  Did Serbia subjugate the United States for 80 years?  Gross hypocrisy would be too polite a phrase with which to characterize Power's "principled" rationalizations.

Power made her reputation analyzing genocide, carefully skirting the cases where an honest depiction would have made it impossible for her to maintain her career as a human rights professor at Harvard.  In her book she makes scant or no mention of the U.S. assisted genocide against the Mayan Indians of Guatemala, the wiping out of hundreds of thousands of "communists" by the Indonesian army and its subsequent occupation and eradication of one-third of the population of East Timor (both with U.S. backing), the U.S. sanctions and wars against Iraq from 1991 to the present that killed over a million people and exiled millions more. Vietnam and Palestine also fail to qualify as genocide in her eyes, though U.S. war planners recognized that they were essentially fighting the Vietnamese birth rate, and Israeli leaders wiped Palestine off the map in 1948, and continue to criminalize manifestations of Palestinian nationalism to this day, a hallmark of genocidal policy.  In short, like all members of what economist Edward Herman calls "the cruise missile left," Power has remarkably selective vision.  (To be fair, Power did compare Israeli policy to the Rwanda genocide in a 2002 talk, but she stopped short of calling it genocide, and has since denounced her own comments on that occasion, calling them "weird.")

For Power, the sharpest criticism she can muster of U.S. policy is that it fails to stop the massacres carried out by others, not that it constantly fosters massacres of its own, both directly and indirectly, and on a scale no other nation or "terrorist" group can even come close to rivaling.   Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman helpfully analyzed the real U.S. attitude toward mass killing in their two-volume Political Economy of Human Rights, published over three decades ago, and concluded that bloodbaths fell into three broad categories for U.S. elite planners: (1) constructive - i.e., the bloodbaths were beneficial because they furthered the achievement of U.S. imperial goals (2) nefarious - the bloodbaths were worthy of rhetorical condemnation because they were carried out by official U.S. enemies (principally the former USSR and its allies at the time Herman and Chomsky were writing their analysis) (3) mythical - ideological inventions that offered retrospective justification for U.S. imperial interventions, as with the imaginary Communist bloodbath that allegedly followed U.S. withdrawal from Indochina.  A more recent case is that of the imaginary genocide of which Slobodan Milosevic was allegedly guilty.  Power is firmly in the camp of those fostering this kind of delusion.

Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy."  A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent, hypocritical, and domineering."  The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide - real or merely ideologically constructed - the supreme international crime, instead of war itself.  (Under current international law war itself is the "supreme international crime.")  That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for anachronisms like national sovereignty.  Is it any wonder Democrats love her?

Power's establishment critics never take account of any of this, preferring to divert attention to ideological sins.  For example, Power called for the U.S. to enhance its international credibility by apologizing for its past "failures."  But failures are not the point.  The U.S. is guilty not of failures but of crimes, and the only point of transmuting them into mistakes and diverting attention to the past is so that Washington can go on committing atrocities in the present.  This is all Power's human rights crusade amounts to.

Power sees foreign policy as a "tool box" that includes "international" sanctions (for her "international" = U.S. + Israel), travel bans, and asset freezes, as well as military destruction.  So should the international community impose such penalties on U.S. leaders for their constant crimes against humanity?  It's no surprise that Power doesn't even raise the question.

Every time an Iranian plane crashes, killing everyone on board, let's think of the lack of spare parts in Iran as a result of the U.S. sanctions against that country.  Or of former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declaring on national TV that the killing of half a million Iraqi children with U.S. sanctions was "worth it" to Washington, because of the political goals achieved.

"Tool box"?  Maybe Power's should include an instrument to remove the bone between her ears that renders her incapable of understanding the phrase, "U.S. hands off other countries."

For someone endlessly pursuing "the good war," these words are simply impenetrable.


Postscript:  At her Senate Confirmation hearings on July 17, Power vowed to stand up against "repressive regimes," which she said meant "countries like Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela."

 

Sources:

"Hegemony or Survival:  the Everything Explainer," Samantha Power, New York Times, February 4, 2004

"A crusader for human rights," The Week, July 5-12, 2013

"The Good Intentions That Pave the Road to War," Diana Johnstone, Counterpunch, February 1-3, 2013

"Samantha Power and the Weaponization of Human Rights," Chase Madar, Counterpunch, June 6, 2013

"Samantha Powers Five Worst Statements," Washington Free Beacon," June 5, 2013

Shocking Press Conference ( oooooh! )

After nearly 100,000 deaths alleged in Syria, Obama has put his foot down over 100 killed by chemical weapons…

”We…uh…understand the shooting, bombing, stabbing and…uh…beheadings and hearts cut out and  eaten such…but…uh…the use of chemicals goes against all that Americans stand for ”

When asked if charges that he was a wimp a wuss and a sissy had anything to do with his actions the president said

” Uh…I’ve heard charges made but…uh…my masculinity is not the question here…my leadership of all that America stands for is the…uh…question…or answer, as it may be.”

But did ex-president Clinton demanding that you do something, like establish a no-fly zone on the Lebanese border with Syria have anything to do with your decision?

“My decision had nothing to do with ex-president Clinton’s, or more honestly Mrs. Clinton’s need to establish a closed fly zone in the area of the border of her husbands’ crotch”

(Chorus of “ooooohs” from assembled press stenos)

Should that remark be interpreted as a vote against Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy in 2016?

“ The ticket of Manning and Snowden may be a greater problem for her candidacy…”

( chorus of more “oooooooohhhhs” from press )

Boundless Patriotism : Manning and Snowden in 2016?

-->

While media stenographers echo the regime’s charges against whistleblowers who represent democracy far more than the government and its loyal servants, Americans have an opportunity to respond to real patriotism with support for its foremost practitioners. No elected official – so far – has come forward to stand up for the rights of the imprisoned Bradley Manning and the hunted Edward Snowden. It may be too much to expect any of our corporate owned or rented elected “representatives” to stand for anything but great wealth, the military and Israel, but Americans who’ve rallied to Manning’s support need to increase their efforts to include Edward Snowden before the cyber-police take further control of our minds on the road to totally destroying any notions of free speech and privacy.

Suppressing dissent has always been a part of the American creed but kept to minorities, reassuring most people that they indeed were free to speak, especially if they had nothing to say that threatened ruling power. From the Alien and Sedition acts passed shortly after the nation’s founding to the Palmer Raids of the early twentieth century, punishment of those who threatened systemic stability by calling attention to its shaky foundation was the order of the day. A mad rush to collect data on Americans became stronger during the Cold War that saw suspected communists, socialists and others who dared challenge minority rule placed under police state control. During the 1960s when the anti-war and pro-civil rights movements led more citizens to question and often confront authority, the suppression of dissent grew more violent but again seemed to only threaten minorities, leaving the great majority feeling safe as long as it remained uncritical, obedient or fervently supportive of any denial of democratic freedom to evil “others”. In the name of democracy and freedom, of course.

But after the 911 attacks on New York and Washington, whatever slight caution may have existed vanished as realistic fear of terrorism replaced fictional fear of communism. It was frightening enough to cause another rush of government intrusion into the lives of citizens, allegedly to save them from further terror attacks. While this argument still works for misinformed innocents, true believers and cynics who fully accept mass murder and deceit as necessary functions of the American marketplace, it is losing its strength among a growing minority. This group responds to the information offered by these brave Americans who “blow the whistle” on the treachery of minority state power and face severe punishment for daring to speak out.

Manning and Snowden voluntarily acted as members of a budding democratic state, in contrast to the bought and paid for media wimps and political pimps who express outrage at these courageous men who perform genuine public service and thereby threaten corporate government and its subservient employees faithful to private rule.

Manning performed heroically as a member of the armed forces and continues to pay a hellish price for his bravery, while Snowden, also acting on his conscience and still hopefully free, was operating in the marketplace for private profiteers who have latched onto the multi-billion dollar business of collecting information on Americans and using it the way every thing in this economy is used to benefit some at the expense of all. 

Trillions of our tax dollars have gone to a military industrial complex we were warned about long ago and they have created a permanent at-war state with military bases all over the world. Now, during capitalism’s return to pre-social democratic pretensions that have religious market forces back in control and the public sector under total assault, cybernetic domination has become more profitable with hustlers getting taxpayer money under the guise of protecting them from outside attack by destroying inside freedoms and making a helluva lot of money in the process.

These military and cybernetic profiteers represent a greater threat to the nation than any terrorists who would disappear if we brought our military home and ended our support of regimes hated by their people who then loath us even more for doing so.

A primitive public sector that bailed out the economy for a generation has come under assault in a return to pre-Great Depression capitalism, with uncontrolled market forces that impoverish the many to enrich the few. Billionaires and millionaires are doing better than ever and their servant professional class is just fine, for the moment. But the majority of working people dubbed a middle class during the generation of credit buying are slipping into more dangerous conditions. And those already at the bottom are facing survival problems more deadly than at any time since the last depression. In this context, market profiteers are feasting on public money as corporate capital’s government fires public workers and hires private firms to do for only some of us what those public workers once did for almost all of us.

Schools, libraries and post offices are closed and programs for the poor and elderly are slashed or completely ended, while the stock market booms and luxury goods sell at historic rates. Millions of pets in America live at a higher material standard than hundreds of thousands of human beings and the inequality gap between animals and people is growing as fast as that between the 1% and the rest of us. In this madhouse of growing military expenditures and increased warfare, the threat to Americans from terrorism also rises as we create more people who hate us. Whistle blowers who try to alert the public to a reality that hardly exists on the propaganda outlets of corporate media are seen as more dangerous than all past “subversives”, and it may be that authority’s fears are finally getting something right:

 The examples set and the information released by Manning and Snowden is most dangerous to minority power since it is being shared, discussed and given thought by far more than were ever aware of past injustices to minorities while a majority either slept or contentedly enjoyed the trickle down profits for their service.

Now, hundreds of millions the world over understand that humanity faces a problem that is global, and here in the headquarters of empire awareness of the role we play in that problem is growing, thanks in part to communications not yet completely in control of the 1%. That control is being sought, everyday, and courageous patriots like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden who risk their freedom in alerting us are making it possible for people to get a greater sense of this reality and do something about it before the situation gets beyond our control.

While the corporadoes are already doing financial planning for the employees they will run in the next election, social change advocates should be realistic enough not to think it’s possible, but it’s symbolically probable that a campaign for “Manning and Snowden in 2016” might be a way to garner support for these two American heroes. And realistic or not, you know they represent infinitely more integrity, bravery and dedication to the American people than whatever toadies the corporate parties will present.