Seven Seconds

By Judith Gayle | Political Waves

I know why people don’t watch the news these days. About five minutes in, overwhelming helplessness can give us brain cramp, heartburn and stomach upset, sending us to the medicine cabinet. Better not to know, we think, hoping to escape the ugliness and tension going on around us, but that never works entirely.

The reflection of the world’s energy can’t be sidestepped any more than weather extremes can be avoided, so it’s best to be forewarned. We’re enormously better off knowing about extremes like the unprecedented ‘frankenstorm,’ Hurricane Sandy, threatening the east coast or the cold front that dropped temps in the Pea Patch this week, thirty degrees in a matter of hours. Besides, we can feel it all coming on, can’t we?

In the good old days when we were limited to a daily paper and the evening news, it was easier to escape much of this angst. Important news came to us quickly enough: I still remember the tension in the air during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the surrealism and and unbearable sorrow of JFK’s assassination, then Martin’s, then Bobby’s. When we had to know something, word got out in no time. Later, “pay TV” brought us hours of advertisement, sprinkled with news bits gone theatrical and increasingly salacious, amping up our stomach acid and giving us reason enough to switch channels. It was easy — and lazy — to assume that the political process would sort itself out in the end. Sadly, we’re living with the price that ignorance of those political realities exacted.

We thought democracy was running itself, unaware that it was being quietly and ruthlessly re-engineered. Decades of legislative tweaking have created a system that leaves the public interest bound and gagged, our political divisions held captive to an unworkable process. No surprise that at its center, lobbying and profiteering prevail. The BILLIONs spent on this campaign — oil and gas companies, alone, have spent $49 million in this election cycle and Chevron just added $2.5 million to Boehner’s Super PAC to keep the House in Pub hands – elicit only a polite yawn from politicians and citizens alike.

The days when we could pretend it would all work out without our participation are behind us, and you’d think we’d hear more about money-as-influence in this campaign year, following the cash to the likely suspects: the Super PACs created by Citizens United; the greedy television stations willing to air any political ad without vetting truthfulness; the high-rolling contributors who prosper by borrowing dirt cheap, hiring overseas and placing their bets on Wall Street. Instead, we hear what discretionary funds the candidates would or would not spend, even as they beg for campaign contributions from those with the least to give. The plight of the 99% has, at least for the moment, become moot.

Our apathy still tends to be chronic. Here, in our alternate universe, we’ve been convinced by decades of capitalist catechism that without the money lenders and tycoons, the ‘job creators’ and the mavens of a bull market, we’d all perish slowly on the streets with our shopping carts. Turns out, some of us are doing that anyway, so what’s to lose? The cry for jobs has gone dim in the vacuum of banking houses sitting on their money, waiting to see what happens next, while the candidates wrangle at cross point on government’s role in their creation.

This week Paul Ryan went on the stump to tell the poor that his dire policies slashing safety nets were “for their own good.” This, he argued, would give them opportunity to seize the day and become contributing citizens instead of freeloading sloths. I find his continuing cry for the end of programs meant to serve and sustain the commonwealth alarming and dangerous. Even discounting the suffering they would produce, these policies destabilize growth. According to the Economic Policy Institute, state and local austerity has already deprived the economy of 2.3 million jobs. The Mittster loves to tell how women have lost a couple of million jobs under Obama, and here’s a No Brainer Alert: these same jobs, Mitt, are the teachers and nurses and county workers that struggling states have cut in an attempt to balance their budgets.

I find some small entertainment value in Romney as candidate, because he’s fascinating to watch. No matter what Mitt does or says, a clarification comes due within an hour or two; we’ve come to expect it. Either the man has the most clueless campaign handlers in history or he’s a loose cannon, unable to keep from shooting himself in the foot. This extends throughout his political machine: Romney’s campaign chair John Sununu, on CNN this week, suggested that Colin Powell’s recent endorsement was racially motivated. ‘Cuz — you know — black guys stick together.

Surprisingly, the pundits are finally talking about this racial component on cable news, asking if Obama’s color is why white folks are stonewalling him, and in answer, texts come flooding in to complain that the President has accomplished absolutely nothing in four long years, the worst do-nothing president in American history, which is, of course, a Pub talking point, endlessly repeated by Romney and crew. And on the other side of the political divide, no matter how ‘presidential’ Obama is with interviewers and television hosts, he’s still black and destined to remain so in a campaign the Washington Post says suffers the deepest racial split among voters since 1988. So much for a post-racial America.

Yes, cable news is a toxic load, a sadistic reality show, scripted and force-fed to the unaware. And as we close in on election Tuesday, the tone has become increasingly hysterical and testy. With Obama losing his early lead after the first debate, polls now have the contenders neck in neck. Any hope of actual political discourse was put to bed in the third round, with shape-shifter Mitt — as big eyed and fuzzy-wuzzy as DreamWorks Animation’s Puss in Boots, smiling faintly, hat in hand — hoping to appeal to women as the kinder, gentler peace candidate. His butter-wouldn’t-melt performance prompted Ann Coulter — perhaps miffed that this last win went to Obama — to tweet, “I highly approve of Romney’s decision to be kind and gentle to the retard.” Jumped on by actual people with developmental handicaps, Ann suggested that the ‘word police’ ‘screw’ themselves. See? Testy.

In this third debate, aimed at the ever-elusive undecided voters, both candidates leaned in to center: Obama aggressive, Romney passive. In an attempt to shield his neocon warmonger sensibilities from view, Mitt disagreed with Obama’s handling of foreign policy by declaring him an apologist and weak, but agreed with his policies, which he’ll continue as a stronger, more vigorous (and white) leader. Under Mitt’s leadership, China will get a good talking to, as will those untrustworthy Ruskies. And while war must always always be the very very last resort, a nuclear-armed Iran is the biggest threat to humanity and needs to be dealt with severely. Mitt would start by declaring their diplomats pariahs and protecting Israel’s interests as our own, heavy on the Zionism, unilateralism and Bush-speak. Oy!

This time around, Romney’s pitch was clearly plutocratic in nature and neocon to boot. Calling his position a cold war Ponzi scheme, Robert Scheer wrote:

Poor President Obama, as Colin Powell pointed out in endorsing him Thursday, clearly holds what should be a winning hand in the war-on-terror game, and yet Mitt Romney and his neocon speechwriters won’t cut him any slack. Suddenly it’s not Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda that matter, but rather the military threat from Red China that is killing us with slick iPhones and cheap solar panels.

Throw in some good old Russia baiting, and if Romney has his way, the military-industrial complex will get its beloved Cold War back despite the fact that the communist threat is now one of conquering space on the shelves at Wal-Mart. Obama, the naive community organizer, thinks the foreign policy debate is about national security, but Romney, the quintessential vulture capitalist, knows that it’s always been about maximizing profit.

Drones were mentioned in passing by balsy moderator, Bob Schieffer, and Mitt not only approved their use but seemed quite eager to get his hands on them. I’d suspect you are familiar with the controversy over drone use, begun under George W. Bush and reconfigured for use by Obama. The left considers their use a violation of international law, as well as unconstitutional, and an unforgiveable lapse in ethics. As well, the UN is concerned that civilian casualties in what may be “second strikes” constitute war crimes by the administration.

The nation has yet to have a conversation about the growing national security-complex, of which drone use represents only one aspect, rarely admitted to or spoken of. In fact, there are several arguments going on simultaneously, one about the use of drones as an adjunct weapon to the war in Afghanistan, and another about the expansion of Bush-era War On Terror practices that have become, according to Glen Greenwald, “a permanent bureaucratic infrastructure to allow the president to assassinate at will.” The conversation, understand, is between ourselves; the administration remains mum.

So here we are, days away from an election that will swing our energy one way or another — in my opinion, a critical juncture in our 2012 passion play and the future of our nation — with numbers of big questions gone unasked, unanswered and even undeclared. Confusion is rampant. Some seem to think that Romney is a reputable business man, rather than an expert and opportunistic destroyer of other people’s hard work and livelihoods. We want to know what kind of deal Obama will cut with those who have pledged to take us off the fiscal cliff. The culture war is once again taking up all the oxygen, making our discourse emotional and extreme rather than practical and logical. We can’t get to the meat of the issues by listening to the simple rhetoric of stump speeches, and so instead, we listen to the cacophony of voices pointing fingers, demonizing, projecting and posturing. We’re worried, we’re anxious, and there seems no end in sight no matter who wins. Chaos!

Still, what happens next will either make the necessary changes ahead easier or harder, and given the time restraints of climate change — a TRUE threat to national and global interests — quicker is infinitely better. We need an “event” to shake us up and give us clarity. Like the ‘taking’ scene of Barry, the toddler, in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, when the light (of political reality) comes for us, it squeezes through every crack and crevice and has the power to whisk us away from old ways of thinking. We need that moment, that cold slap in the face, and because I don’t see it coming (unless Sandy is MUCH bigger than we think it is) I have a proposal.

The channelers have spoken about how enhanced our ability to handle the escalating vibrations has become, practiced at making these difficult adjustments for so long that they’ve become second nature (and feel just like that chaos and anxiety we so dislike). They affirm that we are capable of bringing things forward now in ways that seem mysterious, even miraculous. Any thought, they tell us, that we can hold for seven seconds can come to pass. A pure thought in which we immerse ourselves for all of those seven seconds, moved through the heart-chakra, begins to take form.

A prayer of the soul, perhaps? A vision for the future? Let’s watch the news, take in the information and expel the fear, not just for ourselves but for adding the collective calm we so need on planet Terra. Let’s get out the vote, press leadership for real answers, join with others who are hard at work for the betterment of us all, and let’s keep that seven seconds in the forefront of our thoughts. Seven seconds, brimming with peace and love, bright with healing intent and expectation. With only days to go in the race for America’s immediate future, let’s shine a little Light for Gaia’s sake, and our own!