I'm not so sure.

http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2004_147/news/11211-1.html

The "Stop Whining" comment was strong and harsh, and not directed particularly towards you. Since the election there have been a lot of chicken-littles running around saying that this is the end of everything - both hear and in meatspace.

You do have legitimate concerns. But I think they have been fed by a sense of helplessness and paranoia which is (a) illegitimate (i.e. overbolown) and ( incapacitating. Don't let the bastards grind you down, dude!

#2 and #3 will certiainly disqualify you from a draft. #1 might.

As a convicted felon you are inelligble to own a gun in most states, unless you go before a judge to get your civil rights restored. I recommend you do that afer you turn 18. As far as whether I'd want you handling a gun - I walk through West Oakland several times a year, in the worst neighborhoods, and am usually the only male under 35 who ISN'T wearing a gun (simply because conceald-carry permits are hard to come by around here and I don't want to go to jail for it). You can handle a gun responsibly if you are (a) dilligent about learning to use it properly, and ( emotionally mature and diciplined enough to give it over to the safe keeping of a friend when you're having suicidal ideations.

In order to replace a poliitcal system, war is necessary - always and throughout human history. However, I submit that the only reason our system is broken is that we have a populace that (a) does not think, and ( does not care. Those that do think often are duped into thinking there is no way to make a difference - they understand enough to realize how stupid most people are. What was it Carlin said: "Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are stupider than that!"

In spite of that central problem (and the fact that politicos and priests are supremely good at exploiting it), we have a system that remains functional despite massive corruption. It was a well-designed system to begin with. And grass-roots politics still works. Don't believe me? Ross Perot actually got EVs in '92 despite withdrawing from the race. Nader has spoiled 2 elections for the Dems. The Religious Right has swung the last two elections, and it's a grass-roots movement that began outside the political arena. Is it tough? Hell yes. Is it near-impossible? Hell yes! But it's not just a matter of one vote making a difference (it doesn't). It's a matter of one LOUD vote making a difference. Grass roots movements effect change because they are visible and annoying. Because the politicians fear the impact you can have on their re-election bid. Someone who takes the trouble to write to their Rep. will also take the trouble to write letters to the editor, to speak out in their community, etc.

Excellent advice...but it's the work of a lifetime. There are excellent histories out there and an enormous amount of crap. You will have to learn to read critically -- ask yourself not only if an account "makes sense" but why does the author hold the view that he does?

Concentrate on the period 1789-2004...what happened before that is interesting but not terribly relevant to the situation we find ourselves in. (For American history, the period 1865-2004 is the time to examine closely.)

There are quite a few of us still alive...but be wary. Many of my "old comrades" (especially the "famous" ones) capitulated to the prevailing social order. Their advice is going to be very bad.

On the other hand, reading the histories of the 60s and the documents produced in that era can be quite instructive...both what to do and what not to do.

Once again, a critical approach is required.

The language is a bit dramatic, perhaps, but the advice is sound.

I would only add that unnecessary risks are to be avoided. The point is not that you should "die for the cause" but that our enemies should die for their cause.

Here I must disagree. "Rights" do not have any kind of "metaphysical existence" -- they are created/destroyed by humans according to their material interests.

There's no such thing, for example, as a "right to get rich"...there are only human societies, some of which have declared this "right" and others which have rejected it.

Every human society has its own ideas of "human rights"...which you are free to accept or reject according to your own interests.

Only if the subject interests you. Historical change is not a product of physical fighting ability...though it may save your ass now and then.

What's in your brain is far more crucial than your ability to successfully engage in combat. The pen really is mightier than the sword...provided that what you have to say really reflects material reality.

No. There are many things in the real world that can't be done no matter how hard you believe that you can do them.

The universe does not exist for our convenience.

Which is not to say that we shouldn't try to accomplish whatever we think necessary.

But human history is woefully short on "guarantees".

The end of conscription in the United States did not take place through voting; it took place because (1) there was a wide-spread movement against it; and (2) even more important, large numbers of kids simply quit showing up for induction.

Change in America never comes from voting; it always comes from some form of massive popular resistance.

America has never been a "democracy"...it has always been an oligarchic republic. Prior to 1860, the oligarchy consisted primarily of slave-holders; since then, the oligarchy has consisted of capitalists.

Old Ben was quite a quipster; but I think that judgment a bit too harsh. People are not born "in original sin" -- automatically "responsible" for whatever despotism that happens to exist in the land and time of their birth.

Humans are "social animals" and learn things from childhood that are not necessarily true.

Nevertheless, we know that some people -- even very "ordinary" people -- manage to achieve a critical viewpoint of their society...usually with help from other dissidents but occasionally entirely on their own. No social order has ever managed to achieve "perfect conformity" though a fair number have attempted it...there was active resistance even in the Third Reich.

I would amend this to say "we live in a country of people who are afraid."

The list of their fears would probably double the length of this post -- and nearly all of them come "from the top"...things they've been told that they "should" be afraid of.

Such a people are "easy prey" for oligarchic predators, be they secular businessmen or superstitious cranks.

A fearful people will never liberate themselves; an angry people may pull it off.

I agree.

Depending on what has worked "so far" is not necessarily the best strategy.

I'm sure you've heard the story of the guy that jumped from the top of a tall skyscraper...as he plummets past the 50th floor, he's heard to yell "so far, so good".

Since 1945, what we've seen in the U.S. is a "drift" towards fascism, with ups and downs but mostly downs. Whether this process will continue, accelerate, or even be reversed remains to be seen.

Quite true. Nevertheless, something "like it" would seem to be inevitable unless the American imperialists meet with sharp reversals or even catastrophic defeats in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and future "targets".

I very much agree with this point. From what I have read of their writings, they are the "secular mirror" of the fundamentalists...instead of "Satan" being at the root of our problems, it's "secret societies".

There's about the same real evidence for both hypotheses...zero!

This is a rather bleak portrayal of human relationships...though common enough nowadays.

Perhaps the search for "profit" in relationships simply reflects the capitalist zeitgeist.

I think we could do better.

I don't see how any rational person could dispute that one.

While that may be true for many Americans, there are also many others who've seen little peace and no prosperity at all.

But "power" in the abstract is meaningless. Power actually means something when it involves the division of resources.

Who gets what? And how much?

That is a drastic misreading of Roman history; the Roman proletariat did not "vote themselves" either bread or circuses. (In fact, the franchise was largely useless to the Roman proletariat...as it is for us.)

The "benefits" of "bread & circuses" were granted to the Roman proletariat in exchange for their loyalty...their willingness to acquiesce to the rise of empire.

And the collapse came four centuries later...due to the costs (and resulting taxes) of keeping large armies in the field to defend the empire's conquests.

I cannot comment on "our fucking lazy pathetic spoiled-rotten selves"...it seems to be a remark made in anger, not an analysis.

It's neither. Most of "my country" is owned by a corporate elite. The constitution was the product of secret meetings of American oligarchs in Philadelphia...its purpose was the protection of wealth and property from "the mob".

I think it's a piece of shit.

Read Marx and Engels. Then read, if you like, Charles Beard on the American constitution. There are many good critical histories of the American Empire, but you will have to search for them...it helps to have access to a university library.

I know where mine don't...with the American Empire. It must be defeated and overthrown.