I haven't sat on the hay bale in a while: been too busy in preparing for the cold to come and thinking I couldn't take the time to sit and chew on some alfalfa until I addressed some other issues in my life. But, some moments just speak out of turn...
Had an old friend recommend 'all of us' read and pass on an article that she brought to our attention. Ended up jotting down some things... The article? Bill Moyers: Howard Zinn Taught Us That It's OK If We Face Mission Impossible:
Some jottings that were prompted by it:
As much as I may dislike the idea, the Tea Party, as a cultural concept, did demonstrate Zinn’s sense that it’s the one seemingly random action that can cascade into effective change, but I have to wonder; have wondered for decades: is it only so far? Is the inexorable weight of a glacier’s movement the firm control of plutocracy that finds a securely sustainable balance?
Are even somewhat progressive representatives, those of them truly in power, essentially selling us moves to support plutocracy in the guise of addressing our needs? The Fed just opted to spend over 600 billion over the next nine months to buy US Treasuries, purportedly to stimulate job growth through making more money available for investment. Yet, without either expanding foreign markets for goods and services, or more money in the pockets of consumers, to spur demand for those goods and services, what business in their right mind would hire, instead of invest? So, the money literally created will likely go into the coffers of Wall St.
Another idea that’s kind of been kicking about in my mind for decades: keeping us masses in a state where we don’t overturn the bucket. Zinn points out that those civilizations’ elites that allowed too large a disparity to emerge between the elite and the masses inevitably fell. If one fails to learn from history, one falls prey to it. A sudden shudder down my back: what if this time the elite not only learns from history, but learns to find and maintain the exact balance of how far they can go (including employing mis-communication techniques) while still keeping the masses just either satisfied enough (or scared enough, i.e. ‘Shock Syndrome’ and I think the ‘Great Recession’ qualifies as just such a crisis) to not reach a critical mass?
Yet, Zinn is also right in having us not tie action to an expectation of success. Call it what you will: ‘controlled folly’ or ‘rolling the rock up the hill’; there’s really no choice. Or, there is, but I rather doubt any of us want to experience its consequences.
