In The USA: the Next Revolution

[Levi]

I have to wonder who, if anyone, would be "violent"? Would it be like a riot? Where there are just some people who are taking advantage of a situation? Or would it be joe citizen, out of work for too long, too far in debt, and fed up? The former should rightfully be arrested. The latter... it would be tough not to support my friends and neighbors. I just don't know what the alternative to the current political and financial make up of the country would consist of. A return to the (unamended) Constitution? Same game, different players? As far as the homeless people living in yurts, I am sure there is some number that is a tipping point for violence, if only locally. 70 is bad. But compared to some places I have been, 70 is nothing. SA seemed (to me) to be loaded with homeless when I was in Johannesburg and the North Coast last year. But they don't seem to want a revolution. (Plenty of other crime though, from what I was told.)

[slapout9]

I am trying to find an article I saw on TV today that NYC Mayor Bloomberg is concerned over unemployed-debt laden college students. Thye have no job and no hope of a job but a lot of debt The restless youth in general is one of my main interest and it does not look good, but I don't generally at the same things most experts look at.



Link to one report.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/09/...-remains-high/

[Bill Moore]

The Mayor should be concerned, since the Arab Spring and other uprisings were led by the disillusioned educated who had no opportunity. Your old school homeless were too downtrodden to organize and be violent, they couldn't see a better world worth fighting for, or in some cases were content with the homeless lifestyle, but the young turks will fight if they see no other way to extract themselves from this mess.

I don't know what the answer is, the Republicans have surrendered the intellectual high ground to populists running on nothing but an emotional far right platform that offers no solutions, and the democrats are led by the far left who are implementing programs that are simply making the problem worse, and then we have corrupt corporations continuing to buy favor through their lobbies resulting in policies that protect corporations that do little for America's economy (like GE), and horde their profits and transfer jobs overseas to increase the profits they horde.

We're in a period of serious decline with little hope visible on the near horizon.

[motorfirebox]

Hm! If the Dems were being led by the far left, Gitmo would have been closed by now. The Dems are being led by the less-right-than-the-Tea-Party. The actual leftist wackos (like me) are pretty unhappy with how unleft they are.

I think we're already seeing the violence we're predicting. It's just hidden, for the most part, and hasn't passed the boiling point. The union riots are in the mix, obviously. No deaths yet, that I'm aware of, but as soon as somebody dies in a union riot, the gloves are going to come off and a lot more will follow. There's also the flash mobs in Philly and elsewhere--young black men with very little to look forward to going out and threatening or attacking the rest of their society. I think anti-immigrant violence like the Shawna Forde case falls into this bailiwick. The underlying motivation there is financial--"der terk rr jerbs!" And so on. I think a lot of the violence that's coming, if it comes, will follow that pattern--it will be, on the surface, cut along racial lines, because race is such a huge divider.

[Bill Moore]

Hm! If the Dems were being led by the far left, Gitmo would have been closed by now.

Motorbox, there are checks and balances in the system, so Gitmo remaining open doesn't mean the Senate majority leader and House miniority leader are not left of center-left. It could mean that no matter how far left they are, they realize there are viable alternatives that are politically acceptable. Regardless of their left of center leaning, they'll be held accountable by the American people to implement policies that protect our nation. Our President is left of center-left, but is forced by realities to graviate somewhat more to the center than he would like. None the less we still have gay marriage, the appeal of the don't ask don't tell, a health care bill no one understands, a desire to significantly increase taxes, an attempt to greatly reduce DOD spending to protect entitlement spending, and so forth. These discussions were healthy in the past because they forced compromise in the middle, but now the ideologues have dug their heels in on both sides, so now we have dysfunction and frustration.

I agree with your assessment on the violence, and think some of it is hidden, and there is risk that some it will go viral out of wide spread frustration, lack of hope, anger, and a desire to vent their anger against someone who probably has nothing to do with their situation. It isn't too late to turn this around if the right leaders (probably won't be politicians) gain the media spot light and mobilize the American people the right way. We're going to need a MLK equivalent to generate concensus and compell peaceful action to turn our economy around.

[Fuchs]

Actually, Obama has been proved to be more "right-wing" than Nixon on many issues.
For starters, Nixon was about to do a far more "left-wing" (by today's standard) health insurance reform when he fell than Obama even asked for.

Besides; the left-right perception is largely dependant on the own position. Right wingers think that the media has a left bias, left-wingers think it has a right-wing bias...

[Bill Moore]

Fuchs,

Appreciate the article about President Nixon's effort to establish national health insurance (I didn't recall that). On the other hand it was a mistake for me to bring up health care, because just like peace in the Middle, both the left and right desire it, but neither can achieve it. The middle right isn't opposed to reforming our health care system, they just have a different approach that hopes to side step socializing it. If someone could explain the current health care in a paragraph or two in a way that most Americans could grasp it would be helpful, but unfortunately the 1,000 plus page bill is understood my few outside a few lawyers.

As for news media bias it is alive and well. Fox news is severely biased to the right, MSNBC is severely biased to the left, the other mainstream news media channels tend to bias somewhat to the left (CNN, NBC, ABC). Others disagree, but the only news I can find close to non-bias is the PBS newshour. That is a shame, because people will watch whatever news channel that reinforces their views further divided the nation and pushing further away from a frank discussion on how to solve the problems facing our nation.