But I'm watching something right now that I think may be having an effect in the right places -- enough people make disturbing noises about money, and other people pay attention.
That would be in the U.S. I presume. Tell us about it skdadl, I'm interested in knowing. I am twitterless and shall remain that way, as well as FB unless I see something worth pursuing (just too harried to keep up). For instance the FB group Canadians Against ProRoguing, that was entirely successful, and the large mass rally that started @ Dundas Square was immensely successful. BUT Harper would do it again, in a heartbeat, if he had to. Why was that rally successful? Where were the rubber bullets and tasers? True the people for CAP were everyone, young/old/retired/students/workers, no masks, just good placards. Was that why? Because that's a great hint in successful protests for the future, a mix, a diversity of Canadians.
You mentioned Gladwell being glib, I don't find that controversial in any way, it simply opens up the debate to tackling the root issues. Hitchens rant on March to Nowhere
sums up (no matter what one thinks of Hitchens) what I'm thinking/feeling about the present regarding a massive Erosion of Democracy. So not just about twitter obviously, but digital social media. Giraldi tells us what we're up against/CampaignForLiberty
The conclusion -
The only answer to the National Security State a demand on the part of US citizens to return to constitutionalism and a rule of law. The government should not be empowered to kill citizens extrajudicially, start wars of choice, detain suspects indefinitely and without charges, use state secrets claims to avoid scrutiny, and obtain private information without a warrant. It is difficult to imagine a return to normalcy under the best of circumstances, but congress is complicit in the process and will do nothing. Genuine change will only come about when we the people insist on it.
How do we insist on it when the apparatus has all the tools and we have none. Getting a permit is now even a barrier to protest. And if we rise up demanding to stop the erosion of democracy, we're called crazy. The media says we're well fed, we sleep safely in our beds, well yeah for now we do. Gladwell spoke to me about the physical dissension, but that requires risk of pain, rubber bullets and tasers and sound cannons, violent sweeps of non-violent citizens. That is what must stop. Digital activism supports the short attention span. And we have been neutered with so many legal barriers and in the end it changes nothing for the people in tent cities or facing foreclosure because they don't have a paycheque. The majority is now living paycheque to paycheque, so they can't show up, that leaves students and the retired. It's complicated and I'm all over the place, ha!
Take the Mulclair/Coyne issue, total hubris to take attention away from the core issue, corruption between corporate contractors and close ties to our politicians. In every province, not just Quebec. That was brilliant wasn't it? Ministers not showing up to Committees so they can't commit perjury.
Unelecting people is too slow, campaigning to our poli's to tell the cops to stop being militarized, to stop hurting citizens, too slow. It feels too late already. What I'm trying to says is we need a new kind of debate, one that is not limited to isolated issues (PG ad nauseum) but is broad-based and fundamental, about our power, the inequality and money constricting everything from education to political conditions. How do we Demand our Democracy back? This Parliament does not represent us, but will a dif party represent us? I don't think so. There must never again be another election under our current broken system. We don't even have some form of PR ready for the next election; thousands won't even vote because of that. What a loss. It won't get better, because there will always be another isolated issue to distract, too big to table and on and on it goes.
If the state is too violent to keep the safety of the retired protesters intact, then perhaps the silent majority should simply not show up at the ballot box. What is the percentage of the vote that must be kept in order to be qualified as legitimate? A powerful social media event to just stay home. The Cons would see that as a capitulation, a sure win for them, but it could be turned around, it could be devastating when you consider the numbers, because even the homeless, the addicted could get behind that. Isn't that one of the reasons Poverty is never tackled, they are not a voter base for any party. It could turn Canada upside down. And no one gets hurt.
For those who think it hasn't come to that yet, I say it has.