A leapfrog thought: as we look to rip apart these systems of oppression and inequity, it's also important to look at the interrelated ecosystems that they exist in. For example, the fight for universal, tax-funded healthcare (which should be a human right in this resource-rich country) is welded to the fight for tax-funded and equitable public school and university systems (which (1) have been under strategic attack since desegregation started and (2) is a part of the student loan forgiveness fight) because in addition to making access to healthcare universal, you have to remove the other artificial, socially-constructed gatekeeping mechanisms to becoming a healthcare provider (i.e. the money it takes to become a doctor).
Also, I'm very empathetic to the small business owner who doesn't have the margins or volume to absorb an increase in payroll (and even more so the people who work there), and it seems to me that these are very solvable problems. Hell, it makes no sense that Walmart and McDonald's can subsidize their employees to the government by paying them so little that the employee is dependant on Medicaid, SNAP, etc., but the idea of subsidizing small businesses with cash is a non-starter.
Chris, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think the resources are here to do ALL of this, though, and the problems ARE solvable. It's big picture, long term stuff, and I think a good start is figuring out a way to make it so that the only people who can finance and win elections are rich people invested only in looking after themselves. What a challenge.
I don't think that's a correct diagnosis of the problem. In Montana in 2020, for office after office, we had the choice between a rich person only caring about himself, and someone actually focused on trying to solve people's problems, and we chose the former over the latter. The people chose Troy Downing over Shane Morigeau, for example. That wasn't because Shane isn't rich, it was because of people's self-image, and the apparent appeal of ISIS like trucks with flags. That is, I think the voters are a way bigger problem here than the politicians.
Well, two things. My assessment is mostly on national office, where the big tires hit the road. I also suspect a good percentage of the votes Republican were just that: votes for Republican. I bet half the people had no idea who they were even voting for. I believe the flurry of bullshit mail and television ads from the big money people—Daines, Gianforte, Rosendale, and then their opponents—create a climate where people don't even pay attention and vote straight ticket because they are just sick of it all. And that is another way to say the voters are a big problem here too.
People totally knew they were voting for the you-can't-make-me-care-about-other-people brand. And the I-don't-even-have-to-pretend-to-care variant. That *is* what they picked. We act like they didn't make this choice at our peril.
Hey, you planning to be on the Msla Dems zoom at 4 today? It'll be the local legislators talking about good, bad, ugly, so far and yet to come. I can send you the zoom link, if it hasn't already reached you.
Being a slow thinker, I had to let this all simmer for a bit. I think everyone here is right. I was on a lot of R lists and got tons of texts and calls about Dems and socialism and/or “they’ll take your guns away.” So many people in my county have never left the county, much less the state, and those messages combined with media talking about riots and burning cities were all just things they accepted as fact. So many of them they voted for an R party that stopped existing a long time ago and they pay little atrention to actual policy. At the same time there’s a solid strain of hardened libertarian-leaning idealogues who really believe that human society does best when people serve only their own interests. Those ones believe that the selfishness is good and somehow everyone will benefit.
I agree with both of you, generally, and don't actually think the two comments exclude each other. People are far more susceptible to other's persuasion and are far less independent thinkers than is generally openly recognized. Obviously, there is a sect of people who are drawn to the Y'all Queda, but there are far more people who have been told that people like Tom Cotton or French Hill (a couple of Arkansas's elected shit bags in DC) are just like them by people whose job it is to convince targeted folks that this is the case. Having tax-funded campaigns would pull some of the poison out of this wound. So would investment into states like ours by people who want results, and not just to be benevolent dictators (waddup, Democratic Party).
One thing I've found striking about the reaction to Sen Tester re Keystone is that nearly all accounts omit that organized labor in Montana supports the project. It's a problem that organized labor is taking the wrong side on this, but that's not Tester's fault; it's a fact that he is reacting to. Organized labor is on the right side of the minimum wage debate, and I think that's the channel with the highest likelihood of moving people like Tester and Manchin. People yelling on twitter about primaries (when they clearly don't have a viable alternative candidate) aren't going to get it done, but the afl-cio just might. Unionizing Amazon will do wonders to help small bookstores too: there's clearly room for Amazon to pay everyone a living wage.
Well, workers in Bessemer, OK are trying to unionize an Amazon facility. In response Biden made a video reaffirming their right to organize. I found that refreshing. There's also H.R.1, the bill to expand voting rights (imagine that). I'm usually pretty pessimistic about these things but for whatever reason think Dems will find a way to wiggle around the filibuster sufficiently to get corporate Dems on board. If that became law, that'd be pretty huge. Of course, they'll need to follow it up with meaningful (i.e. actual) campaign finance reform and find a way to pack the Supreme Court so all of the above can't be dismantled one equivocation at a time. Otherwise there's always puppy dog videos on YouTube and dreams of giant robots that run on hope and can suck the carbon out of the air.
Obviously, it's not at all for me to say what citizenship criteria for an Indigenous nation ought to look like, but you're self-evidently correct about the flaws in the current set-up: what's your vision for an alternative to BQ?
(I'm guessing that this will be addressed in the book, so I can wait to read it there if you don't feel like going into it here.)
I've written about it in several places, so I don't mind. First, I don't have a problem with enrollment by lineage. That is, you can prove relationship to an ancestor enrolled with the tribe, but even that is problematic. After that, Indigenous nations need to act as every other sovereign nation does: establish a path toward citizenship. That's far more traditional than what tribes do now. You should have an option to enroll if you marry into it, etc. Everyone wants to make them about race, and it shouldn't be. It should be about wanting to be a contributing citizen to a sovereign nation and having a means to do so.
That's a VERY interesting point. How is proving you have the blood of Blackfeet in your veins in order to belong to the Blackfeet nation any different than proving you have British blood in our veins in order to be a citizen of Great Britain? I don't even think this has historical precedence in First Nation histories, does it? Cherokee, for instance. There were members of the Cherokee tribe so i have seen it recorded who were pure ginger Scots. Not even sure you had to marry into the tribe. You lived Cherokee, you stood for matters Cherokee, you were Cherokee as i understand it.
I've been listening to Chris Pierce. New album American Silence (I believe in buying music, over streaming.) His song "How Can Anybody Be OK with This?" is an anthem for these times.
I totally agree with what you said, Chris, and that was my first thought reading your post. Concerning the COVID bill with its attached rider: massive amounts of people do not pay attention nor do they understand. That is why it is so easy to deceivingly attach-and-slide, which seems to be the MO of Big Self-Important Politicians. Do we Little People not read close enough?.....do we trust too much?.....
And, yeah, what another reader wrote — every time I read your work I love you more and more.
The aid money will never be repaid, it's unrepayable at this point, so it's really not a good thing for anyone in the longer term. It's basically being borrowed against future collateral that will never be produced. It will interesting to see how long this last-ditch effort - this conjuring of 'money' out of thin air divorced of any larger reality of production - in order to buoy the appearance of general affluence in developed nations takes to serve as the final coup-de-grace to a global economy in terminal decline. As for what we are willing to give up to make the lives of others better, there's only one larger answer to this in world of near 8 billion dogs vying for a steadily declining number of bones. And no one, understandably, is gonna opt for that willingly. The entire name of the game the day you're born being survival after-all. Nonetheless, the fact remains, there is one and only one solution to vast human overshoot, and that's vast human "undershoot." Which is almost upon us now.
A leapfrog thought: as we look to rip apart these systems of oppression and inequity, it's also important to look at the interrelated ecosystems that they exist in. For example, the fight for universal, tax-funded healthcare (which should be a human right in this resource-rich country) is welded to the fight for tax-funded and equitable public school and university systems (which (1) have been under strategic attack since desegregation started and (2) is a part of the student loan forgiveness fight) because in addition to making access to healthcare universal, you have to remove the other artificial, socially-constructed gatekeeping mechanisms to becoming a healthcare provider (i.e. the money it takes to become a doctor).
Also, I'm very empathetic to the small business owner who doesn't have the margins or volume to absorb an increase in payroll (and even more so the people who work there), and it seems to me that these are very solvable problems. Hell, it makes no sense that Walmart and McDonald's can subsidize their employees to the government by paying them so little that the employee is dependant on Medicaid, SNAP, etc., but the idea of subsidizing small businesses with cash is a non-starter.
Chris, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think the resources are here to do ALL of this, though, and the problems ARE solvable. It's big picture, long term stuff, and I think a good start is figuring out a way to make it so that the only people who can finance and win elections are rich people invested only in looking after themselves. What a challenge.
I don't think that's a correct diagnosis of the problem. In Montana in 2020, for office after office, we had the choice between a rich person only caring about himself, and someone actually focused on trying to solve people's problems, and we chose the former over the latter. The people chose Troy Downing over Shane Morigeau, for example. That wasn't because Shane isn't rich, it was because of people's self-image, and the apparent appeal of ISIS like trucks with flags. That is, I think the voters are a way bigger problem here than the politicians.
Well, two things. My assessment is mostly on national office, where the big tires hit the road. I also suspect a good percentage of the votes Republican were just that: votes for Republican. I bet half the people had no idea who they were even voting for. I believe the flurry of bullshit mail and television ads from the big money people—Daines, Gianforte, Rosendale, and then their opponents—create a climate where people don't even pay attention and vote straight ticket because they are just sick of it all. And that is another way to say the voters are a big problem here too.
People totally knew they were voting for the you-can't-make-me-care-about-other-people brand. And the I-don't-even-have-to-pretend-to-care variant. That *is* what they picked. We act like they didn't make this choice at our peril.
I disagree. I think you underestimate the degree to which massive amounts of people just don't pay attention, or don't understand.
Hey, you planning to be on the Msla Dems zoom at 4 today? It'll be the local legislators talking about good, bad, ugly, so far and yet to come. I can send you the zoom link, if it hasn't already reached you.
Being a slow thinker, I had to let this all simmer for a bit. I think everyone here is right. I was on a lot of R lists and got tons of texts and calls about Dems and socialism and/or “they’ll take your guns away.” So many people in my county have never left the county, much less the state, and those messages combined with media talking about riots and burning cities were all just things they accepted as fact. So many of them they voted for an R party that stopped existing a long time ago and they pay little atrention to actual policy. At the same time there’s a solid strain of hardened libertarian-leaning idealogues who really believe that human society does best when people serve only their own interests. Those ones believe that the selfishness is good and somehow everyone will benefit.
I agree with both of you, generally, and don't actually think the two comments exclude each other. People are far more susceptible to other's persuasion and are far less independent thinkers than is generally openly recognized. Obviously, there is a sect of people who are drawn to the Y'all Queda, but there are far more people who have been told that people like Tom Cotton or French Hill (a couple of Arkansas's elected shit bags in DC) are just like them by people whose job it is to convince targeted folks that this is the case. Having tax-funded campaigns would pull some of the poison out of this wound. So would investment into states like ours by people who want results, and not just to be benevolent dictators (waddup, Democratic Party).
Every time I read your work I just love you more and more.
Same, Betsy!
I have no solutions to offer, nor do I know what the fight looks like, but I agree that we need to fight. And I absolutely hate Amazon.
Seems like we need to have a beer and plan our attack, then....
Absolutely! Draught Works patio, socially distanced. That's my jam. Sound good?
Perfect. I'll be in touch....
One thing I've found striking about the reaction to Sen Tester re Keystone is that nearly all accounts omit that organized labor in Montana supports the project. It's a problem that organized labor is taking the wrong side on this, but that's not Tester's fault; it's a fact that he is reacting to. Organized labor is on the right side of the minimum wage debate, and I think that's the channel with the highest likelihood of moving people like Tester and Manchin. People yelling on twitter about primaries (when they clearly don't have a viable alternative candidate) aren't going to get it done, but the afl-cio just might. Unionizing Amazon will do wonders to help small bookstores too: there's clearly room for Amazon to pay everyone a living wage.
Well, workers in Bessemer, OK are trying to unionize an Amazon facility. In response Biden made a video reaffirming their right to organize. I found that refreshing. There's also H.R.1, the bill to expand voting rights (imagine that). I'm usually pretty pessimistic about these things but for whatever reason think Dems will find a way to wiggle around the filibuster sufficiently to get corporate Dems on board. If that became law, that'd be pretty huge. Of course, they'll need to follow it up with meaningful (i.e. actual) campaign finance reform and find a way to pack the Supreme Court so all of the above can't be dismantled one equivocation at a time. Otherwise there's always puppy dog videos on YouTube and dreams of giant robots that run on hope and can suck the carbon out of the air.
Just so long as that asshat Elon Musk isn't involved in building the robots....
oh, no. development would be all open source and the only profit would be clean air...as long as we're dreaming.
Obviously, it's not at all for me to say what citizenship criteria for an Indigenous nation ought to look like, but you're self-evidently correct about the flaws in the current set-up: what's your vision for an alternative to BQ?
(I'm guessing that this will be addressed in the book, so I can wait to read it there if you don't feel like going into it here.)
I've written about it in several places, so I don't mind. First, I don't have a problem with enrollment by lineage. That is, you can prove relationship to an ancestor enrolled with the tribe, but even that is problematic. After that, Indigenous nations need to act as every other sovereign nation does: establish a path toward citizenship. That's far more traditional than what tribes do now. You should have an option to enroll if you marry into it, etc. Everyone wants to make them about race, and it shouldn't be. It should be about wanting to be a contributing citizen to a sovereign nation and having a means to do so.
That's a VERY interesting point. How is proving you have the blood of Blackfeet in your veins in order to belong to the Blackfeet nation any different than proving you have British blood in our veins in order to be a citizen of Great Britain? I don't even think this has historical precedence in First Nation histories, does it? Cherokee, for instance. There were members of the Cherokee tribe so i have seen it recorded who were pure ginger Scots. Not even sure you had to marry into the tribe. You lived Cherokee, you stood for matters Cherokee, you were Cherokee as i understand it.
I've been listening to Chris Pierce. New album American Silence (I believe in buying music, over streaming.) His song "How Can Anybody Be OK with This?" is an anthem for these times.
I totally agree with what you said, Chris, and that was my first thought reading your post. Concerning the COVID bill with its attached rider: massive amounts of people do not pay attention nor do they understand. That is why it is so easy to deceivingly attach-and-slide, which seems to be the MO of Big Self-Important Politicians. Do we Little People not read close enough?.....do we trust too much?.....
And, yeah, what another reader wrote — every time I read your work I love you more and more.
Thanks, Marie.
Min Wage in MA is $13.50, not $12
Yeah, I've been made well aware this is an old graphic. Doesn't change the point, though.
When I saw that MA wasn't accurate, it made me question the accuracy of all the data on that map, but not your analysis of the system.
I.e., I'm a dumbass.
The aid money will never be repaid, it's unrepayable at this point, so it's really not a good thing for anyone in the longer term. It's basically being borrowed against future collateral that will never be produced. It will interesting to see how long this last-ditch effort - this conjuring of 'money' out of thin air divorced of any larger reality of production - in order to buoy the appearance of general affluence in developed nations takes to serve as the final coup-de-grace to a global economy in terminal decline. As for what we are willing to give up to make the lives of others better, there's only one larger answer to this in world of near 8 billion dogs vying for a steadily declining number of bones. And no one, understandably, is gonna opt for that willingly. The entire name of the game the day you're born being survival after-all. Nonetheless, the fact remains, there is one and only one solution to vast human overshoot, and that's vast human "undershoot." Which is almost upon us now.