Post-it Notes from a BIG Country

There are distinct disadvantages to living in a big country. Doubly so for a big country isolated from the other ninety-five percent of the world’s population. We can come, or jump, to some pretty strange conclusions. Big countries allow for a lot of jumping space. We might assume that the other people on planet Earth are out of their minds for not playing ball with us, instead preferring to play a far more exhausting form of “football”. Obviously, they’re only doing this to piss us off and threatening our interests overseas. One of the conclusions we don’t come to is those “interests overseas” are really other people’s. Other people’s countries, other people’s children, other people’s families, and other people’s lives. That’s what we’re talking about when we use the phrase, “our interests overseas.” In a big country they seem so remote, it’s as if they aren’t real people like us. They are more inanimate objects, even abstracts, but certainly not real people like us. As I said, some pretty strange conclusions.

Much of our foreign policy is driven by the need to protect our interests overseas. It seems perfectly reasonable. After all, they are ours. Personal property is the cornerstone of freedom, right? Pretty strange conclusions.

It’s a big country. So big we can forget where our boundaries lay.

10 Years Later...

It's been a decade since the Credit Crisis of 2008 which gave birth to misery for millions of Americans. The terms Under water (Negative home equity), The 1% (Richest 1% of society), and The 99% (Not The 1%) took on new meanings. As a result of the financial hardships suffered by the 99% (allegedly at the hand of the 1%) the Occupy Movement was born. Occupy was supposed to remedy the conditions which caused the hardships and hold those responsible for the Crisis accountable. Let's take a look at how successful Occupy has been ten years later...

(Click the image to enlarge)

Personally, I don't believe that most of these demands would have been beneficial, desirable, or even attainable, but what I am certain of is Occupy was an epic failure. Not only did the movement fail to have one of its demands met, it also served as a pressure relief valve which channeled the much justified frustration of the American people away from productive action. The bottom line results were a massive loss of momentum for real change. Keep in mind this was the largest grass roots movement America has had in living memory and it accomplished nothing. No change for the better whatsoever. The biggest criminals in the nation laughed at the bankrupt cliche, "Crime doesn't pay." 

One of the greatest errors of the Occupy Movement was aiming for the wrong target. Wall Street is not accountable to the People. Wall Street is only accountable to equity shareholders. Angry non-shareholders hold exactly zero weight on Wall Street. The Occupation target should have been Washington, D.C., which is (or should be) accountable to the People. The laws which allowed the Credit Crisis to implode were written in Washington D.C. Were the laws written at the behest of Wall Street? I'm sure they were, but don't lose focus on who can be held accountable to the People. Occupy never had that clarity of focus and look at the results. I can't decide which Occupy was more shame or sham. 

Today, ten years later, we sit and wait while wringing our hands for the next ticking time bomb to explode knowing it's not a question of "if" but "when"? 



Author's Note: As for the demands the only one I would agree with would be number ten. I would have also demanded that those responsible be charged with fraud, which is exactly what happened. They did it in Iceland successfully. As a "Rule of Law" nation we should have done it here in the United States, but our actions will always speak louder than our words. Our actions say the only Law we have is the "New Golden Rule". 

He who has the Gold makes the Rules, even Ten Years Later.  

Hunting Objectivity

I believe that truly objective news is a mythical creature. There is always bias in reporting because the stories are composed by people. People come with their own biases, views, and perspectives. These are the hermeneutics through which we view the world and all that happens in it . Absolute neutrality can only occur serendipitously if a journalist has no opinion on the topic, which probably means they don't know enough about the subject matter to inform others. Ignorance is blissful objectivity, and makes for poor journalism.

Rather than seeking the rare Jackalope Unicorn species of objective news, I try to get a broad spectrum of reporting on the same subject from many different sources, (CNN, Fox, Reuters, Associated Press, Russia Today, India Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Beijing Times Japan Times, etc.) from as many different mediums as possible (print, radio, internet, alternative media). The more viewpoints from which you can gather information, the closer you are to truth.

A few lessons I have learned over the years:

#1. The more heart rending or emotional a story is, the further it is from truth. Many times this is sensationalism sold as journalism. Who, what, when, where, and why are the queries that must be answered.  When they offer facts, as a prima facie case for how to interpret or how you should feel about the facts is when journalism dies and propaganda begins.

#2. Never dismiss a news source as being pure propaganda. This would eliminate all news sources. Even propaganda is informative as long as you have the counter-propaganda at your disposal. You can "triangulate" the truth with enough data points (sources).

#3. Whenever the media has you myopically focused on one thing, look everywhere else. Something big is happening elsewhere and everyone else is missing it.

Good luck. You're on your own,

Michael