Yes, Things Suck But...

 Things do suck and they probably will continue to do so. Now, what are we going to do about it when people are telling you the real problems aren't the ones you face daily? For instance, when ads on TV tell you that left- or right-wing agendas are going to ruin "our democracy" what do you even do with that information? Our democracy is already ruined by those gatekeepers of government who depend on corporate interests to be elected and re-elected, to be recommended to judgeships, and to be named to important decision-making commissions. It is ruined by underfunding or undermining government protections of people and the environment. It is ruined by nationalism over globalism. So yes, things do suck, but not for the reasons that campaign ads that we are being drowned in say they do. Because mostly, they don't have much to do with the things we worry about on a daily basis.

A big reason that they suck is we no longer vote solely for issues that affect us, but for the perception that one party or person is the only true protector of our way of life. We are consumer tribalists. That is we are predisposed to thinking that one party or person is cool and the other is not. We are being sold imagery (homespun images of farms, flannel, and family or shady images of scary-looking people with bleak voice-overs telling us how they threaten our existence) and framed issues with talking points that are focus-grouped in a way that soon enough we repeat them aloud as if they were our own ideas.

When people say we are sheeple, they may not be wrong (though they may also be sheeple for repeating it because they heard it someplace on the internet). And maybe if we would embrace our sheeple-ness, we could do better. Sheep hang together, they frolic, and yes, they stray (but can be brought back into the fold with proper coaxing). We want to believe we are individualists because you guessed it, that has been the message we have gotten in choosing blue jeans, as well as what our history books mostly taught us. Sheep are social beings and so are we. I am pretty sure sheep don't do everything in lockstep and we don't have to either. Nonetheless, we do have to decide to stop the suck.

If things suck, it is because we are overwhelmed by the enormity of the problems we face. Who wants to figure out what to do about the overcrowding of the planet, the neverending diaspora of people, the lack of drinkable water, the escalating planetary temperatures, the limited arable land, the constant warring, etc. when we can boil elections down to how bad candidate a is and how great candidate b is at defending our freedoms? We have been told that freedom is the most important thing we can fight for, but not how awesome the responsibility of what we do with that freedom can be. We auction off the future of our offspring for the promise of the quick fix of the moment and somehow think that is the best use of our freedom?

Maybe we just suck? We suck because we want others to fix things for us or leave it to us to fix them ourselves. We suck because if it takes a village, someone has to want to build the village (and make sure everyone has a hut). We suck because we listen to the fearmongering voices and think, "hmm, maybe I am superior than the person who will cancel out my vote." We suck because we pretend that others are the cause of why things suck when it is actually a tautology of sucking. We suck because we suck.

But we don't have to suck. We do have to hold those we elect accountable for doing fewer things that suck for us all. We do have to vote, even when it sucks to do so. We do have to call bullshit when we see it, including on people who are choosing to be a posse that stops us from exercising our important freedoms (like voting and speaking up at public forums). We can actually research issues and be informed about what we are voting for or against. We can ask to be on commissions, run for school boards, and volunteer at polls. We don't have to believe in the inherent good or bad of people, we do have to act on our own hopes. At the end of the day, if things suck, it is because we allowed the suck to win. And nothing will ever suck harder than that.

Decisions, Decisions: How The Supreme Court Is Decimating Our Democracy One Decision At A Time

 Today, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Clean Air Act didn't apply to carbon dioxide and therefore can't be regulated by the EPA. “Hard on the heels of snatching away fundamental liberties, the right-wing activist court just curtailed vital climate action,” Jason Rylander, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, responded in a press statement Thursday. The court ruled that only Congress can make laws regarding the level of CO2 emissions. Interestingly the case came to the court due to then-president Trump trying to relax the guidelines which a federal court put a hold on. The result of this ruling is likely to create a free-for-all among states who want to loosen the law versus those who wish to strengthen it. In the meanwhile, global climate change continues and temperatures and sea levels are rising. “Today, the court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the minority joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent.

The decision is impactful to the EPA's ability to do its job. Whether it is limiting emissions from power plants to operating the existing cap-and-trade carbon offset policy, it may also give a peek into other backward steps the court and its conservative majority likely will take. “Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by the five other conservative justices. Further, he added, “On EPA’s view of Section 111(d), Congress implicitly tasked it, and it alone, with balancing the many vital considerations of national policy implicated in the basic regulation of how Americans get their energy,” Roberts wrote. “There is little reason to think Congress did so.” In instances like this, he said, “[a] decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.” 

Regardless of this decision, the Environmental Protection Agency was formed to serve as the watchdog over the nation's environment and enact policies to preserve it, but you would think that this was some kind of fly-by-night operation that requires Congress to hold its hand to do its job. Also, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are a little difficult to maintain when the court is treating people like the frogs in the warm water experiment. Suffice to say, with the slew of recent decisions that have been handed down by this court, democracy as we know it is likely to fail us. It would seem like nobody can wrestle the steering wheel away from these unelected lifers, but the court could be expanded to lessen their impact.

A Government "Shutdown" of a Different Kind

What a week it has been and not a whole lot to be supercharged about. SCOTUS has said that you can pretty much carry a gun anywhere you want except near their homes and other "sensitive" areas. You realize that justice is not blind, but is being blinded by the Six Stooges that are the majority opinion of the aforementioned case. 

At about the same time that Congress takes action on sensible gun laws, the courts decide to become activists for gun rights. Is this coincidental or a way to allow the Republicans to say "Well, at least I tried--but the SCOTUS knows better, I guess"? This political impotence is dangerous to democracy and having a religiously-bent, free-market-leaning Supreme Court just exacerbated this. 

Add to it the circus of Congressional hearings that will likely not lead to anybody being convicted of anything and at the least, opens the window for profiting from decidedly criminal behavior, particularly if the mid-term elections are the bloodbath that is being "predicted" by the media and pollsters.

Then stir in profiteers who are making money and flaming inflation in their wakes and whose campaign contributions make it difficult to go after for ripping all of us off. Even the Federal Reserve Bank admits that hoisting interest rates won't help us out on gas and groceries, but will likely keep people out of housing that they are already having a hard time affording. So there's that.

So what do we have to look forward to? Essentially a government "shutdown" by being made impotent through greed, power grabs, and flagging belief in it as an institution by a weary public. And this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg as other rights will likely be dissembled by the social architects in judges' robes (the next being Roe V. Wade). In so doing, the patriarchs and oligarchs win and democracy fails unless we stop rewarding the corrupt by throwing the wrong "bums" out. Mid-term elections are not glamorous, but they are important nonetheless. Hold the line while we still have a line to hold.

Arise Ye Authoritarians!

 Last night's election headlines bore out that, for the moment, Dad jokes and bods are back, baby! From Virginia to NYC, it was a good night to be pro-authority (aka pro-parent). In Minneapolis, the electorate of those who fought against authority to remake their police force into a public safety department was served notice 56% - 43% that "the blue" is backed by the majority. The overall message seemed to be: these are serious times and we need serious people in charge.

What this means for 2022 is uncertain. It seems that only a year or so ago, we were fighting to wrestle democracy from an authoritarian-in-chief only to reward his ilk-lite in this cycle. As a progressive, this rightfully scares me. Certainly, the barbarians at the gate against true representative democracy are showing up in force to make this country divide itself into factions, but let's also face it, progressives are not doing what they need to do to keep the ground from slipping out from under us. Whether we like to think it is so or not, we need to harness the moderate voices to our wagon for some important wins. The fact that popular policy is being whittled away by internal politics is proof that some would prefer to set themselves on fire than to hold power. If our elected representatives don't show people that Democrats can govern within themselves, we can look forward to a rise of Trumpians in better packages that will make things worse for many people who aren't seeing any results from the D-crew.

We like to think of the Republicans as being all "me and mine"--but the truth is likely that liberals can be that too and the more moderate will vote against for their interests, like in Minneapolis. As it turns out, the people who want revolution the most are on the right and have the firepower to scare the bejeezus out of many. No, if progressives want to win the hearts and minds of moderates, they have to be willing for a slower-moving revolution of better policies being enacted. Because, as the move toward universal healthcare has shown us, if you build it (and protect it), they will come--slowly, but surely, they will come.