<div dir="ltr"><div><div>"T. isn't the problem, so much as the neoliberal/corporate/diplomati<wbr>c structure that creates this kind of brutal power base in the first place."<br></div>A line in one of Douglas Adams novels comes to mind to the effect that the politician we see is there to distract us from seeing where the power is<br><br></div>L<br></div><div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid #d3d4de">
<tr>
<td style="width:55px;padding-top:13px"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"></a></td>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:12px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Virus-free. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank" style="color:#4453ea">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table><a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"></a></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 2 April 2017 at 20:09, Alan Sondheim <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sondheim@panix.com" target="_blank">sondheim@panix.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
<br>
A couple of points - everyone in the US, I think, should read both the Guardian article and the Wikipedia entry; they're excellent, for which thanks. Second, William points to a fundamental issue in the US and perhaps elsewhere - that so much of what we find catastrophic here is fundamentally infrastructural. Yet we act as if the issues are symbolic; if you watch, for example, Colbert and company, there are comedic attacks on Trump, which are brilliant - but at the same time they mask that T. isn't the problem, so much as the neoliberal/corporate/diplomati<wbr>c structure that creates this kind of brutal power base in the first place. We talk on Fb about the fact that something like 30-40% of the country is now evangelical - with all that implies - and yet we don't act on a local level that deals with schoolboards and the defunding of public schools - including drastic defunding of arts, music, social studies and civics, blockplay for early levels, and even gym or outdoor play - all in favor of charter schools, STEM, and the like. Religion replaces civics; subter- anian racism replaces equality issues. Right-wing radio and websites are enormously popular; they talk, not _to,_ but _with_ the right, "they're one of us." Couple this with the gerrymandering mess (which seems irreversible) all over the country, along with county power in places like Georgia, and all the comedy falls away.<br>
<br>
- Alan<br>
<br>
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017, William Bain wrote:<br>
<br>
*/had to cut and paste here/*<br>
<br>
Personally I?ve learned a great deal from this discussion, not least from the way it started somewhat sakily and then grew out along different paths. Right now I just wanted to mention again the well known idea that the voting system needs overhauling. I mentioned proportional representation at some point and this morning I looke d over a few documents found on the internet. One is a short but thoruough runthrough of the situation from *The Guardian* dated June 2016. It?s a piece by Trevor Timm:<<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/comme" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.theguardian.<wbr>com/comme</a>> m-broken-democracy-clinton-san<wbr>ders-primary [<a href="http://www.theguardian.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.theguardian.com</a>]> Into Wikipedia with /electoral reform in the united states/. What comes out there after a general discussion is that as I?m sure people here are already aware, there are different systems in different states. Section 4 of the article mentions these systems, especially good (and abbreviagted) under the subtitle /electoral reform in specific states/. I think California and Oregon give the best basic assessment. Section 5 of the article is /References/ including a link to Laurence Lessig?s ?Republic, Lost; How Money Corrupts Congress [?]. That?s <<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_the_United_States" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki<wbr>/Electoral_reform_in_the_Unite<wbr>d_States</a> [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">en.wikipedia.org</a>]><br>
<br>
Best wishes, William<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
empyre forum<br>
<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.ed<wbr>u.au</a><br>
<a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.<wbr>edu</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>