2011: TEOTWAWKI

I was shaking my head this morning, thinking about how Mayor Bloomberg and his riot police forcibly evicted the people of Occupy Wall Street, and when they came back with copies of the court order stating they had the right to be there, they found themselves under arrest. As I type, they are massing at the park, waiting for final word from a judge on whether this is their peaceable place of assembly or not. I look around at what has been happening in Ohio, Florida, Maine, California, and my own state of Wisconsin and I look beyond our borders to Italy, Egypt, England ... the world is being shaken. The hierarchy of power is being questioned world-wide, and as I write, no one really knows if the entrenched powerful will be able to quell the masses or not.

I think of the song by REM: "It's the end of the world as we know it ...." and I realize that the outcome of all these various confrontations is going to change the world, one way or another. The question is not *whether* the world will change, but *how* it will change. Will we continue heading toward a modern version of serfdom, explore a world oligarchy (Robocop, anyone?), or settle on fascism? Are corporations the final arbiters of what is important in life? Is profit the most critical deciding factor in creating policy? Do we continuously need to grow (money, population, ownership)? Do we make policy decisions based on the power of profit or do we explore the Happiness Index? Which way is it going to go?

The other side of the spectrum doesn't offer much improvement. Power, in even the most idealistic system corrupts the leaders. I believe that neither socialism, nor communism is the answer. Frankly, I have never been a fan of any pure "-ism." Dogma, by definition, closes minds to any other option. Sometimes, it makes sense to go in one direction. Other times, other situations, other paths to a solution. The world is too varied to allow for a bi-tonal world. I know it is simpler to only answer yes or no questions, but that isn't reality. Reality is a huge range of vibrant colors, including many that our eyes can't even see. Yes or no, left or right, these are too simplistic for the long term health of any society.

How do we come up with a societal structure that allows for the flexibilty required for general well-being and the pursuit of happiness for the greatest percentage of our society? That is what 'The Great Experiment' was all about. Almost 250 years later, we have become so bloated by outdated laws, so controlled by the way the fiscally powerful want to shape the world, that we are in danger of imploding on ourselves. We have lost our way, and I wonder who among us knows how to lead us out of this mess? If we can't even agree on what is wrong, how can we move in any direction at all?

In my naivete, I thought that everyone would agree that it is of paramount importance to have the greatest good for the greatest number, but I didn't realize that we don't all agree on even what qualifies as 'good.' For example, I believe that universal healthcare is a good thing. Others tell me that they pay their own way, and they should not have to pay more so that others can live. They even tell me that it is a bad thing to give any support at all to those suffering from drug or alcohol addictions, street people who have no job or place to live, or those who might not be here legally. It doesn't matter if they are human. They don't count. Too, I believe that no one should starve or freeze to death in the richest country the world has ever known. When I have debated this topic, I have been told that we are so rich because of our profit motive and there is no profit in helping the incapacitated poor live long enough to breed (yes, that is almost verbatim). And I am shocked that people cheered the idea of a non-insured man hypothetically dying from lack of care at the Republican debates. In so many words, I have had it explained to me that we have no intrinsic societal value as human beings, but that a person's worth is determined only by the value they add to our economy. Even that can be downplayed, if the value added is not enough to compensate for the value removed by needing health care or food, clothing or shelter. How can I discuss possible approaches to our societal problems, if we can't even agree that every human being has an intrinsic value? How to approach the idea that everyone deserves compassion, food, shelter and basic healthcare?

At some point, the scales are going to tip in one direction or another. I truly believe that this tension can't last indefinitely. Whichever side of these world-wide confrontations winds up with the policy-making authority, the world is going to change. The end of the world as we know it is happening right before our eyes. It isn't some future event, and we don't have to wait for 2012 or a world cataclysm. And with a little luck, we will be able to avoid escalating it into WWIII before we agree as to which way we want to go.