Both the written and audio readings for the beautiful 2016 annual edition, Vision Quest, are now immediately available. Order all 12 signs at a great value or choose your individual signs. You may access written and audio excerpts from the Vision Quest main page.

By Judith Gayle | Political Waves

You can’t go back. It’s one of those absolutes. Once Pandora’s Box is open, it’s open. We can turn our memory back to people and places, emotions and events, cherishing or condemning what was, but what is happening now, at this moment, is the only game in town. Being present in the moment takes a lot of moxie.

Perhaps that’s why reality is so elusive. We all exist in the bubble of our cultural experience, our choices and connections, despite what’s going on in the larger platform. Unless something intrudes, that is, making the political personal. At this moment, with (seemingly) sudden awareness that the political has the ability to impact our little bubble, reality is rearing its ugly head.

Here’s hoping that your personal reality offered plenty of positive attributes this Equinox/Easter week, because unfortunately, everywhere we look political reality appears to be a bar brawl. Most of us think that’s because government has failed us, but my perspective includes watching people attempt to impose what was, upon what is.

There’s a lot of that going around, so if we’re all about deciding what no longer works, we’re going to have to look at establishment politics: neoliberalism gone toxic and unresponsive to the needs of the people. The fireworks defining our primary campaign mostly miss that larger point, except that the outliers are creating a way to assess those differences, so bless them (even You Know Who).

We’re essentially down to Cruz and Trump, with Donald having offended 49 percent of Republican women voters, but with Cruz dancing tippy-toed on scandal that may hamper him as well. Hillary has gone downright presidential, counting up all her super delegates and moving to the right with a big stick AND loud voice, while Bernie continues to be Bernie. He’s had a lot of practice. Not much has changed with Bernie in decades.

Jimmy Kimmel nailed the differences between Cruz and Trump this week with a faux-ad, and I don’t know who they got to mimic Romney’s voice but he’s spot on. Bless the comics, they’re on the job.

And I’m giving wee Senator Lindsey Graham kudos for being the only Republican I can think of who is painfully honest about his party meltdown, telling The Daily Show’s Trevor Noah he’s thrown his weight behind Ted Cruz, whom he abhors, because ” … he’s not Trump.”

Graham understands Cruz has little chance of winning, but he’s picked Ted’s brand of suicidal poison over Trump’s role as a loaded gun. Watch this really entertaining interview and the pool game afterward, if you missed it. It’s worth your time, just because of the ease with which Graham navigates what he perceives to be “unfriendly territory.” Do note where his jokes fall flat (because he’s not in his own bubble, where everyone understands the context). We so rarely have a chance to mix it up this way any more. I give Lindsey grudging approval for both grace under fire and sense of humor (not to mention skill at pool).

On the left, Sanders won Utah and Idaho on Super Tuesday, and Clinton took Arizona, although there were an enormous amount of disenfranchised voters in Maricopa county, where voters lined up in minority neighborhoods for as long as five hours to vote. Many gave up and went home. Election officials had reduced the polling places by 70 percent — from 200 to 60 — thanks to the Supreme Court decision that turned back federal protections for 16 states with histories of discrimination, Arizona being one. Ultimately, that will benefit conservatives, as illustrated in Phoenix, where 40 percent of voters are minority. In the largest city in Arizona, there was only one polling place for every 21,000 voters.

Changes to the Voting Rights Act, as well as state insistence on ID, has already created problems in North Carolina earlier this season, and we should expect more of them. That’s highly problematic to the democratic process, and puts liberal votes under fire. Seems as though we’ve spent a decade and more being well aware of voting discrepancies and unable to get a fix. That says something about the leadership in this nation, and it ain’t good. Here’s Bernie at a press conference, discussing voter suppression in AZ. It’s also interesting to hear something other than his stump speech, which rarely happens in media.

Hillary Clinton has already pivoted to campaign against Trump, while Democratic leadership has invited Bernie to bow out — even the Prez, it’s been reported — since Hillary has outdistanced him with delegates. The Dem establishment considers Hillary the safe bet, with connected politicians and supporters with big bucks at her back, but Bernie was never about playing it safe. Sanders backers want their vote counted, and Bernie has every intention of increasing supporters as he campaigns, giving the other half of the states the opportunity to decide their primary choice.

Bernie drew a crowd of over 10,000 in San Diego last week, where he told them, to thunderous applause, “What this campaign is about (is) asking the American people to think outside of the box and not think of the status quo today as the status quo we have to live in.”

Business as usual IS at question, isn’t it? Know anyone who thinks what’s going on now needs to continue well into the future? Know anyone who hasn’t got a long laundry list of things no longer working in their lives, or no longer promoting the public good? It’s starkly obvious that Democratic leadership in this country exists in its own bubble, meeting the demands of the plutocracy, misunderstanding the Sanders campaign, and underestimating the populism that drives it, much as the Pubs can’t figure out how they lost their mojo to the likes of Donald Trump.

On the right, citizens have been fed a line of rhetorical fantasy for over a decade and many of the Trump supporters are grabbing at Donald’s promises to fix everything (without explaining how). Part of that fix is to “make America great again,” which means to bolster the patriarchy of white males at the nation’s helm and reaffirm American exceptionalism by brute force.

Think of that as an infusion of testosterone and renewal of colonialism, both of which — if put to the public in those terms — would be considered anachronistic in the 21st century. But when suggested as a shield against terrorism and a hedge against all those things going bump in the night, fear erodes common sense. It may seem as though we’re only sorting out the difference between two political philosophies — two eventual polarized candidates — yet it is so much more: the choice we’re making is closer to the bone than we care to admit: who we are, what we wish to do with our considerable power as a nation and how we will be seen in the future.

As Mark Karlin, BuzzFlash editor, wrote recently, “… no empire has lasted forever. The great tectonic forces of domestic and international changes have given Donald Trump the opportunity to fan the embers of racism as the US empire erodes due to its excesses, exploitation, over expanded military conflicts and backlash.”

We know the left has delusional issues, as well. The idea that the people are pissed off enough to support and agitate for big change just isn’t registering with establishment politicians. Hillary Clinton’s commentary that we don’t need to make America great because it already is seems remarkably tone-deaf, given the enormous amount of energy from those demanding big changes in the status quo. The idea of actually shaking up the financial institutions to hold anyone accountable, or bringing scrutiny to bear on their incestuous interactions, simply cannot penetrate the thick walls of the neoliberal bubble.

Hillary’s speech at the AIPAC convention has been described by her aides as “muscular” — by me as “hawk, revisited” — and caused Glenn Greenwald to tweet his concern that no progressive has called her on it. I think most progressives expected it, even as her rhetoric as a candidate has attempted to clone Sanders’s call for cultural and financial equality. Clinton’s pivot toward a national election means coming back to center. Always good to remember that horses capable of changing their color at will only exist in Oz.

Now, this neoliberal business may be confusing to some, so let’s define it, as simplified over at Kos:

Neoliberalism is a free market economic philosophy that favors the deregulation of markets and industries, the diminution of taxes and tariffs, and the privatization of government functions, passing them over to private business.

Essentially it’s been proven that nothing much trickles down and that the free market is anything but free, yet the bubble that continues to encapsulate those memes is protected by the powerful .01 percent of the 1 percent and organizations like the Chamber of Commerce. Now that formerly untouchable topics like Social Security, media bias, and Big Pharma have been successfully addressed by the progressives, renegade capitalism can’t be all that surprised to find itself in the cross-hairs, yet the establishment simply turns its head and pretends everything is fine.

All of Washington D.C. is neoliberal, at this point — market driven, enamored with the private sector as an answer to national problems, and handsomely paid by the corporatocracy to keep everything on an even keel, which means no shake-ups in policy to hamper their profit margin. Our children believe that this is what government is. It’s no wonder they reject it.

Barack Obama took his family with him to Cuba this week, but he also took a couple of corporate representatives. Frankly, I think if anyone wants to know what Old Cuba is like, they better get permission to visit right away. I fear what a consumer society might do to a little island that sat out the corporate boom of the last 80 plus years.

Obama is a curious blend of liberal and neoliberal impulses, often discussed in think pieces. What stands out as telling are both his academic connection with the Chicago School of Economics and his selection of Clinton-administration alumni to fill most cabinet positions. The President seldom takes a path to the left without kicking some schmutz up behind him, as when he revoked the plan to allow Atlantic drilling, but allowed for 10 new leasing sites in the Gulf of Mexico and three off the Alaskan coast. Still, I applaud his measured international response, and calm assurance in the face of chaos, and I expect we’ll miss him when he’s gone.

Entrenched neoliberal politicos find themselves standing on the outside, perhaps still thinking they can ‘manage’ the progressive ire building against them. Maybe they should take a clue from the embattled Republicans, who once thought the same of their base. Hillary lost a good many Illinois votes recently because of her connection to Rahm Emanuel, a mayor who is uniformly hated by many in Chicago. A New Yorker article nails the problem:

“How will she manage a Party in which all the moral authority belongs to the left wing, in which Elizabeth Warren seems, in temperament and ideology, far closer to the median Democratic voter than Clinton does? She now faces a Party in which, if the example of Emanuel means anything, assertions of personal competence are not nearly enough.”

Meanwhile, a supremely confident Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who has taken advantage of her position on several fronts in recent years, now finds herself with a robust primary challenger, her first ever.

My uber-religious Bagger Representative recently made a statement — I saw it on TV and my jaw dropped! — that “Washington today needs to be run like a business.” Granted, her family gets huge farm subsidies, and she makes money as an author as well as her (fat) salary in the House (for doing next to nothing), but how does she rationalize that statement with her flag-waving patriotism and culture war mentality? Feels awfully “Trumpish” to me, don’t you think? It’s a neoliberal way of looking at the world, not a religious one.

Last but not least, this week I signed a petition asking that another of my congressional rep’s — this one even more religious, if possible — not vote for a bill that “prohibits the state from imposing penalties on individuals and religious entities who refuse to participate in same sex marriage ceremonies due to sincerely held religious beliefs.” This is mostly a brouhaha about wedding cakes, etc.

The petition reads:

Pro-discrimination bills, like SJR39, have no place in Missouri. Community leaders and business leaders across the state have joined Missourians like me in condemning this anti-LGBT legislation because  discrimination against any Missourian is wrong.

Please do not vote to deny people their civil rights. Discrimination has no place in our state — and not only is discrimination wrong, but it’s bad for business. Please stop SJR39 so that discrimination isn’t enshrined into our Missouri Constitution. Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

I got this reply, from his iPhone:

An old 1971 Song had these lyrics;

And the sign said “Long-haired freaky people need not apply”

I believe this should apply to anyone who wants to put up a Sign to protect their Business.

I’ve written him back and thanked him for his candor, considering how easily he might have ignored my request, but he had a point to make, obviously.

I had one too. I suggested that it’s been 3,500 years since Deuteronomy was inscribed and 45 since that lyric hit the air, which makes him 3,545 years behind the times. And while little spots on the map may continue to reflect his kind of regressive bias, they can’t hold up forever, any more than the Constitution of the United States can any longer be interpreted as an inflexible, unchanging, ‘dead’ document.

I added that those unwilling to bend will break, and signed it “your long-haired freaky constituent, unrepresented in Missouri.”

Times change, and so does the status quo — in point of fact, it already has. The public’s mind has opened on too many levels to close again, unless by extreme measures, and I think we’re wise enough now to see those coming. If the people still focused on keeping their bubbles intact, the status quo on an even keel, would just relax their grip a bit, look around and smell the (fair market) coffee, we could get on with this shift a good deal less painfully.

Holiday blessings to you all from the Pea Patch.

Both the written and audio readings for the beautiful 2016 annual edition, Vision Quest, are now immediately available. Order all 12 signs at a great value or choose your individual signs. You may access written and audio excerpts from the Vision Quest main page.

By Judith Gayle | Political Waves

Doesn’t it seem as though we’re finally deciding who we’re going to be when we grow up — or at least as we face some of the most difficult and far-reaching existential challenges of our species? I heard two pundits arguing this morning. One, a Trump supporter, said, “Oh, calm down, this isn’t the end of the world,” to which the other replied, “It might be.” Now there’s a progressive dog whistle if I’ve ever heard one.

There is a sense that this moment, this election process, these decisions we’re making, are for all the marbles. That comes on the heels of all the twists and turns we’ve witnessed these last weeks, months, years. It’s been a lot to take in, a lot to pull through our intellect and into our intuition, and now — as we enter this equinox, sandwiched between potent eclipses — we’re being asked to move on that information under a powerful Aries stimulus.

As the first sign of the zodiac, Aries is like a baby just born and howling: it isn’t easily ignored. It’s in constant motion, pursuing its desires, riding the headwinds of its passions and establishing itself as the initial impulse of the universe. Its enthusiasm sweeps everything along with it. If we needed a fire lit under our bum to get us up and moving, Aries comes with a BIC and a grin, so consider this a warning: if you’re still just sitting there, undecided, you’re likely to get scorched.

This has been another of those weeks when we’ve been hit with so much incoming information, it’s a chore to untangle implications, but it’s worth a try. It’s a dangerous form of denial to think that what these political figures do has little or no impact on our lives (and I think it’s high time we had a lot more impact on theirs).

Having lost the nomination in his home state on Tuesday, “Little Marco” Rubio has exited the race, in fact has abandoned politics altogether. He tells us that after his senatorial tenure is up, he will become a private citizen, and gladly. Surprised? I am. I figured we’d be dealing with him decades down the line.

And now, despite Trump promising riots if he’s denied the nod by any so-called ‘rules,’ establishment Pubs have come together to do anything they can to stop him, including holding their noses to embrace Ted Cruz. Once again, focusing on the horror that is Donald keeps us from recognizing the horror that is Ted.

I’m seriously distressed that someone like Ted Cruz (who is more to the far-right on the political scale than Trump has ever been) should fall heir to establishment approval, no matter the goad. The implications are frightening. Should Trump lose, he will pout for a while, then shrug and go on to make more deals and more money and more outrageous statements, but what will his disappointed followers do, now that race/class violence has received blanket approval? We will be forced to deal with overt racism, one way or another.

Keeping his pledge, Obama nominated a SCOTUS candidate, throwing Republican legislators into a frenzy of ideological panic and obstruction, which pundits tell us is unprecedented. While no shock, it also comes with an unprecedented amount of truthfulness: the conservatives have no intention of giving up hope for the continuance of a conservative court and they’re not afraid to say so. That court has been their ace in the hole, the object of their plan to establish a minimalist government and Federalist nation, for decades.

They will snub Obama’s candidate unless Hillary wins, when they will happily vet the nominee for fear she would propose someone farther to the left. Essentially, this proposed candidate is, historically and by current opinion, acceptable to the Pubs except that he comes with Dem bona fides, nominated by the black guy and set to take the place of a justice so beloved of the archaic right that public outcry might throw Nancy Reagan out of her resting place next to her husband in order to give Nino her spot in the continually radiating warmth of St. Ronnie’s bones..

Much as only a Republican can be a ‘real American,’ only a Republican-approved originalist of ‘great intellect,’ like his/her (ha!) predecessor can take the place of Antonin Scalia. The Pub obstruction in this matter — along with Mitch McConnell’s lame-ass explanation for it — is as blatantly unconstitutional as anything they’ve accused Obama of for years now, and that’s plenty.

It seems to me that the actual split in this nation — like the in-fighting of Shias and Sunnis in the Middle East — resides within the interpretation of the Constitution. This has been an Achilles Heel since our nation’s inception, i.e., those who did not want a unified government as opposed to those who did, briefly united by the need to get the king’s knee off their necks. Or, as Franklin put it, “A republic, if we can keep it.”

Nonetheless, hedging for much of a year to replace a significant American Justice IS unconstitutional obstruction and Robert Reich has a little clip explaining the situation and asking for your advocacy, thanks to MoveOn which has given him a platform for his series of highly educational cartoon YouTubes. Go here to watch, and pass it around.

Obama’s nominee, Mr. Garland, while a fine man and worthy judge, is not nearly liberal enough for either Bernie or me, and the nomination was my first concern when I heard that Scalia, like Elvis, had left the building. In such a divisive political season, there is no way to escape further rancor on this front. Many on the left counseled Obama to pick a true liberal  since the chance of confirmation was moot.

Instead, and not surprising to Obama watchers, our pragmatic Prez selected a moderate, and one who has very little track record on cases important to the left — those kinds of cases are often settled in the lower court — but we can’t welcome this judge with cheers and fireworks until we have some notion of how he sees Citizens United or Roe vs. Wade. The left has its bias, as well, and it might be a long time before we know much of anything. McConnell has refused to meet with Judge Garland, period.

In other news, Super Tuesday votes solidified the position of the presidential front-runners, which pundits tell us changes everything. Trump swept the votes as did Hillary. It seems all but impossible for Bernie to get the necessary delegates to win the nomination now, but his supporters remain enthusiastic, his message larger than his political aspirations and, as he’s financed by contributions alone, he is being encouraged to continue his march across the primary map.

I’m proud of my state for splitting the Sanders/Clinton vote so closely that it took two days to sort out, especially since the Dem Governor, along with Senator Claire McCaskill, who had already pledged her Super Delegate vote to Clinton, had issued statements saying that Sanders didn’t share “Missouri values.” Out of some 650,000+ votes, Hillary won Missouri by just a little over 1,500. With the vote so close to the bone, a recount is indicated but Bernie said ” … he would not request a recount of the state’s results because it would not be likely to affect the number of delegates awarded to the two candidates. “I would prefer to save the taxpayers of Missouri some money….”

Gotta give it to him, Bernie walks his talk and his message hits the heart. It’s a real tragedy that Trump gets billions of dollars worth of free ‘news’ coverage to spread his hate-speak, while Bernie’s message of reconstruction and remediation goes begging. His speech on Tuesday night was NOT covered by cable news as they were waiting for Trump to show up — not running a Trump response, mind you, but WAITING for one. This kind of easy dismissal is going to get even worse now, as Sanders is pressured by the establishment to bow out and get behind the presumptive, even though she appears somewhat wobbly in the general election against what will be, one way or another, a ruthless opponent.

Sanders, on the other hand, continues to grow his base. His answer to the anger issues driving Trump’s popularity is informed and intelligent, rather than bluster and bite. As a TruthOut op/ed put it:

However, what Sanders has tapped into is more than just anger. People have gravitated toward him not just because they are righteously angry at the way things are, but also because they see in him an earnest and lifelong passion for justice. They perceive in his campaign something that has been lost and needs to be recovered — an authentic (rather than opportunistic) sense that an ethical orientation in politics grounded on fairness, democracy, and the common good is not something that just “happens,” but something for which we must collectively fight.

Sanders’ recent political campaign is just another chapter in a book that he has been writing over the course of 50 years — a book that gives life to something that has been stomped on by the neoliberal agenda, but has deep roots in the psyche of most Americans: compassion and care for the other.

There it is: the description of the movement Sanders has headed, whether he gathers the necessary delegates for the presidency or not. While Trump justifies the violence that has become his trademark by insisting that his supporters are passionate about their love of America (white, male America, of course), it’s Sanders who has given us a clear sense of “We, not me,” and compassion for those who have little or no power in the political system. Mrs. Clinton, in an obvious attempt to appeal to both Sanders progressives and black churches in Memphis, speaks now for “love and kindness” as well. If that’s the new Dem position, we win no matter who takes the most votes.

Passion whispers “This feels good to me, I want it.” Compassion, the higher octave of passion, whispers, “This is good for us, this heals us.” The obvious choice is for some level of mutual concern for one another, but we’re still deciding if that’s worth our active participation or our passive approval, our disdain over matters too chaotic to invest in, or our intent to stand with one another to remedy what ails us all.

In this active eclipse window, we’re urged to make our choice, and make it wisely. Perhaps some of us will remember the secret: that we are spirit in a human shell, sharing a mortal experience with one another, and more powerful than we know. In a world filled with “Gods, godding,” whichever experience we decide for, we will have.

Both the written and audio readings for the beautiful 2016 annual edition, Vision Quest, are now immediately available. Order all 12 signs at a great value or choose your individual signs. You may access written and audio excerpts from the Vision Quest main page.

By Judith Gayle | Political Waves

From everything we’re reading these days, it appears that it’s crunch time for the human race.  Yes, it’s true — the headlines are screaming! They found a heretofore unexamined knife at OJ’s old Bel Air estate. We’ve stumbled upon a visceral reminder of that moment when reality lost all meaning, when the shiny and the salacious lured our sensibilities like the Sirens, sucking our brains into first contact with national obsession and reality television. Frankly, my dears, it’s been downhill since.

It seems clear — at least in the reality community — that either we get on to ourselves at last, take responsibility for one another and our endangered planet, or slip on the great cosmic banana peel to dissolve into a mere footnote of galactic history. Watching what passes for political debate these days certainly encourages that fear, but let’s not lose our minds just yet. These junctures don’t sneak up on us as much as we pretend they do. So let’s not turn our heads this time, let’s look this demon squarely in the eye. We can’t lick it until we do.

The debates are pathetic. Dick jokes and preening, childish taunts, lies and misrepresentation of facts, simplistic rhetoric that drives the nail of denial into the American hide, all serve to turn the conversation even more bitter and divisive, and surely less rational in a time of crisis. Back in 2011, I wrote that I was tired of dick jokes in a piece titled “Guns And Penises” (Anthony Weiner commentary) and sadly, not much has changed since. We were already in No Man’s Land then, looking out across the lawn at Russia through Sister Palin’s eyes. Another of those iconic stumbles the right embraced in order to feel better about its diminished world view and lack of education.

We deserve our current political drubbing, thanks to the technology that has given so many of us the right of opinion along with anonymity. We’ve become accustomed to shotgunning cruelty, bigotry, and crudity without so much as a gasp of self-disgust. Every time we refuse to confront this vicious behavior, we inadvertently approve it with our lethargy. Worse, entrepreneurs keep thinking of ways to improve on its callousness, improving profits and ensuring new forms of cultural obedience.

Former ABC News Anchor Ted Koppel recently chided Bill O’Reilly on his ineffectual interviewing of the Donald, and defined our current ‘fair and balanced’ journalism — rightly, in my opinion — as a black hole of misinformation. O’Reilly told Koppel that Donald was not an easy interview and asked how Koppel would do it, which got this response:

“You and I have talked about this general subject many times over the years. It’s irrelevant how I would do it,” Koppel replied. “You know who made it irrelevant? You did. You have changed the television landscape over the past 20 years — you took it from being objective and dull to subjective and entertaining. And in this current climate, it doesn’t matter what the interviewer asks him; Mr. Trump is gonna say whatever he wants to say, as outrageous as it may be.”

As we’ve noted in regard to the astrological imperatives, there’s real business for the nation to deal with, but it’s desperately trying to come in second to entertainment value. The press has abdicated its responsibility to inform the electorate, trading ethics for ratings. CBS’s CEO, Les Moonves, is gleeful about how Trump has pumped up profits, never mind how he’s dumbed down American sensibilities, saying, “Man, who would have expected the ride we’re all having right now?…The money’s rolling in and this is fun. I’ve never seen anything like this, and this is going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

So the distractions keep coming, turning us away from actual issues that are important, like water in Flint and nuclear poisoning and genocide and dark karmic purge. Only you and I can insist that what is truly imperative on the planet take center stage. If not us, my dears, then who?

As I write, I’m listening to Cruz trash Trump today as someone supporting the liberal corruptions that have turned Washington into a cesspool of special interests [sic] calculated to wound and victimize the poor disenfranchised (Christian) white man, who is the natural, rightful leader of all superior civilization. Who on CNN is questioning the racism at the heart of that statement? No one.

While infamous Klan chief David Duke might not agree with such a Trump assessment, Donald probably doesn’t care what Ted has to say, since his numbers are so ‘yuge,’ and besides, his rhetoric is always just part of the initial negotiation. His plan is to rule the nation much as he did his reality show. We’ve seen it before, and we gave it a thumbs up.

Oh sure, it will eventually come apart at the seams, but this was successfully worked out decades before by OJ’s Judge Ito, giving him eight months of daily headlines and face time, mugging to a camera he allowed in the courtroom for the first time in 1994. Similarly, Donald’s patented declaration — “You’re fired” — is all he finds necessary to assert his authority as supreme leader, and that’s how he sees himself. He reiterates it when he explains how the military would break international law if he directed them to torture and kill family members of American enemies. “If I say do it, they’re gonna do it. That’s what leadership is all about.”

No, Donald, that’s what private ownership is all about. You get to bully and demean your employees who are desperate for your approval, but not the national citizens who consider you only as viable as the result you produce. Donald Trump is no politician, has no respect for constitutional legality, and — SURPRISE! — that’s evidently exactly what some of us are looking for. It’s easy enough to figure out why. The government that the right wing was assured would fail them has done so, and the Koch brothers are laughing all the way to the Caymans. We knew the pitchforks would show up eventually. What part of our political history in these last few decades made us think they’d have the presence of mind to point them at those who did the actual damage?

If the Pubs have lost control of their party, it’s simply because they’ve sunk into the dark mire of their own deepest fears and tweaked psychology. When FOX News teemed up with the evangelical movement to tell us that the answer to America’s moral decay (as evidenced by the stain on Lewinsky’s blue dress and Bill’s cigar) was to be found in a C minus student — someone with little intellect, no curiosity, and the barest understanding of political science — the rubes all cheered at the thought of a guy just like them one-upping the arrogant leftist [sic] elite.

They canonized the dimwit who wanted to rule by gut instinct, a man with a consciousness so adolescent that he readily handed out derisive nicknames to people he disliked, even finding humor in calling his Machiavellian political adviser, Karl Rove, “Turd Blossom,” while smirking, chimp-like. The right all celebrated Dubya as a real “he man” president — one who spent over a year’s vacation time in a hot patch of Texas whacking brush in photo ops because he was afraid to run cattle — while refusing to count the cost of his failed war, the financial meltdown that is still driving the angst of glaring inequity, or the rise of ISIS as a direct result of American hubris.

Yes, Donald deserves a tad of credit for calling him on it, but not when his national security plan is just more of the same. Are we a nation of self-pitying drama queens, that we determine that what we need is more of THAT? More self-interest, more strong man bullyism and might-makes-right? More stern daddy tyranny that can allow us to pretend safety, to sink back into a long-gone comfort zone that won’t threaten us with the sharp reality of scientific fact and existential threat not covered in the Bible and ultimately solved by Jesus arriving from the clouds?

Frankly, of all the politicos on the right, Trump is one of the least unstable (I include Kasich, but he’s as deluded as the rest when you get down to cultural issues). Trump’s just a plutocrat, born and bred, nothing else worth noting and as arrogantly tyrannical as the big boss can get. There IS no Republican candidate who is not a radical capitalist (and only one Democrat, for that matter).

Cruz can’t knock back the rise of white supremacy; he’s crazier than Trump, and the Donald’s followers aren’t interested in theocracy. Rubio can’t take him because he still thinks inside the box of his party affiliation, too eager to get his big boy pants on and gain conservative legitimacy. Romney can’t stop him because Romney is every bit as much a snake oil salesman on his own turf — ruthless, misogynistic and authoritarian, as ordained by his priesthood and the morphing of his socialist religious underpinnings, now replaced by the zero-sum game of ‘prosperity theology’ and financial winners and losers.

Which is not to say that the Donald is ready to step into the Oval Office or even win a national contest. Don’t let your fears get the best of you. He has no coherent policies, his opinions are written on the wind, his financial record is just beginning to surface for a thorough vetting, and his blatant racism leaves no room for the necessary votes of anyone brown, black, or in between to support such a national leader.

As with OJ, we’re still just avid wrestling fans and reality TV watchers, spun up in the theatrics of the bloody glove and gory spectacle — as Cuba Gooding, Jr., has suggested following his performance in the OJ made-for-TV movie — that repeated football injuries rendered the likely suspect brain compromised. Just as OJ thought he was above race in 1992, Donald thinks he’s above charges of corruption — or perhaps that’s just the inherent narcissism of the Drumph moniker.

Donald is a joke. The monster — as Koppel suggested — is our fear and loathing of losing some imaginary power base over people and things that go boo in the night. The monster is our eagerness to capitalize on someone’s fear for short-term profit and self-interest. The monster is a profound lack of faith in our own ability to live life as decent neighbors and citizens of the world’s most visible democracy, and now we must work tirelessly to remediate that failure because we dare not look away.

We have a choice to hide or cower, to hate or demonize, to pick the strong man (who will ultimately fail us) or to cope on a different level. If you’re not one of those people who find this side show provocative and terrifying, addictive and near-apoplectic, then how to make it through a day of high camp and hysteria from your fellow humans, lost in what Eckhart Tolle calls “unconsciousness?” If I’m describing you, then it’s your job — if you accept — to practice consciousness.

You’re the ballast, you’re the steadying presence at the center of the hub, you’re the witness to the events swirling around you, but you’re not their victim. You’re aware, which is “enough” to change the energy of this spiritual experiment, and the more you trust your ability to hold the center, the more it holds.

Tolle recently put out a little clip about what those in the East call the “ego-gi”: the instructive appeal of the most egomaniacal among us who have risen in power to make their unconsciousness painful for both themselves and for us, and largely inescapable. Not a stretch to think of Trump on this one, but not just him — all things that seek to minimize us with thoughts of dread and littleness that steal juice from our authentic selves and create doubt. The Old Paradigm depended upon it.

The unconscious ones are the teachers, the gurus. They’re big and loud, worrisome psychic vampires, taking our energy of fear and rage, until we realize that that is exactly what they’re doing. That only happens as we catch a glimpse of our own behavior in them, the mirror into our own dysfunction and pain. The learning curve of our lives can be tracked back to those who confound us.

Yes, something’s changed in these last months, we’ve come to a tipping point, but this is no time to lose heart! Over and over again these last few weeks, I’ve found that there is only one path forward for all that seems to be overwhelming me, and causing angst to those around me. Stand up to it. Say no. Refuse to cooperate with what you know is wrong. Anything other than that will steal your power, take your peace, and rob you of your confidence, which Tolle calls “faith.”

Tolle tells us that faith is not belief. It has no story that requires reinvigorating or defending, it requires no rationale or reinforcement. It is simply an internal ‘knowingness’ that there is a right place deep within us, a place where there is no fear. We know from within that internal space when something is in alignment, we FEEL when something is as it should be, and it is, essentially, a part of our beingness. It is our authentic soul power, uncompromised. We must practice that presence, develop it as the Light unfolding within us, in order for it to grow stronger.

We must stand in the power of our center and refuse what is no longer of service to us all. When we practice the Presence, our own world comes to balance and we assist those around us to find theirs. This is not news to you, you would not have read this far if it was. You know what you have to do, even though you didn’t think it would look quite like this when you agreed to come help lift this age. If the center is to hold, my dears, it will be because we did not lose our faith to make it happen.

The state of the empire is a bit wobbly these days, my dears, and sometimes a little snip comes along that illustrates. For instance, To Kill A Mockingbird author Harper Lee has passed away at 89, but not before driving a stake through the magnificent heart of beloved character Atticus Finch. The recent release of her follow-up novel paints the lawyer as holding typical Southern (racist) attitudes about black folks; but studies note that our initial emotional response to an individual holds, even if we find later that they are not what they seem. So despite Scout’s shocking reflections on her father’s later years, Atticus remains a literary hero in our minds, a man of dignity and honor.

Apparently this ‘first blush’ business also worked for George W. in South Carolina this week, although it will probably be little help for brother Jeb, who continues to sink in the polls.

It also seems to be working for Donald, whose followers find him decisive, bold, charismatic and just what they’re looking for in a reality star — strike that — president.

He’s set to sweep SC and likely be declared unstoppable by the talking heads, who were sure he’d never make it this far.

Actually, it’s been a ride getting off the SCOTUS bus this week, which hasn’t slowed once since Scalia died with (or without, who knows) a pillow on his head. There hasn’t been much oxygen for anything but the judicial nomination since, along with the political bullshittery that keeps the pundits and politicos buzzing, like McCain answering that he couldn’t say if Cruz was an actual citizen, or Trump announcing that he didn’t know if Obama had murdered Scalia.

Climbing over the detritus of anti-papist, pro-racist, liar-liar-pants-on-fire commentary to try to find blue sky has been a challenge, and cutting through the acrimony and rhetoric to isolate a topic this week took some doing. Unable to get a grip on much, I’m going big again. Let’s talk about the wrinkle in establishment politics known as ‘superdelegates’ — but first, some perspective.

The same kind of Federalist notion that made Scalia the bane of progressive jurisprudence is at play in the remaining 50 states of America, poised on selecting a presidential candidate. With each state acting according to its demographic idiosyncrasies, insider power trades, and individual electoral process, we’re airing our shaky union of cats in a bag once again, which in truth has always has been a fragile exercise.

This is why Ben grumped about a republic, if we can keep it. Thirteen entities coming to agreement was dicey back in the day. Fifty-two is chaotic, and a republic is only as functional as its shared commonalities, while its perceived differences produce challenges like, say, the Civil War.

With most of the population within those states divided in their political philosophy — as cleanly as if they’d been separated at birth with a sharp knife — there are literally two Americas, with two sets of candidates talking about completely different issues, interests, and ideologies. As Planet Waves readers are well aware, it has been estimated that we are as politically and culturally divided today as we were in 1968, when the young and the old eyed one another, seeming strangers, over a deep divide.

As Eric has indicated, the death of Scalia coincided with the end of the “anti-Sixties” cycle; and we find ourselves at a threshold now, looking to reclaim some common thread going forward. And while most of us are scratching our heads over the surreal qualities of finding similarity in the unlikely pairing of populist candidates Bernie Sanders and (the anti-Sanders) Donald Trump, those who are not disturbed by the deep dysfunction of the United States government are, in my opinion, even more bewildering to me.

Not everyone is bemused by this rise in populism. In fact, the system itself is pinging like a pinball machine on tilt. Enter the established political institution that will do everything in its power to stop that push for populism.

Establishment politics is nothing new, certainly, but it had a bit of a hiatus during the middle of the last century, lulling the American public into relative confidence in its leaders, and the checks and balances placed on their power. That all went out the window when Saint Ronnie the Reagan fabricated the greedy welfare queen, but the wobble started off with Nixon’s infamous ‘southern strategy‘.

The steady erosion of trust in government might better have been squarely placed on the long string of rules and regulations passed by legislators to protect themselves, but was instead sold as an unethical redistribution of wealth by canny conservative think-tanks and pundits, separating the blue states from the red along racial lines that continue to hold today. This is that petri dish in which the likes of the Trumpeteers, maddened by the sound of Donald’s nativist dog whistle, were hatched and nurtured.

While the Republicans will likely have a contested convention — which is another story — my focus today is on the Clinton superdelegates who, we keep reading, have already defined the winner on the left.

During the Carter nomination in 1980, the Dems had begun to worry about the electability of populist nominees. Sound familiar? It should. Much as establishment politicians are doing all they can to bat down any hint that Bernie could not just compete but win the nomination today, Dems during that period decided to put their fingers on the scale of the will of the people, adding a bit of gravitas to the opinion of ‘cooler heads’ (theirs, of course).

Carving out a portion of delegates with unequal influence, the Dems (and only the Dems, thank you) established superdelegates as counter-weight to those acting in the interest of the people rather than the system. And yes, Mrs. Clinton, who may well pull off the nomination, was certainly in the belly of the beast as Third Way — and triangulation — was established:

Back in 1992, Al From and the Democratic Leadership Council fundamentally changed the Democratic party with a “bloodless coup” that put Bill Clinton in the White House and replaced the Democratic agenda of FDR, JFK and LBJ with the agendas of Wall Street and global corporations.

Since then, the party ranks have been filled with third-way corporate Democrats and lobbyists.

And many of them, particularly the lobbyists, have become unelected superdelegates, despite their blatant ties to corporate America.

There are 712 superdelegates, which accounts for approximately 30 percent of the 2,382 needed to win the nomination. These delegates can cross popular lines to throw their vote where they choose. Hillary’s people have already formulated their plans, their spokesman vowing, “Our campaign strategy is to build a lead with pledged delegates,” and they most assuredly have. If you count the movers and shakers in your corner, state wins for Bernie may not mean all that much.

I don’t want to be too cynical about what that win would look like in a Commander-in-Chief. Hillary has been pretty good about meeting the progressives on their terms, but if you listen to establishment pundits, they all agree she’ll reverse course if she gets the nod. The trade agreement, for instance, was her baby. Odds are she’ll return to its arms. She has a history, yadda.

Over at Digby’s blog, see this exchange from CNN with Jake Tapper and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, whose tenure as DNC leader has come under close scrutiny, given her pro-Hillary stand and establishment bona fides — in case you needed further clarification about a rigged system (what WAS she thinking!):

TAPPER: Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic primary there since John F. Kennedy. But it looks as though Sanders and Clinton are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire’s superdelegates, these party insiders.

What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Let me just make sure I can clarify what was available during the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates [superdelegates] are a separate category. … Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.

So, as Debbie is wont to do, something fell out of her mouth that flew in the face of democratic principle, but since we’ve encoded it into party policy, who cares? The establishment has long since co-opted all those things we think should matter in favor of what works to keep the “ship of state” steaming along toward corporate profit, unfettered capitalism, and ‘American interests’.

Superdelegates are divvied up based on special interests, and hardly anyone is immune. I’m not here to demonize them. They are, seems to me, simply buttering their bread as they can, which shakes out to the American way, or at least the “I’ve got mine” American way that has replaced the principles of shared commonwealth and FDR progressivism.

We created the monster with decades of pro-business laws and policies, of capitulation to the center, of PR campaigns to muddle our thought process and create doubt and fear. We created the monster, and it’s upon us, now, to make the necessary changes that dissolve it.

I was saddened to learn that Howard Dean, who now represents a health care lobby for companies like Pfizer and Merck, has pledged with Hillary but that was not unexpected, given his post-political moderation. What WAS unexpected, perhaps, was the Political Action Committee he established years ago, Democracy for America, giving its support to Sanders based on votes of 88 percent of its 200,000 members. Mrs. Clinton only got 10 percent of the vote.

When the average citizen feels outrage over the specifics of the TransPacific Partnership being decided among an elite few, secretly and with the help of lobbyists and corporate legal-eagles, they have to understand that we’re not talking about something extraordinary — we’re only talking about establishment politics. Nothing to see here, move along — and because that’s worked before, powerful interests and an entrenched plutocracy seem to think that will work again. Ask Wasserman-Schultz, who jealously guards her little piece of the pie while seemingly clueless about how the public perceives her.

Join Eric and Planet Waves in the beautiful world that is Vision Quest. Here are samples of your incredible written and audio readings.

In fact, that cool appraisal of an unengaged public threatens to work again, unless outrage against what is considered acceptable corruption changes the rules, unless we take initiative, make enough noise and tell enough truth, to create a tidal wave of political support for Sanders and Warren and politicians speaking out against a fixed system.

The good news, it appears, is that a very hefty percentage of American citizens are outraged by the status quo, a.k.a “the establishment.” On the right, the anti-establishment vote wants a strong man and bloviator but it’s still difficult to take the Donald seriously as a leader. I can’t image impeachment wouldn’t begin the day he’d take the oath. But on the left, voters are looking for remediation of a system that routinely ignores their needs and suppresses their freedoms in the name of stability and safety. That remains the hope of millions.

Alan Grayson, Florida member of the House of Representatives — a controversial figure and outspoken progressive — is running as the anti-establishment candidate to fill Rubio’s Senate seat, while the Dem machine backs a more tractable candidate. Speaker Harry Reid (the epitome of establishment politics) has called on Grayson to quit, based on his personal business practices. Grayson told him to pound salt.

Whether one approves Grayson’s personal issues or not, Alan has a tendency to tell unvarnished truth, and mostly in a funny way. He’s decided to put his superdelegate vote up for grabs, awarding it to the people’s choice. Grayson is clever and contentious and occasionally rough as a cobb, but I like him. Read this and you’ll understand why:

If you want me to endorse Bernie Sanders, then you can vote for me to support Bernie. If you want me to endorse Hillary Clinton, then you can vote for me to support Hillary. If you want me to switch to the Republican party and vote for one of those lunatics, then why are you even reading this? You can expect that to happen when the Atlantic Ocean freezes over. Oh, and Hell, too.

Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton? The choice is yours. Go here to vote right now, and get lots of others to do the same.

Don’t wait too long on this one. The Florida Presidential Primary is just four weeks away, and I’m going to make my decision — excuse me, our decision — long before that. If this works, then maybe other “superdelegates” will follow suit, and netroots activism can turn one of the least democratic elements of the UnDemocratic Party into something really special — a decision Of the People, By the People and For the People.

Progressive pundit Thom Hartmann’s concern that the Democratic party could be weakened by their insistence on ramrodding Clinton through despite growing populism is the antithesis of the meme that NOT putting Clinton at the helm gives the win to the fractured and scattered Republicans. But instead of rocking this baby gently, the DNC just keeps digging the hole deeper, seemingly sure that there is nothing of value in the return to FDR democracy. I think they’ll rue the day.

The whole concept of superdelegates — like gerrymander and 52 different electoral procedures, like attacks on voter registration and backroom agreements and elitist string-pulling — flies in the face of ‘one [wo]man, one vote’, which is the baseline of our government and citizenship. Much as Scalia’s replacement will change politics in this era, the visibility of all that no longer works for the average citizen must shift the way this nation proceeds into a new century.

This delegate business is one of those issues that needs to be talked about and discussed, and information passed around so that citizens are aware of their compromised rights. Truly, unless the citizenry is educated, how can they demand better for themselves, their children and their country?

Well. What a 24 hours, a mini-tornado that will become — I have no doubt — a bona fide shit storm of an election process and political donnybrook. My short take on this is, frankly, fascination, since these kinds of moments come very rarely in history.

There are three legs of government — legislative, executive and judicial. The legislative is in lockdown, the executive is being forced to act extra-legally in order to move the nation forward on anything of consequence and now the judicial has come to a screeching halt. We are, from a process point of view, dead in the water. We are, it should be noted, closing in on constitutional emergency. Remember when Ben Franklin told an inquirer that we had established “a republic, if we can keep it?” THIS is how we could loose that grip on the democratic experiment.

Of all the Supremes, Nino Scalia was the superstar on the right. A strict constructionist, he never met a modern issue that could not be stamped into dust by returning to the anachronistic wishes of the founders in 1776. He is — and this is important — the man who turned the common sense reading of the 2nd Amendment as armament qualifications for militia into guns for all citizens. If the right had a hero, Nino was it, the heart and soul of conservative backpedal from all things progressive.

News of Scalia’s passing (of a heart attack) coming in the hours before the South Carolina Pub debate — where Donald Trump all but broke a chair over the melon-head of competitor Ted Cruz while calling most everyone a liar and accusing Jeb!’s big brother of knowing about the lack of WMD in advance of Shock ‘n’ Awe — found the candidates all agreed that no nomination can go forward without surrender to liberal mayhem. That’s because the right has depended on the high court to buoy their ideology — and support the plutocracy — for well over a decade. Even as the Republicans lost the confidence of the nation, they had the court. The thought of losing it is terrifying to them.

And — by the way — listening to Bob Woodward on CNN try to defend the ‘Publican vow to stonewall a liberal nominee in order to ensure a ‘neutral’ pick to replace ‘intellectual giant’ Antonin Scalia is another of those moments when you wonder what happened to the man’s brain cells. He spent WAAAAY too much time in the dark, kissing Dubya’s nether regions, getting that insider scoop that atrophied what was left of his journalistic sensibility (not to mention integrity.) A sad statement on a historical figure diminished by his choices.

The repercussions of an eight-person high court are obvious — lock. We have, essentially, come to check-mate, with four liberals and four conservatives unable to decide a case. Whatever work (it appears to be quite a bit) is left half-done on cases prior to this moment is now lost, never announced and therefore nullified. With fifty-some cases critical to the democratic process coming up, reaching an ideological standoff WITHOUT REPLACEMENT FOR MORE THAN ELEVEN MONTHS seems unthinkable.

But, although Nino’s body was barely cold when Mitch McConnell swore NOT to allow such a vote, senators crossing the line of such right-wing wisdom will pay a price. There are several up for election this time around who are imperiled. I think it’s clear that we can expect very little flex from this Senate determined to run out the clock, despite the best efforts of the Dems to prod them into following constitutional process.

As to the legislative issues, this is going to work out pretty well for many of the cases that had not come to closure on the left, including voting rights and unions, reproductive rights and immigration, etc. in which lower court rulings will hold. This is NOT good news for the case ruling on emissions we talked about, because the case was seeking release from an appeal stopping it from going forward.

Both the written and audio readings for the beautiful 2016 annual edition, Vision Quest, are now immediately available. Order all 12 signs at a great value or choose your individual signs.

As to possible candidates, two judges sitting on the appellate court — bi-partisanly confirmed for that position 97 to 0 — are speculative prospects: Jane Kelly and Sri Srinivasan.

Either is non-controversial, BUT they are Obama picks, supposed ‘lame duck’ picks, and fly in the face of high hopes for a Jeb! or Kasich establishment president in 2017. I doubt that even a right-leaning judicial pick would pass the “black guy” boycott at this point.

Electability is suddenly the word of the hour. Making it plain that the next Prez gets the SCOTUS pick traditionally energizes the base on the right — and it BETTER energize the base on the left as well! We are going to see a lot of harsh rhetoric coming at us from the clown car on the right and, no matter how much like a WWE Wrestling event last night’s SC debate appeared, Trump is STILL twice as popular as the next Pub in the polls; pundits say that if he wins in Carolina, there’s no stopping him. Whatever the public decides to do next, it should be clear that a man who is all brand and no substance standing at the top of the American pyramid is the equivalent of putting a fork in us and calling us done!

Clearly, Bernie’s cause just became harder and Hillary’s hopes to avoid being perceived as shrill are over. She is going to double down on all the reasons he CAN’T be considered a realistic candidate, and it ain’t gonna be pretty. She IS — I will grant — victimized by her sex in that she will be forced to use the Mommy Voice (one I have argued many times deserves, at bare minimum, respect for saving the day for those left behind when the daddy’s lollygagged elsewhere) but we must all admit it grates. It’s like when someone uses your middle name, you snap to. It’s a subliminal discomfort that we’ve been “caught,” somehow; a voice from the shadow side, snapping our leash. Added to her legal challenges and trust issues, it’s a volatile mix of dog whistles calculated to piss a lot of people off.

Here’s where I see Bernie stumbling at the moment – he’s got the information and he’s got the chops, but he waits for the questions to come to him. He’s got to start selling himself as well as his platform. Hillary is good at self-promotion. Even if that’s not his style, he’s going to have to get pro-active or be seen as reactive. This doesn’t align with our ‘leadership’ meme — which we will be hearing a LOT MORE about, with so much at stake — frankly, I expect a good deal more hysteria on all levels before this plays itself out. Long view, though — we’ll be talking about this for a loooooooong time!

There are more firsts to note, of course — we’ll be tracking them for a while, it seems — but enough for now. Try NOT to let this level of angst impact your peace today, my dears. There is purpose under heaven!

That note-from-the-wife Viagra plan (h/t aWord) has been around a while. I like it as a washtub of freezing water over their heads (little or big, you pick). But those who deserve it seem not to understand the problem. Which IS the problem, of course.

Thank you, dearhearts, for the good (health) wishes, I take them to heart and appreciate them — and speaking of heart, Be My Valentines today? You are loved and lovable, all!

Both the written and audio readings for the beautiful 2016 annual edition, Vision Quest, are now immediately available. Order all 12 signs at a great value or choose your individual signs. You may access written and audio excerpts from the Vision Quest main page.

by Judith Gayle

Astrology bit me today. I had a finely-tuned think-piece coming along when I inadvertently wiped it away, along with all my notes. Saturn in Sagittarius is exactly opposing my natal Uranus at the moment, so I should have expected something more than a resurgence of an old health challenge that buzzes and snarls when that Uranus gets tickled, but I was flying by the seat of my pants, lost in the fumes of wordsmithing and point-shaping. So it goes, here on the cusp of change.

We are on the cusp of change in so many ways. Some of it is obvious, some of it too far away — still unclear, dallying in the light peeking in under the door — to determine, but it’s here and it’s due to bite us unless we deal with it now. Because tracking the specifics of change is a chore, rather than put further strain on my immune system or pounding head, I’m going to mention a few of the things easily noted on the radar and let that be enough today.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement was signed in New Zealand this week. It must now go through the process for a vote — an up/down vote, as won by Obama awhile back — that will take many months. Most of us know this is a disaster of a trade deal and needs to be stopped. There are many organizations attempting that now. Go here to find activist ops and community leadership.

John Kerry, along with his Russian counterpart, has proposed a temporary cease fire in Syria to allow the UN to deliver aid to millions of suffering civilians; and although the international community is encouraged by the opportunity to provide humanitarian assistance, Assad complained that interference by foreigners would just make the war longer. The Sunni/Shia schism that lies in the belly of this beast continues to stalk the Middle East and muddle any option for peace.

Our five conservative activist judges in the Supreme Court have thrown the e-brake on Obama’s Clean Power Plan, leaving it unimplemented through summer of next year when it will be heard by the appellate court. This is not just a catastrophic decision and one aimed at curtailing EPA power; it is an attempt to limit the power of the presidency and return pollution decisions to individual states. This suit, filed against the EPA by some 28 states and various industries led by the Chamber of Commerce, has resulted in an unprecedented, shortsighted and extremely dangerous decision.

Another of those unexpected firsts includes new House Speaker Ryan turning a blind eye to Obama’s last budget, making no provision to hold a congressional hearing on the matter. The level of hostility on record is quite remarkable, including this quote by House Budget Chairman Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga:

“Rather than spend time on a proposal that, if anything like this administration’s previous budgets, will double down on the same failed policies that have led to the worst economic recovery in modern times, Congress should continue our work on building a budget that balances and that will foster a healthy economy.”

With cooperation like this in Congress, it’s no wonder Trump and Sanders have broad public appeal. Seems worth noting we should probably prepare ourselves for another of those fabulous government shut-downs later in the year, as the nation prepares to hand off to new leadership.

Image by Mike Licht.

With a kind of strange clarity, there are many firsts to speak to now. Last night, two seasoned female reporters from PBS — one black, one white — hosted a Democratic presidential debate between a Protestant woman candidate and her Jewish male contender. Despite portents of inevitability, the woman had won an initial state primary by far less than a percentage point, while the man had won the next by over twenty, laying waste to the talking point that Democratic Socialism was anathema in America and that establishment politics cannot be challenged.

Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff not only aced the debate questions, but dug deeply into the issues at hand — the first time women had been tasked with the whole of the responsibility. Hillary Clinton congratulated all of them for breaking a precedent, and Bernie mentioned later that his own candidacy, along with his win in New Hampshire, was ground-breaking as well.

When we juxtapose this with the debates of the Republican candidates, Donald Trump running with his — ummm — hair on fire from the sharp questions of a savvy Megyn Kelly, it does seem as though intelligent discourse will find a way through the mosh pit of misogyny and retreat from reality that pretends at conservatism these days. When Ifill asked Sanders about social and racial issues that are compounding mental health problems for white (predominantly male) citizens in financially hard hit areas, it felt as through progressivism was still alive and well in the good old US of A and we had not given up on community.

Mrs. Clinton is depending on establishment connections to bring her to victory — ties to the black community, large funders like George Soros and Citibank and lots of Super-delegates who threw their hands in with hers long before they were sure who’d run against her. All share one thing: they don’t believe government can change, and many don’t want it to.

Mr. Sanders is depending on the older Democrats and Independents who remember that government is a social democracy, pulling from the collective pot to serve the needs of society. The Republican principle of privatized services, unwieldy and unresponsive to the order and protection of the larger unit, will not serve the common good. Without government, for instance, we have no public libraries or schools, no fire protection or police force, no postal service or garbage collection. We have no infrastructure, no roadwork or hazard protection, no parks, no museums or courts. Without a social contract with one another we have no checks and balances, no safety net, and no duty to one another. Essentially, we have no civilization.

The elders who remember when these things were not at risk honor Bernie’s vision, and for different reasons so do the youth. These are the youngsters who, to give them their due, probably don’t know that Henry Kissinger is the guy who said, ominously, “The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.” While they are not unaffected by history and all it teaches, like those who have yet to fully embrace their mortality, their concern is primarily the immediate moment.

Image by Stephen Ewen, from Occupy, 2013.

They are more worried about a government that had been declared inept by the right of the political spectrum (who then spent decades proving it so) and challenged by an old lefty with the instincts of an FDR Democrat who wants to return “public” to public policy, to put their well-being in the middle of the equation. They might not remember when the brilliant California educational system was the star in the crown of the nation, serving a growing middle class; but they believe it can happen again, and help relieve them of some of the crushing school debt that has left them hopeless and helpless. They have fewer concerns about the culture war than the class war, having become multicultural themselves.

The minority youth, by the way, aren’t on board with the Clinton elders so much as the elders had thought, nor the early feminists either; and that is by the very design of change itself. The millennial generation has its own concerns, and a fast-track into the future. They are easier with technology than previous generations and quicker to think outside the box. They aren’t weighed down by the past.

If they think Bernie can change the way government works, it will be because they are willing to apply themselves to those changes rather than have them provided. Should they turn out to be the ones who would push the progressive agenda forward, worries about Sanders’ ability to flex might prove moot. This isn’t a generation whose heart is set on war or conquest and they will be less interested in greasing the skids of the military-industrial complex than prior generations.

The people and events that seem to be shaking the American tree are the very first warning signs of the events to come. I was mouth-breathing at a conversation about how this seems very odd considering the ‘pitchfork’ response after the Wall Street debacle died away without too much muss and fuss, only to be replaced by serious anger from the left. Why the delay, the talking heads wonder? If people were so upset, what took them so long? Things are so much better now, they argue — but better for whom?

Then I wonder about them, their lives of privilege and insider connection, that allow them NOT to understand how inevitable it would be that those same white folks we spoke of, depressed and discouraged, turn to drugs and alcohol and suicide because the very foundation of their nation has given way beneath them. They certainly don’t understand that those loud and angry young people in Black Lives Matter are no longer willing to live with the current rash of murderous savagery for little reason other than authoritarian fear of losing white privilege.

Does no one remember the grassroots rise of pride and power demonstrated by the Black Panthers except the armed goons on the right? Are fear and loathing, contempt and violence all we can muster as the larger organism of our culture implodes? While armed civilian Peace Keepers protect the property of Ferguson, Missouri, from being vandalized by rioting youth, the city fathers of Ferguson reject proposals for a reordered police department by the Department of Justice as unworkable in their area. The DoJ is suing to bring them into line.

Yet we still fail to see how everything is changing. Quite remarkable, I think, that the establishment remains so totally tone deaf to what will be explosive at some point in the near future unless it is addressed. Open this link for a little illustration, an example of how this is being missed by those in authority, it’s stunning how clueless they remain.

My favorite story this week was by a woman who ran a political race against Bernie in Vermont years ago and won. She was a mother, and at some point that came up, with Bernie being somewhat stern on the matter. It was, he decided, sexist to deal with that issue on the campaign trail. Think about that awhile. It wasn’t that Bernie didn’t have kids himself or was unsympathetic to that condition. It was simply a part of the quotient that did not apply itself to the situation.

That explains a lot to me. It illustrates some of that curmudgeonry we’ve assigned to old Bernie. It isn’t that Bernie doesn’t see it or feel these differences — not to mention that he’s mellowed in his prickly opinions over the years. But for Sanders, this equality thing is the real deal.

I guess the question is: is it the real deal for us, as well?

Both the written and audio readings for the beautiful 2016 annual edition, Vision Quest, are now immediately available. Order all 12 signs at a great value or choose your individual signs. You may access written and audio excerpts from the Vision Quest main page.

by Judith Gayle

It’s been a remarkable few days in election politics, unpacking the fallout from the Iowa vote — even painful, as when Jeb Bush attempted to prop up his failing campaign by bringing out his mom to tell us what a fine, wise and disciplined man he is. And it’s hard not to consider Jeb grown desperate as he welcomes his big brother, George W., to South Carolina on his behalf.

America may not have held Dubby criminally responsible for Iraq, but both sides of the political spectrum wince at his name. Some of us might even remember that moment when his tongue tangled to utter, haltingly, “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

That particular Bushism should be emblazoned on every T-shirt and billboard in America, seems to me. It would be a really productive thing to reflect on, from moment to moment, on which footprints we’re going to follow along the path. To assess, as it were, if we’ve been here before. And before. And before. (Happy Groundhog Day, citizens!)

Let’s take voter disenfranchisement, for instance. Strict voter ID laws always favor the conservative party in that minorities overwhelmingly vote with the Democrats. Worries about voter fraud have been proven, again and again, to be as realistic as finding a jihadi terrorist hiding behind your trash can or beating the multi-million-to-one odds of winning the lottery, but we are not dissuaded. Much like protecting against Sharia Law taking foothold in our state capitals, we have become expert at straining out the gnats and letting through the (big, smelly) camels.

A recent study out of U.C. San Diego indicates that Democratic turnout drops by an estimated 8.8 percentage points in general elections when strict photo identification laws are in place, compared to just 3.6 percentage points for Republicans. That surely flies in the face of the ‘one [wo]man, one vote’ philosophy of which this nation boasts, but it hasn’t stopped the conservative states from making every attempt to install repressive laws that make voting difficult, especially for our elders. And only the lefties have the balls to call that racist.

Nine states, including Texas, Georgia, and Virginia, have passed stringent ID laws; and here in the Pea Patch, our Bagger majority is pushing yet again (once passed and vetoed) to disenfranchise those without access to specific photo ID. Missouri — which used to be a blue state back in the days of a unionized workforce and healthy middle class — is at this point a purple state with red overtones. It’s divided between religiously devout elders in the country and a culturally diverse population in the cities. Like many states that have wide stretches of land between big cities, there are enough rural strongholds here to mandate the numerous gerrymandered districts creating a statewide coup on all progressive policy.

Unfortunately, it shows. Radical policy has played into dumbing down this population to the point where the Dem power structure has less and less power to protect its most vulnerable citizens. Our kids aren’t getting the kind of information they need to become engaged citizens — and that’s our white kids I’m talking about. The black and Latino kids are simply marginalized by overcrowded schools and minimal funding, not to mention poor nutrition and lack of educational and cultural opportunity.

Sadly, this cluelessness of the larger picture extends to the very top of our leadership, Democratic Governor Jay Nixon and Senator Claire McCaskill, who have declared Missouri hands-off for Bernie supporters because residents of the Heartland won’t support a socialist.

Michael Moore expertly parodies Dubya’s infamous reaction to 9/11. Photo by Brave New Films.

Poll-driven Blue Dogs and largely afraid of the evangelicals, they’ve evidently never met a socialist or they wouldn’t be throwing the word around erroneously.

I think their hero — the feisty little president from Missouri, Harry S. Truman — would be comfortable enough with the mainstream liberal polices that Bernie Sanders — a democratic socialist — proposes, given these comments.

And let me be frank — Missouri has become the most recent ground zero for institutionalized racism. Thanks to the explosion in Ferguson, this state has become the poster child for black neglect and disdain, and that comes with a cold edge. This isn’t the south, where one expects repression; where the powers that be have a long-established familiarity with the black community that, if not respectful, is at least accepting. No, we’re much worse.

Two years after the death of Michael Brown, the police force of Ferguson, Missouri, has negotiated its way through a number of Department of Justice recommendations and will now attempt to bring that to vote at the next Ferguson City Council meeting. Once passed, the agreement is court-enforceable and is a study in give and take. Here’s a bit of it:

“To that end, the agreement could provide a salary boost for officers in Ferguson, as the city would agree to work to make the Ferguson Police Department ‘among the most competitive’ of agencies of similar sizes in St. Louis County. The agreement also emphasizes support for officers and their families.

“The agreement also requires integrity from Ferguson police officers and sets up an actual disciplinary process, which never really existed. It would make failing to report misconduct an action that can result in discipline. Officers who lie would be fired.

“If implemented, the agreement would forbid Ferguson from holding anyone arrested on a municipal warrant for more than 12 hours, and any detention beyond 12 hours would require the authorization of the chief of police. Under the proposed agreement, Ferguson would be forced to repeal municipal codes that had been abused by police officers, such as “Manner of Walking Along Roadway” and “Crossing at Right Angles.”

“The agreement would force the municipal court to operate independently from Ferguson’s prosecutor (currently Stephanie Karr) in a way that “eliminates existing and potential unlawful conflicts of interest.” Ferguson’s municipal judge would also have to act like an actual judge.”

That information, incomplete as it is, should announce a clear and present danger in all it seeks to remedy. Similar outrages are happening in little bergs all over this nation, even the ones we think are well above such nonsense. And here in Missouri, any new process instituted may change the particulars but will take time to shake out in attitude, thanks to the constant drumbeat against ‘slackers’ and ‘takers,’ ‘pushers’ and ‘thugs’ spewed by generations of conservative scaremongers.

The simmering resentment of the aging white lower class citizens against those they’ve been taught to fear will not give easily. Essentially, the very politics represented in Trump’s xenophobia and white privilege narrative drive much of the political process in Missouri, and that’s just one state in the Heartland.

The debate between the Democratic candidates gets serious. Image: Democracy Now! video still

In Michigan, there can be no doubt that racism played heavily into the decision to allow tainted water to decimate Flint for generations to come. If you want more information on that scandal, Flint native Mike Moore is the go-to guy; see here and here.

Bernie has asked for the Michigan governor to step down due to his blatant disregard for these lives; Hillary would rather he attempt to fix the problem and the governor, himself, has asked for everyone to stop pointing fingers because, umm, capitalism or something, and let’s just get back to doing something, even if it’s wrong. As well, we should probably watch how this goes as legal advocate Erin Brockovich says Flint is just the tip of the old proverbial iceberg.

OK, due diligence on the racial hostility which went underground for several generations as white folks tried to establish, as did the nation’s High Court, a post-racial era in name only. Writing about racism and sexism and ageism in the United States of America is like taking the pulse of a chronic patient. We know what we’ll find, don’t we? We suffer an epidemic classism in this country that, like it or not, we did not leave behind when we crossed the pond so long ago; and it remains the elephant in the cross-hairs of our national conversation.

I’ve distanced in this offering from the Clinton/Sanders contest as a bit of a time-out, but there’s much more to say in this critical election season and that’s because the Dem race IS the only relevant contest.

As Bernie often says (and he’s the only one who asks me to do this for myself, mind you), “Think about it.” What are the actual odds that any Republican — radical to the point of nihilism, arrogantly marginalizing people of color and pledging to cut away at programs that even their own constituency refuse to do without — will win the White House in 2016?

The zeitgeist of this moment is not about the Republicans, Trump’s expected and entertaining tantrums notwithstanding. The challenge of this nation is whetherit will continue as it has for the last several decades, or begin to defy the oligarchy that has purchased the democratic process. Anything else is simply monitoring the meds of the nation’s sedation.

There are those who call Sanders followers “puritopians” — those who refuse to be moved by a policy of incremental success proposed by moderate Liberals, who include Barack Obama. Me? I was an avid John Edwards fan until he let his nether-parts get in the way of his populist message. And although I supported Obama and still believe in his essential liberalism, there was never any doubt in my mind that he was an establishment candidate.

I give him props for all he accomplished (and will) during his tenure, but I’d have preferred him to have spent all eight of his years as, suggests Rolling Stone, the “I don’t give a fuck” president he’s become in these last months.

And, as before, if Clinton takes the candidacy, she has my vote. Indeed, I once caught hell for suggesting that the ‘perfect is the enemy of good’ aphorism was a legitimate meme for supporting Obama’s less-than-progressive tendencies. I’m pragmatist enough to believe that you maximize what you’ve got, and realist enough to understand that if establishment money drives the result, then, as Chomsky said, “There will be dire consequences to a GOP victory. What they are saying is, let’s destroy the world. Is that worth voting against? Yeah.”

But more of the same is not enough. The kind of revolution we’re all dreaming of is not an incremental thing; it never was. Go back and read that Truman quote from the 1940s. Sound like much has changed since then? FDR was only able to morph American politics because he was backed by a movement of citizens who forced change. Once in place — with fears abated — his policies became not just accepted but appreciated, even loved, as the contemporary fabric of democracy.

What Sanders is suggesting isn’t even particularly revolutionary; we’ve just become so complacent and removed from our own history we think he’s radical and unelectable. Well, fool me once, establishment politics, corporate press and privatized capitalists, but not this time!

Written just about the same time that, per Eric, “Venus is about to make a conjunction to Pluto… This is passionate, lusty and defiant,” allow me to take advantage of that energy blast and channel Joan Crawford in one of her more memorable roles: “Don’t fuck with me, fellas. This ain’t my first time at the rodeo.”

Vision Quest, Planet Waves’ 2016 annual edition, has been published. Order all 12 signs at a great value or choose your individual signs.

by Judith Gayle

According to Wikipedia’s definition of politics, it originates from the “Greek: πολιτικός politikos,” which translates as “of, for, or relating to citizens” and regards the practice and theory of influencing other people. Essentially, then, all relationships can be defined as political, as we all seek to influence to get our needs met. Our relationships have a political component.

If we twist the lens of our kaleidoscope to get a broader glimpse, we can see how politics represents a template for governance to meet the needs of society, i.e., the constant back and forth of negotiation and compromise. It has rules. Indeed, it has been legitimized as a ‘science.’

Ultimately, it’s not a stretch to see how politics can become a system to control and coerce, or, as Merriam-Webster defines it, “the activities, actions, and policies that are used to gain and hold power in a government or to influence a government.” I’m sure you agree that it’s that open-ended use of governance to ‘gain and hold power’ that sends a shiver down our spines.

We remember the Third Reich. We remember the old Soviet Union. We look around and see North Korea and Saudi Arabia. We see ISIS, attempting to build a theocratic Caliphate, and instinctively understand that there is something terribly wrong with governmental absolutes that disenfranchise a country’s citizens, exploit its resources and promote policy only for the betterment of the few. An anti-authoritarian reaction makes up the seeds of populism — the notion that government should attend the interests of the general population rather than the governing elite — that have been alive and well since America’s inception.

It’s worthwhile to take a look at this issue, since we are deeply entrenched in 21st century populism. In fact, I’d say it defines us at this point in time. Why? Wiki has the definition that hits the mark: “Populism is a doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general population, especially when contrasting any new collective consciousness push against the prevailing status quo interests of any predominant political sector.”

It’s that ‘new collective consciousness’ we need to examine, because that’s the zeitgeist driving these changes we’re juggling. If we don’t understand what’s happening, it’s easy to fall into fear, and fear is the enemy of progress.

When I think of politics, I think about where we are on the map — not the topography of the planet, mind you, but of the soul. We can no longer pretend that politics doesn’t affect us all, and we must admit that the government has become largely dysfunctional, and the power struggle that defines it is out of balance. That very imbalance is so evident in our current oligarchy that it has finally goaded us into a thorough examination of our inability to get along.

It’s taken us over fifteen years to accept the growing evidence of systemic failure, and a lot has changed during that period. A generation of kids have grown up in perpetual war, the kind we finance but do not attend emotionally or physically. Technology has distanced us from the expectations of patience and nuanced thought, from important aspects of civility and intimacy, while issues of culture and religion have occulted statesmanship and common cause. While we have reason to no longer trust institutional government, we have yet to decide how to remedy that situation. Yet most of us acknowledge that we can’t remain as we are.

This is a matter of soul recognition because the larger organism of politics is about how we treat one another, and that’s what we’re deciding now. So let’s locate ourselves on the map so that we understand where we are at this critical juncture. Let’s put a pin in the cross-hairs of this coming presidential election, because it’s not business as usual. In fact, it’s new business entirely because we have — unwittingly, as a matter of collective consciousness — accepted the legitimacy of the anti-establishment movement. Only when we acknowledge that, can we twist the kaleidoscope to get a bigger picture of where we’re going, and of what we’ve already accomplished.

We can read the tea leaves of states’ rights and privatization on the right, the growing movement for democratic restoration on the left, but let’s not allow ourselves to drop into the dark hole of defeatism by thinking the two are equal in American perception. Corporate media like to keep us wrought up by thinking the two American political philosophies represent an equal split among voters, but that’s not true. The polls show that a majority of Americans overwhelmingly approve the progressive vision of democratic policy.

Bernie Sanders is the anti-establishment candidate who considers our current state of governance corrupted by money, ignoring the needs of the common citizen in order to send wealth up the pipeline into the pockets of the privileged. There is so much evidence that this is true that it seems ridiculous to ignore it, but ignore it we do as we embrace the system that has failed us on so many levels. So many of us are awake, but there are others who can’t face their fears to open their eyes.

Bernie campaigns in the old style of populism, seeking an ongoing movement of justice and equality that reinvigorates government for and by the people. His lifelong adherence to socialism represents a truly American mix of democratic socialism that is currently known as participatory democracy, emphasizing grassroots movements that have the ability to impact a responsive system of governance. As an aside, this cartoon easily illustrates what seems so difficult to discern about Bernie’s one percent argument. This is that picture worth a thousand words. Pass it around.

On the other side of the spectrum, Donald Trump is the epitome of what is known as neo-populism. Where Sanders sees himself as a leader stumping for the rights of the masses, Trump sees himself as CEO of a vast holding company, creating wealth and opportunity for the individual and corporate entities that will, hopefully, trickle enough wealth down to keep the little people content and compliant.

We can’t say the Donald campaigns in a traditional mode, since no one can remember his style of assertive and abusive political rhetoric making the grade into presidential politics prior to this. It’s his very ‘strong man, take-no-shit’ persona that has grabbed the attention of many who want to ride the coattails of a perpetual ‘winner’ (if also braggart) and well-financed authoritarian.

Both of these candidates are anti-establishment. Both of them have identified as Independents (Trump has changed five times, across the political spectrum), outliers to the accepted two-party system. Both emphasize individuality, although Bernie’s supporters are looking for their individual votes to change policies that affect us all, while Donald’s are looking for the regressive policies of yesteryear that protect white America from losing its sense of both safety and superiority.

This week, Michael Bloomberg announced that he’s thinking about jumping in. First thing to notice is that he would run as an Independent, essentially a third-party candidate. Also glaringly apparent, he and the Donald share a rare condition, one we seldom find in a public servant: they’re both billionaires. Too late in the game for an easy transition due to the insider trading of the electoral college system, the ex-Mayor of New York could very well be the spoiler between candidates, splitting votes on one side or the other, perhaps both.

While Bloomberg might present himself as slightly anti-establishment, it’s safe to say his money would put establishment politicians in his camp along with the big financial concerns. Still, it’s a no-brainer that he might look attractive to those who want their president a little more polished than Bernie, a little less bombastic than Donald.

Although aligned with the traditional parties, the outliers are actually Independents, distanced from the absolutes of the duopoly. I can understand why Bernie went with the Dems: he had no financial benefit as a third-party candidate and he is the only one entirely dependent on the people for his funding — he had no hope of running a national campaign without party money. That should answer the question of his ability to compromise, flex, or find commonality with others — something at which he’s been accused of having little skill. A look at his long political career would correct that untruth.

On the other hand, it’s obvious that Trump will do as he likes, Pubs or no Pubs, pledge or not. I bet that Donald would never have signed on with the right if he thought he’d rise so quickly through the ranks. His current war with FOX News head, Roger Ailes, and the savvy Megyn Kelly shows how little he kowtows to the party line. He refused to participate in the last debate before Iowa, held by the FOX network. I suspect he thinks he doesn’t need it with all those HUGE numbers he enjoys.

Such a face off of outliers depends on Sanders beating Clinton in the primaries, of course. It depends on Donald not getting pissy with his numbers, throwing a tantrum or throwing in the towel. And, as our Fe Bongolan wrote this week, the progressives have a dilemma not nearly so frenetic as the Pubs in selecting a front runner. That battle is between two attractive candidates which the Democratic party could easily ​approve, but there is risk: which one will assure we do not endure a Trump or a Cruz leading the country in this volatile period of history?

I watched to see who would respond to Fe’s question, and can only assume that this remains a dilemma for others as well. One of her concerns is that the millennials who could sweep Sanders into office might not stick around for the hard work of citizenship, voting at mid-term to give him a congress with which he could work. The concern is genuine, based on what we’ve experienced before. But from the git-go, Sanders has seen his candidacy as a movement, as the second-leg of the #occupy movement, as a growing demand for a return to functional and progressive government:

Look, politicians respond. If the people are asleep and not involved, they respond to the lobbyists and donors. But when people speak up and fight, if you want to survive [as a politician], you have to respond. My job is to activate people to fight for their rights and to force Congress to respond to the needs of working families.

What the president can do is to say to the American people, “OK, if you think that it is important that public colleges and universities are tuition-free, and that that program be paid for based on a tax on Wall Street speculation, well, on March 15th there is going to be a vote in the House, and let’s see if we can bring large numbers of people here to Washington to say hello to members of Congress. Let us make every member of Congress aware that millions of people are involved in this issue. They know how you are going to vote.” Of course we’ll win that.

Based on his proposals, Sanders seems to have the ability to unite not just progressive voters, but a majority of Independents and even a number of Republicans. Hillary’s voters will be largely blue and largely women, mostly establishment and extremely well-financed, but her enemies are formidable. My concern is that the more we are forced to pick at the scabs of (both) the Clintons’ history, the fewer blue votes can be counted on to find their way to the polling ​booth in November.

Me? I don’t want to muster energy to vote against a Republican this election. I want to vote for someone I believe in. And while I think Hillary will be able to speak to the pragmatists I think Bernie can speak not only to pragmatists but to the passionate as well.

On our map, then — where we’ve stuck our political pin — we are newly arrived at a place where change is being demanded, where ‘how it used to be’ isn’t good enough any more. Where anger could turn against itself with Donald as candidate, or find an avenue of expression in following political passion with Bernie. Early in this nomination process, new polling shows that the electability question that Hillary is currently pinning her hopes on is wobbling.

Blue voters are thinking outside the box, especially when the box Hillary represents contains a slow, incremental crawl toward the things that the American people not only desire from their leadership but are beginning to demand. Red voters think they’ve found their superhero in the guy who loves everybody until they cross him. If we follow the money, neither Bernie nor Trump — or even Bloomberg, should he run — is beholden to the PACs and ‘donor class’ that have attempted to buy the election and, so far, failed.

The outliers, bless ’em, are the leaders of movements, even the unlikely Donald, who just took a shot in the dark with his candidacy. These are grass roots movements, already in place. Homegrown, if you will, and looking for leadership. For Sanders, whose political positions seldom waver, the movement came to him. Trump simply stumbled upon his, but it seems clear that the way we’ve done business for quite awhile is coming to an end.

While the old way was busy talking to itself, the concerns of a nation began to grow another kind of political intention, one that we’re seeing bloom all around us. Perhaps we might read that as the backside of a Pluto/Uranus square, eh?

That’s why, seems to me, any establishment politician who assumes that the people will regain their sensibility and come back to status quo (center) is wrong. Populism is doing all the talking. With the two-party system increasingly anachronistic — an expensive and self-sustaining failure at improving the lot of its citizens, with its faulty electoral and gerrymander​ing process having created a congressional stalemate, seemingly unable to legislate itself out of a paper bag — this election is the establishment’s to lose.