Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | August 2, 2016

I want…

I want to see you.
I want to know your voice.

I want to recognize you when you
first come ’round the corner.

I want to sense your scent when I come
into a room you’ve just left.

I want to know the lift of your heel,
the glide of your foot.

I want to become familiar with the way
you purse your lips, then let them part,
just the slightest bit, when I lean into
your space and kiss you.

I want to feel the small of your back,
and sense the lake between your breasts.
I want to know the joy of hearing you whisper
kiss me “more” and more, and more…

–Rumi

Screen Shot 2016-08-02 at 6.35.14 PM

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | July 31, 2016

Give me your Good Thoughts

Rumi says that thoughts are like a magic carpet, on which the soul rides across eternity.

I say that if we have good thoughts and we share those with other good people and direct them t positive outcomes — then the rest is easy.

Thoughts become things and all of this is fodder for the spirit.

Our Spirit is what gets nourished greatly from Good Thoughts, and our Life becomes a Success too.

Our Leadership increases it’s reach, and the people follow us and our good thoughts intently.

The Spirit which is also far more of what we are, gets enlarged through the power of good thoughts for ourselves and for others — and thus it takes a far greater place of our Life, making all of us a better people.

Our Life becomes far greater through the Spirit — when we allow only the current of the purest good thoughts to flow through our mind.

This is the “trick” if we could only call it that:

Thoughts become things.

Keep that in mind when you “think” thoughts which carry good wishes, thoughts which carry Love, and thoughts which carry blessings for ourselves and for all others.

It’s as simple as that.

Yours,
Pano

PS:

When I speak of this — some people always ask me, if that is some New Age mumbo-jumbo, but for me it is daily practice.

It has become automatic like prayer or meditation sharing and spreading Goof THoughts radiating outwards to all and sundry. Good wishes to foe and friend alike.

I choose to share my Life by flowing. I lead by sharing pure thoughts with all. I run my life like the water running & streaming downhill in an unending journey to the sea that reaches into the vast ocean of Spirit.

Flow and avoid obstacles and the ornery trouble makers, who make life difficult — not by fighting them, but by walking around them.

Flow with the flow…

This is not so much going with the flow, as being in the flow, and refreshed by the flow.

For when we have powerful, positive thoughts for, and about others — guess who benefits?

I’ll give you a hint:

Just guess…

Who is it that experiences the Good Thoughts first?

And who is it that benefits from those Good Thoughts first?

Methinks it’s Me.

Screen Shot 2016-07-18 at 9.38.09 PM

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | July 31, 2016

Lincoln Party is the Third Party…

To the Bernie Sanders Crowd falling in lockstep behind the fascist DWS:
To DWS head of the DNC who manufactured the Clinton victory:
To the Democratic National Committee:
To the Democratic party:
To the Rank & File Democrats:

Last night through Hook & Crook, through fear & deception, and through intimidation & criminality — you anointed Hillary Clinton with your nomination for President of the United States.

I couldn’t fail to notice that she was dressed like the Pope in an all white pantsuit…

She runs on a chromosome alone and thus thinking that if she represents herself as a biologically unimportant chromosome — she might slip in the position of the President and sit down on the chair, unobserved.

Or maybe she is thinking that when this Presidential thing falls apart as it will surely do — she can then campaign with her corrupt sidekick the Muslim Huma, and Debbie that does the Democrats in tow, for a position in the Vatican. Really she wants the Top post and she will break a random Italian glass ceiling, in order to become the first Lady Pope.

Please don’t laugh and don’t snigger here because Hillary is truly multitalented and gender fluid and she can pull a Kaitlin Jenner in the opposite direction if she can steal the Nomination for the Pope position.

Just see this amazing woman that she is able to walk and talk at the same time. Maybe not much of a walk but surely she is a talker around the podium and she spoke at length while her daughter dressed in a woman-in-red dress, galivanted around the stage, and gyrated to the music. And then Hillary embraced the genius journalistic wonder “red-child” and talked and talked and talked — while her husband went to sleep under her melodious voice singing badly written national lullabies.

Screen Shot 2016-07-28 at 4.11.38 PM

So, let the record show that in the face of at least 4 federal investigations, email scandals, and the unraveling of America’s remaining trust in your candidate; set against the backdrop of a neo-fascist opponent who has demonstrated he can beat her, your Party leaders have failed to heed the concerns of your constituents and have thereby imperiled the safety and stability of our nation and world.

As this threat has become imminent, you have continued to put forth your support for the most vulnerable, flawed, corrupt, and polarizing candidate in the Party’s history. You have the power to ask her to step aside and raise up another member of the Party. In spite of the acute urgency of the situation, you have chosen not to intervene.

You have systematically, deliberately, and unlawfully undermined the campaign of the most honest, decent statesman of integrity of our generation – the one candidate who has consistently proven he is the only one who can effectively stop the terrifying prospect of the ascendancy of Donald Trump. Moreover, you have done so by providing covert support financially and logistically for Hillary Clinton, in violation of your own Party’s Charter, Bylaws, and the laws of the United States of America.

We – the people of the United States – and particularly those who continue to stand in support of Bernie Sanders hereby hold you fully accountable for your decision, conduct, and the subsequent consequences.

Screen Shot 2016-07-28 at 10.28.49 PM

And as Hillary will grow the government against the Constitution and despite the Tenth Amendment — we will have to fight her, because the old Document that guides our decisions says, this in the very last of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth. This Tenth amendment is as exceptional from the others as it gets. In fact it declares clearly:

“The powers not delegated to the United States

by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the

States, are reserved to the States respectively, or

to the people.”

The essence of the Tenth Amendment is that the States individually reserved all the powers which they didn’t collectively delegate over to the federal government.

And that is what we have to safeguard from the claws of Hillary and Billy the kid who didn’t know what his middle leg was doing.

We are in for a fight.

Yes, as we are all too aware, Hillary Clinton was officially anointed this week as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee for the upcoming election. She was chosen by the party to be its nominee long before the race ever began, and it used every means at its disposal, both in plain sight and behind closed doors, to ensure that nothing – least of all the will of the people – would prevent that from happening.

Yet even though she may have won the title, she lost any moral legitimacy to the position that the title represents.

It is a shameful, hollow victory; one that has stained the democratic process in its callous and brazen willingness to subvert that very process by whatever means necessary in order to triumph.

Her campaign’s collusion with the DNC (not to mention her corporate media allies, lobbyists and tech industry cohorts) to undermine Senator Sanders’ bid for the nomination – to any rational, thinking person who’d paid even the slightest bit of attention to the unfolding race – was as obvious as it was incensing. The party’s hierarchy, working with their establishment counterparts at state and local levels, did everything they could to sabotage and stifle the Vermont Senator’s burgeoning campaign.

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 4.46.55 AM

This subterfuge became glaringly apparent through a whole host of underhanded practices. From planning debate schedules to ensure the lowest possible viewing audience; widespread voter suppression through registrations being dropped, party registration being changed, or receiving incorrect ballots; manipulating voter registration rules; forged signatures on voter registration sheets; scandalously high discrepancies in many states between exit poll results and actual voting tallies (disparities that were not evident in either the Republican primary or the 2008 Democratic primary); officials conspiring to paint Sanders as an atheist, as revealed in the recent WikiLeaks email dump; and the list goes on…

Perhaps the saddest aspect of all of this is that so many of those previously disenfranchised, disaffected and otherwise alienated or jaded by the political process saw in Senator Sanders’ campaign a light in the political darkness. They saw a man of principle, someone who had spent a lifetime remaining true to his beliefs and his word, and someone who wanted to rid the system of its corporate, insider cronyism and make the country and more fair and just one. And now those same people who fought alongside Sanders are confronted with the cruel reality that those corporate, insider cronies came out on top…once again.

However, as dispiriting as that reality may be, it could have been worse. Had the Democratic primary been fought fairly, on a level playing field, with no establishment deck-stacking involved and Clinton had still clawed her way to the nomination, there would be very little solace to be had in the notion that voters simply liked her and her politics better. As bitter a pill to swallow as the actual outcome is, at least one can take some comfort in the knowledge that she didn’t win on merit, she won through fraud and deceit.

If, as many like to say, politics is a sport, then Hillary Clinton is the political equivalent of a state-sponsored, doped-up Russian athlete.

The only upshot is that we are now back in an 1860 moment when the Third Party Candidate Abraham Lincoln run and the People liked him. He was anointed with nothing but their vote, and he won. Am certain that the people’s vote was not wasted, as History later confirmed in a rather large way.

We should remember that and go for the Lincoln Party Candidates: http://www.meetup.com/LincolnParty/

Vote for Value not for Convenience or Fear.

Screen Shot 2016-07-27 at 3.27.42 PM

And if you don’t want to vote for an upstart — then vote for anybody else including the Donald or Jill Stein, except the hilly-billy from Arkansas, because Hillary Clinton didn’t win the Democratic Party nomination – she simply won the game of trickery, collusion and fraudulence that modern politics in this country has devolved into. And while Sanders’ bid to clean house ultimately failed, it opened the eyes of many millions of voters to show just how corrupt the system has become.

Right now many of those voters are crestfallen and many more are just plain angry. But there are many fights that lay ahead, and when they come, those same voters will be going into battle with their eyes wide open.

Regardless of what happens from here on, America owes a great deal of gratitude to Bernie Sanders. His legacy will be of the man who exposed corruption inside the two party system, dared to challenge the limitations the so called experts put on grass roots activism and building a national campaign with only small dollar donors. He challenged the notion that you have to be morally bankrupt, lie about the issues or ignore the issues to play the game. He also challenged the notion that you have to play dirty in your campaign.

No matter where we go from here, Bernie Sanders will always be the man who launched the revolution. But now that he has tapped out, deciding to play a different role as a leader in the Senate who can help actual progressives get into office down ballot. He has left it up to us to decide if this is true a moment of change in America or if we slink back to the establishment and settle for the candidate they hand picked, cheated for, and lied about, in order to get the nomination.

This is about the issues and its about leadership. Hillary Clinton has a long record of being on the wrong side of the issues highlighted by the revolution. Sure the establishment has sold her to those who don’t do their research as a progressive, but when you break down her record issue by issue, she fails the progressive or even compassionate test time and again. Pro Free Trade, Pro Fracking, Pro Offshore Drilling, Anti substantive regulation of Wall Street, banking, insurance, big oil, chemical companies (GMOs, Pesticides). She has fought for the rich and powerful and allowed the poor and middle class to get hammered by unfair taxation, outsourced jobs, stagnant or shrinking wages, runaway housing, energy, education and healthcare costs. She was a part of promoting Bill’s policies that sold private prisons, mass incarceration of predominantly the poor communities of color, free trade, deregulation, etc. Many other issues found her sitting on the sidelines when those fights needed champions like the fight for gay rights, gay marriage or the spread of HIV, fight for a living wage. She screwed up all of the Middle East and North Africa single handedly and has destroyed most all of Africa for America and delivered it lock stock and barrel to the Chinese, without a fight.

And lest we forget that she is the candidate most likely to take us to war all over again, and she already has started her work of flooding the world with weapons of mass destruction and mayhem. And so long as someone gives her some more money for the Corrupt Clinton Machine the CGI — she will sell her own Mother or the nicest nuclear weapon to you. It’s a nice BIG racket if you can have it. But I must admit, you have a good business going on right there lady.

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 4.20.21 AM

But I have a question for you now;
“Don’t you think You should hang a red light above the door to help people find the entrance to the den of inequity for a “Happy End” good time — easier?”

And so it all ends.

So it ends at least as progressives looking at the issues tend to despair. ANd it’s understandable to despair with this Evil choice of the God-Awful candidate — I must remind them that there still is one champion left in the race. Jill Stein has a nearly identical record on the issues as Bernie, albeit not the legislative history. She will fight for us and not corporate owners. When asked why she was staying in the race even though Bernie was carrying nearly her entire platform, she told the media, because the party will never let him win. They will cheat him out of the nomination and when that happens he can join me or I will be there to continue the fight.

Sure the conservatives who reject Trump have an option as well in Gary Johnson, but lets not confuse the two, because Jill carries Bernies’ entire agenda, Gary Johnson has a few areas of overlap with legalizing marijuana and keeping the nation out of wars of choice and military interventionalism, but on nearly every other issue (economy, environment, regulation, safety nets for the poor, sick, elderly or unemployed, government involvement in healthcare and education Johnson has fought on the wrong side.

Screen Shot 2016-07-28 at 10.22.38 AM

If the revolution is to continue we need to continue to reject business as usual and crony capitalism. We need to expand our choices and lead the growth of the 3rd parties. Start with getting both into the debates and then see if we can strike Gold twice in one election. We grew Bernie from 3% in the polls and nobody understanding the issues or challenging the establishment to the most popular politician in Washington. Bernie has broken down those barriers, we just need to continue growing and continue rejecting the corrupt two party system. It helps that the two parties gave us the two most unlikeable, untrustworthy candidate in our nations history.

And that is something we have to fight against and root for a THird party candidate.

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

But we still have a lot more work to do and many miles to go before we sleep…

We have to engage many more young voters and educate them about the Lincoln Party.

We have to register more first time voters under our banner.

We have to not be afraid to tell people that we are still fighting for real change.

And we have to tell them that we are going to overwhelm the establishment at the polls — regardless of fear, regardless of any uncertainty, and regardless of doubt.

Let’s fight on against the Fear and the relentless Doubt that has been sown amongst us by the fear mongering machine… of the fascist DNC.

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 4.48.47 AM

PPS:

As for the children — here is the takeaway message from this debacle of Democracy:

Dear Hillary and followers –

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You just set the worst historic moment in American history.

You just taught every little girl across America that it’s okay to cheat, lie under oath, and bully others in order to be successful in life.

You taught them that it’s okay to tell a young child to shut their mouth when they’re protesting about what matters to them that you obviously ignored.

You taught them it’s okay to use your gender as a means of landing a high profile career. You taught them it’s okay to take away freedom of speech and expression. You taught them it’s okay to change your position on a policy to get a vote. You taught them that if you have money and influence, it’s okay to use it to bully others…

Mrs. Clinton, you’re a disgrace to America and American Women.

You and your followers DESERVE a Trump presidency. I will do whatever it takes to make sure that doesn’t happen but not by voting for you. You lack too much of that stuff called integrity…

 

 

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | July 30, 2016

Lincoln Party is the Third Party…

To the Bernie Sanders Crowd falling in lockstep behind the fascist DWS: To DWS head of the DNC who manufactured the Clinton victory: To the Democratic National Committee: To the Democratic party: T…

Source: Lincoln Party is the Third Party…

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | July 27, 2016

Why Politics Matter.

An alarm has been sounded…

It comes from the most unlikely of quarters.

It comes from the National Aeronautics & Space Administration.

It comes from some of the best scientists of America — the venerable and thoughtful observers of all celestial things, the science heavies of NASA.

This new NASA study reveals that dozens of ancient advanced civilizations much like ours, once existed on Earth, but they all came to an abrupt end…

This study done by NASA, suggests that humanity as we know it could come to an abrupt end in the next few decades, based on the unsustainable living patterns observed with these previous civilisations that came to a sudden or not so sudden collapse and disappearance into the sands of history. These once mighty civilizations came to an abrupt and definite halt and slid surely into oblivion eventual forgetfulness, and in many instances even erasure from the pages of history like the mighty Greeks, the Persians, or the Han, the Khmer, and the Mauryan civilizations and their mighty achievements in science and progress.

And then the world slid back to the Stone Age or simply faltered and were succeeded by the Dark Ages, foisted upon the people by daft religions and stupid ideologies – that killed every logical advancement and scientific progress.

And if we look back in history, 3000 – 5000 years, we will find a historical record that clearly shows us how advanced and complex civilizations were just as susceptible to collapse as we are today. This ongoing pattern has led researchers to question the future existence of society and civilization as we know.

If we were to look back further back in time, over 10,000 years, we would encounter evidence of tens of not hundreds of advanced civilizations that possibly predate the Pre-Inca, the Incas, the Olmecs, and the Ancient Egyptian civilization, not to mention other advanced ancient civilizations in ancient Mesopotamia, in India and Asia or Meso-America, by thousands of years.

In studying all their remnants and the time line of their birth to collapse — it becomes rather difficult to overlook the repeating patterns as identified by the scholars in most of these civilizations and this NASA funded study that bears clear evidence of the path and the trajectory that all ancient civilizations on Earth have taken from inception to death for many thousands of years — since the beginning of Man’s journey on our planet.

Today this evidence is considered by many people as a sure sign that clearly shows that even these really ancient civilizations have been reset a number of times, before their eventual collapse and destruction.

These factors have kept on repeating themselves many times, and have been the culprit for the disappearance of all the great ancient civilizations before us. In the NASA study report, the “Applied Mathematician” Safa Motesharri and his “Human and Nature Dynamical” model claims that “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle seen as repeating over and over again throughout history.”

“The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally, if not more advanced, Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, American, and Asiatic ones — are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent.”

The NASA study came to the conclusion that there are two key social features that contributed to the collapse of every single advanced civilization from the past: “the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity”; and “the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or “Commoners”) [poor]” These social phenomena have played “a central role in the character or in the process of the collapse,” in all such cases over “the last five to fifteen thousand years.”

Even though our civilizations is at a very advanced technological stage, this does not necessarily mean that we are saved from imminent chaos. In the study we find that “Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use.”

One of the best examples of advanced ancient civilizations disappearing can be found in Mesoamerica: Thus if we take a look at the ancient Maya people, who were an extremely advanced ancient civilization, we find that several factors played a crucial role for this once great empire to crumble eventually. While most researchers would agree that Deforestation, Famine and Drought where some of the key components in the failure of the ancient Maya, we find a similar pattern in other civilizations, not only in the Americas, but all around the globe.

It is here that the applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei and his colleagues on the NASA study “Human and Nature Dynamical” they run the models that conclusively show, that under conditions “closely reflecting the reality of the world today… we find that collapse is difficult to avoid” if not inevitable and unavoidable.

Those are the facts folks. Now we can live with them and die with them, or we can choose to alter our situation…

And the study has scenarios…

Three top scenarios tell the most dramatic story:

  1. In the first of these scenarios: “Civilization, appears to be on a sustainable path for quite a long time, but even using an optimal depletion rate and starting with a very small number of Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important to note that this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine that causes a loss of workers, rather than a collapse of Nature.”

Lots of other scary shit scenarios follow but the takeaway is that our Politics of today matter greatly… for the eventual outcome.

Perhaps far more than what we thought they would.

This “threat of collapse” comes from unwarranted places but nonetheless it is as real as History.

So let’s take a trip forward from today to the end of year 2016, when by estimation and current trend projections — 352 murders would have been committed in New York City in total, and the New President of the United States is a New Yorker named Donald Trump.

This is good news and bad news. Surely The Donald is a boon for New York, but the murder rate is also a bit higher than the number of violent deaths in 2015, or 2014, or 2013 — but still far below the 2,245 murders that took place in 1990, that was the city’s worst year yet. In fact, as measured by the murder rate, New York is now basically as safe as it has ever been, going all the way back to the 19th century.

Now Donald will not square his talk with these statistics and yet the national crime statistics, and numbers for all violent crimes, paint a slightly less cheerful picture. And it’s not just a matter of numbers; our big cities look and feel far safer than they did a generation ago, because they are. People of a certain age always have the sense that America isn’t the country they remember from their youth, and in this case they’re right — it has gotten much better.

How, then, was it even possible for Donald Trump to give a speech accepting the Republican nomination whose central premise was that crime is running rampant, and that “Trump alone” can bring the chaos under control?

Of course, nobody should be surprised to see Mr. Trump confidently asserting things that are flatly untrue, since he does that all the time — and never corrects his falsehoods. Indeed, the big speech repeated some of those golden oldies, like the claim that America is the world’s most highly taxed country — when we are actually near the bottom among advanced economies.

But until now the false claims have been about things ordinary voters can’t check against their own experience. Most people don’t have any sense of how their taxes compare with those paid by Europeans or Canadians, let alone how many jobs have been displaced by Chinese competition.

Yet 58 million tourists visited New York last year, and most of those weren’t fleeced by bandits. And still tens of millions more tourists — many of them Chinese, visited other major cities safely. Of course we all know that because many of us live in or near those big cities, and see them every day. And most all of us can now feel safe visiting Times Square in New york City and come back unmolested and happy after spending our money buying chinese made chotchkes and taking selfies with the topless girls prostituting themselves openly.

Still if you go uptown far enough you’ll find plenty of crime and in the contiguous ghettos but for a while there are mostly safe districts in New york where hardly any existed a few decades ago. And as there always were, bad neighborhoods and occasional violent incidents, it’s hard to see how anyone who walks around Times Square taking photos with an expensive I-phone and looking at the boobs on display with open eyes, could believe today in the blood-soaked dystopian vision malarkey that The Donald had laid out, to propel himself to the White House.

Yet at this point in history — there’s no question that most voters — including, a majority of white men and women, indeed buy into that dystopian vision.

Why?

One answer according to Gallup, is that Americans always seem to believe that crime is increasing, even when it is in fact dropping rapidly.

Part of this may be the wording of the question: People may have a vague, headline-fueled sense that crime is up this year even while being aware that it’s much lower than it used to be.

There may also be some version of the “bad things are happening somewhere else” syndrome we see in consumer surveys, where people are far more positive about their personal situation than they are about the economy as a whole.

Again, however, it’s one thing to have a shaky grasp on crime statistics, but something quite different to accept a nightmare vision of America that conflicts so drastically with everyday experience. So what’s going on?

Well, I do have a hypothesis, namely, that Trump supporters really do feel, with some reason, that the social order they knew is coming apart. It’s not just race, where the country has become both more diverse and less racist (even if it still has a long way to go). It’s also about gender roles — when Mr. Trump talks about making America great again, you can be sure that many of his supporters are imagining a return to the partly imagined days of male breadwinners and stay-at-home wives.

Not incidentally, Mike Pence, Mr. Trump’s running mate, used to fulminate about the damage done by working mothers, not to mention penning an outraged attack on Disney in 1999 for featuring a martially-minded heroine in its movie Mulan.

But what are the consequences of these changes in the social order? Back when crime was rising, conservatives insistently drew a connection to social change — that was what the whole early ’90s fuss over “family values” was about. Loose the bonds of traditional society, and chaos would follow.

Then a funny thing happened: Crime plunged instead of continuing to rise. Other indicators also improved dramatically — for example, the teen birthrate has fallen 60 percent since 1991. Instead of societal collapse, we’ve seen what amounts to a mass outbreak of societal health. The truth is that we don’t know exactly why. Hypotheses range from the changing age distribution of the population to reduced lead poisoning; but in any case, the predicted apocalypse notably failed to arrive.

The point, however, is that in the minds of those disturbed by social change, chaos in the streets was supposed to follow, and they are all too willing to believe that it did, in the teeth of the evidence.

The question now is how many such people, people determined to live in a nightmare of their own imagining, there really are. I guess we’ll find out in November.Imagine that it’s the year 2020 — just four short years from now.

To answer that question — let’s take a look a few years ahead on a field trip to the Future:

Say it’s the year 2020 and the campaign is under way to succeed President Trump, who is retiring early, after a single wretched term…

Trump did what he could, but that dog couldn’t hunt…

And as a President he was ineffective as hell, mainly because He couldn’t muster a coalition to work things out…

Thus things have been going from bad to worse for the duration of his term in the oval office.

Voters are angrier than ever — at politicians, at compromisers, at the establishment. Congress and the White House seem incapable of working together on anything, even when their interests align.

With lawmaking at a standstill, the president’s use of executive orders and regulatory discretion has reached a level that Congress views as dictatorial — not that Congress can do anything about it, except file lawsuits that the divided Supreme Court, its three vacancies unfilled, has been unable to resolve.

On Capitol Hill, Speaker Paul Ryan resigned after proving unable to pass a budget, or do much of anything else. The guy just gave up and gaveled himself out of circulation and went to live permanently in the gym. House burned through two more speakers and one “acting” speaker, a job invented following four speakerless months. The Senate, meanwhile, is tied in knots by wannabe presidents and aspiring talk-show hosts, who use the chamber as a social-media platform to build their brands by obstructing—well, everything. The Defense Department is among hundreds of agencies that have not been reauthorized, the government has shut down three times, and, yes, it finally happened: The United States briefly defaulted on the national debt, precipitating a market collapse and an economic downturn. No one wanted that outcome, but no one was able to prevent it.

As the presidential primaries unfold, Kanye West is leading a fractured field of Democrats. The Republican front-runner is Phil Robertson, of Duck Dynasty fame. Elected governor of Louisiana only a few months ago, he is promising to defy the Washington establishment by never trimming his beard. Party elders have given up all pretense of being more than spectators, and most of the candidates have given up all pretense of party loyalty. On the debate stages, and everywhere else, anything goes.

I could continue, but you get the gist. Yes, the political future I’ve described is unreal. But it is also a linear extrapolation of several trends on vivid display right now. Astonishingly, the 2016 Republican presidential race has been dominated by a candidate who is not, in any meaningful sense, a Republican. According to registration records, since 1987 Donald Trump has been a Republican, then an independent, then a Democrat, then a Republican, then “I do not wish to enroll in a party,” then a Republican; he has donated to both parties; he has shown loyalty to and affinity for neither. The second-place candidate, Republican Senator Ted Cruz, built his brand by tearing down his party’s: slurring the Senate Republican leader, railing against the Republican establishment, and closing the government as a career move.

Former presidential hopeful Jeb Bush called Donald Trump “a chaos candidate.” Unfortunately for Bush, Trump’s supporters didn’t mind. They liked that about him…

The Republicans’ noisy breakdown has been echoed eerily, albeit less loudly, on the Democratic side, where, after the early primaries, one of the two remaining contestants for the nomination was not, in any meaningful sense, a Democrat. Senator Bernie Sanders was an independent who switched to nominal Democratic affiliation on the day he filed for the New Hampshire primary, only three months before that election. He surged into second place by winning independents while losing Democrats. If it had been up to Democrats to choose their party’s nominee, Sanders’s bid would have collapsed after Super Tuesday. In their various ways, Trump, Cruz, and Sanders are demonstrating a new principle: The political parties no longer have either intelligible boundaries or enforceable norms, and, as a result, renegade political behavior pays.

Political disintegration plagues Congress, too. House Republicans barely managed to elect a speaker last year. Congress did agree in the fall on a budget framework intended to keep the government open through the election—a signal accomplishment, by today’s low standards—but by April, hard-line conservatives had revoked the deal, thereby humiliating the new speaker and potentially causing another shutdown crisis this fall. As of this writing, it’s not clear whether the hard-liners will push to the brink, but the bigger point is this: If they do, there is not much that party leaders can do about it.

And here is the still bigger point: The very term party leaders has become an anachronism. Although Capitol Hill and the campaign trail are miles apart, the breakdown in order in both places reflects the underlying reality that there no longer is any such thing as a party leader. There are only individual actors, pursuing their own political interests and ideological missions willy-nilly, like excited gas molecules in an overheated balloon.

No wonder Paul Ryan, taking the gavel as the new (and reluctant) House speaker in October, complained that the American people “look at Washington, and all they see is chaos. What a relief to them it would be if we finally got our act together.” No one seemed inclined to disagree. Nor was there much argument two months later when Jeb Bush, his presidential campaign sinking, used the c-word in a different but equally apt context. Donald Trump, he said, is “a chaos candidate, and he’d be a chaos president.” Unfortunately for Bush, Trump’s supporters didn’t mind. They liked that about him.

In their different ways, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have demonstrated that the major political parties no longer have intelligible boundaries or enforceable norms.

Trump, however, didn’t cause the chaos. The chaos caused Trump. What we are seeing is not a temporary spasm of chaos but a chaos syndrome.

Chaos syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system’s capacity for self-organization. It begins with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries’ influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself.

Our intricate, informal system of political intermediation, which took many decades to build, did not commit suicide or die of old age; we reformed it to death. For decades, well-meaning political reformers have attacked intermediaries as corrupt, undemocratic, unnecessary, or (usually) all of the above. Americans have been busy demonizing and disempowering political professionals and parties, which is like spending decades abusing and attacking your own immune system. Eventually, you will get sick.

The disorder has other causes, too: developments such as ideological polarization, the rise of social media, and the radicalization of the Republican base. But chaos syndrome compounds the effects of those developments, by impeding the task of organizing to counteract them. Insurgencies in presidential races and on Capitol Hill are nothing new, and they are not necessarily bad, as long as the governing process can accommodate them. Years before the Senate had to cope with Ted Cruz, it had to cope with Jesse Helms. The difference is that Cruz shut down the government, which Helms could not have done had he even imagined trying.

Like many disorders, chaos syndrome is self-reinforcing. It causes governmental dysfunction, which fuels public anger, which incites political disruption, which causes yet more governmental dysfunction. Reversing the spiral will require understanding it. Consider, then, the etiology of a political disease: the immune system that defended the body politic for two centuries; the gradual dismantling of that immune system; the emergence of pathogens capable of exploiting the new vulnerability; the symptoms of the disorder; and, finally, its prognosis and treatment.

Immunotherapy system or perhaps we can ask: “Why the political class might be a good thing?”

The Founders knew all too well about chaos. It was the condition that brought them together in 1787 under the Articles of Confederation. The central government had too few powers and powers of the wrong kinds, so they gave it more powers, and also multiple power centers. The core idea of the Constitution was to restrain ambition and excess by forcing competing powers and factions to bargain and compromise.

The Framers worried about demagogic excess and populist caprice, so they created buffers and gatekeepers between voters and the government. Only one chamber, the House of Representatives, would be directly elected. A radical who wanted to get into the Senate would need to get past the state legislature, which selected senators; a usurper who wanted to seize the presidency would need to get past the Electoral College, a convocation of elders who chose the president; and so on.

They were visionaries, those men in Philadelphia, but they could not foresee everything, and they made a serious omission. Unlike the British parliamentary system, the Constitution makes no provision for holding politicians accountable to one another. A rogue member of Congress can’t be “fired” by his party leaders, as a member of Parliament can; a renegade president cannot be evicted in a vote of no confidence, as a British prime minister can. By and large, American politicians are independent operators, and they became even more independent when later reforms, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, neutered the Electoral College and established direct election to the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell proved unable to rein in Ted Cruz. (Tom Williams / CQ Roll Call / Getty)
The Constitution makes no mention of many of the essential political structures that we take for granted, such as political parties and congressional committees. If the Constitution were all we had, politicians would be incapable of getting organized to accomplish even routine tasks. Every day, for every bill or compromise, they would have to start from scratch, rounding up hundreds of individual politicians and answering to thousands of squabbling constituencies and millions of voters. By itself, the Constitution is a recipe for chaos.

So Americans developed a second, unwritten constitution. Beginning in the 1790s, politicians sorted themselves into parties. In the 1830s, under Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, the parties established patronage machines and grass-roots bases. The machines and parties used rewards and the occasional punishment to encourage politicians to work together. Meanwhile, Congress developed its seniority and committee systems, rewarding reliability and establishing cooperative routines. Parties, leaders, machines, and congressional hierarchies built densely woven incentive structures that bound politicians into coherent teams. Personal alliances, financial contributions, promotions and prestige, political perks, pork-barrel spending, endorsements, and sometimes a trip to the woodshed or the wilderness: All of those incentives and others, including some of dubious respectability, came into play. If the Constitution was the system’s DNA, the parties and machines and political brokers were its RNA, translating the Founders’ bare-bones framework into dynamic organizations and thus converting conflict into action.

The informal constitution’s intermediaries have many names and faces: state and national party committees, county party chairs, congressional subcommittees, leadership pacs, convention delegates, bundlers, and countless more. For purposes of this essay, I’ll call them all middlemen, because all of them mediated between disorganized swarms of politicians and disorganized swarms of voters, thereby performing the indispensable task that the great political scientist James Q. Wilson called “assembling power in the formal government.”

The middlemen could be undemocratic, high-handed, devious, secretive. But they had one great virtue: They brought order from chaos. They encouraged coordination, interdependency, and mutual accountability. They discouraged solipsistic and antisocial political behavior. A loyal, time-serving member of Congress could expect easy renomination, financial help, promotion through the ranks of committees and leadership jobs, and a new airport or research center for his district. A turncoat or troublemaker, by contrast, could expect to encounter ostracism, marginalization, and difficulties with fund-raising. The system was hierarchical, but it was not authoritarian. Even the lowliest precinct walker or officeholder had a role and a voice and could expect a reward for loyalty; even the highest party boss had to cater to multiple constituencies and fend off periodic challengers.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has already faced a rebellion. The reality is that there no longer is any such thing as a “party leader.” (Cliff Owen / AP)
Parties, machines, and hacks may not have been pretty, but at their best they did their job so well that the country forgot why it needed them. Politics seemed almost to organize itself, but only because the middlemen recruited and nurtured political talent, vetted candidates for competence and loyalty, gathered and dispensed money, built bases of donors and supporters, forged coalitions, bought off antagonists, mediated disputes, brokered compromises, and greased the skids to turn those compromises into law. Though sometimes arrogant, middlemen were not generally elitist. They excelled at organizing and representing unsophisticated voters, as Tammany Hall famously did for the working-class Irish of New York, to the horror of many Progressives who viewed the Irish working class as unfit to govern or even to vote.

The old machines were inclusive only by the standards of their day, of course. They were bad on race—but then, so were Progressives such as Woodrow Wilson. The more intrinsic hazard with middlemen and machines is the ever-present potential for corruption, which is a real problem. On the other hand, overreacting to the threat of corruption by stamping out influence-peddling (as distinct from bribery and extortion) is just as harmful. Political contributions, for example, look unseemly, but they play a vital role as political bonding agents. When a party raised a soft-money donation from a millionaire and used it to support a candidate’s campaign (a common practice until the 2002 McCain-Feingold law banned it in federal elections), the exchange of favors tied a knot of mutual accountability that linked candidate, party, and donor together and forced each to think about the interests of the others. Such transactions may not have comported with the Platonic ideal of democracy, but in the real world they did much to stabilize the system and discourage selfish behavior.

Middlemen have a characteristic that is essential in politics: They stick around. Because careerists and hacks make their living off the system, they have a stake in assembling durable coalitions, in retaining power over time, and in keeping the government in functioning order. Slash-and-burn protests and quixotic ideological crusades are luxuries they can’t afford. Insurgents and renegades have a role, which is to jolt the system with new energy and ideas; but professionals also have a role, which is to safely absorb the energy that insurgents unleash. Think of them as analogous to antibodies and white blood cells, establishing and patrolling the barriers between the body politic and would-be hijackers on the outside. As with biology, so with politics: When the immune system works, it is largely invisible. Only when it breaks down do we become aware of its importance.

Vulnerability to disease or “How the war against political middlemen left America’s body politic, defenseless?”

Beginning early in the 20th century, and continuing right up to the present, reformers and the public turned against every aspect of insider politics: professional politicians, closed-door negotiations, personal favors, party bosses, financial ties, all of it. Progressives accused middlemen of subverting the public interest; populists accused them of obstructing the people’s will; conservatives accused them of protecting and expanding big government.

To some extent, the reformers were right. They had good intentions and valid complaints. Back in the 1970s, as a teenager in the post-Watergate era, I was on their side. Why allow politicians ever to meet behind closed doors? Sunshine is the best disinfectant! Why allow private money to buy favors and distort policy making? Ban it and use Treasury funds to finance elections! It was easy, in those days, to see that there was dirty water in the tub. What was not so evident was the reason the water was dirty, which was the baby. So we started reforming.

We reformed the nominating process. The use of primary elections instead of conventions, caucuses, and other insider-dominated processes dates to the era of Theodore Roosevelt, but primary elections and party influence coexisted through the 1960s; especially in congressional and state races, party leaders had many ways to influence nominations and vet candidates. According to Jon Meacham, in his biography of George H. W. Bush, here is how Bush’s father, Prescott Bush, got started in politics: “Samuel F. Pryor, a top Pan Am executive and a mover in Connecticut politics, called Prescott to ask whether Bush might like to run for Congress. ‘If you would,’ Pryor said, ‘I think we can assure you that you’ll be the nominee.’ ” Today, party insiders can still jawbone a little bit, but, as the 2016 presidential race has made all too clear, there is startlingly little they can do to influence the nominating process.

Primary races now tend to be dominated by highly motivated extremists and interest groups, with the perverse result of leaving moderates and broader, less well-organized constituencies underrepresented. According to the Pew Research Center, in the first 12 presidential-primary contests of 2016, only 17 percent of eligible voters participated in Republican primaries, and only 12 percent in Democratic primaries. In other words, Donald Trump seized the lead in the primary process by winning a mere plurality of a mere fraction of the electorate. In off-year congressional primaries, when turnout is even lower, it’s even easier for the tail to wag the dog. In the 2010 Delaware Senate race, Christine “I am not a witch” O’Donnell secured the Republican nomination by winning just a sixth of the state’s registered Republicans, thereby handing a competitive seat to the Democrats. Surveying congressional primaries for a 2014 Brookings Institution report, the journalists Jill Lawrence and Walter Shapiro observed: “The universe of those who actually cast primary ballots is small and hyper-partisan, and rewards candidates who hew to ideological orthodoxy.” By contrast, party hacks tend to shop for candidates who exert broad appeal in a general election and who will sustain and build the party’s brand, so they generally lean toward relative moderates and team players.

Parties, machines, and hacks may not have been pretty, but they did their job—so well that the country forgot why it needed them.
Moreover, recent research by the political scientists Jamie L. Carson and Jason M. Roberts finds that party leaders of yore did a better job of encouraging qualified mainstream candidates to challenge incumbents. “In congressional districts across the country, party leaders were able to carefully select candidates who would contribute to the collective good of the ticket,” Carson and Roberts write in their 2013 book, Ambition, Competition, and Electoral Reform: The Politics of Congressional Elections Across Time. “This led to a plentiful supply of quality candidates willing to enter races, since the potential costs of running and losing were largely underwritten by the party organization.” The switch to direct primaries, in which contenders generally self-recruit and succeed or fail on their own account, has produced more oddball and extreme challengers and thereby made general elections less competitive. “A series of reforms that were intended to create more open and less ‘insider’ dominated elections actually produced more entrenched politicians,” Carson and Roberts write. The paradoxical result is that members of Congress today are simultaneously less responsive to mainstream interests and harder to dislodge.

Was the switch to direct public nomination a net benefit or drawback? The answer to that question is subjective. But one effect is not in doubt: Institutionalists have less power than ever before to protect loyalists who play well with other politicians, or who take a tough congressional vote for the team, or who dare to cross single-issue voters and interests; and they have little capacity to fend off insurgents who owe nothing to anybody. Walled safely inside their gerrymandered districts, incumbents are insulated from general-election challenges that might pull them toward the political center, but they are perpetually vulnerable to primary challenges from extremists who pull them toward the fringes. Everyone worries about being the next Eric Cantor, the Republican House majority leader who, in a shocking upset, lost to an unknown Tea Partier in his 2014 primary. Legislators are scared of voting for anything that might increase the odds of a primary challenge, which is one reason it is so hard to raise the debt limit or pass a budget.

In March, when Republican Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas told a Rotary Club meeting that he thought President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee deserved a Senate hearing, the Tea Party Patriots immediately responded with what has become activists’ go-to threat: “It’s this kind of outrageous behavior that leads Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund activists and supporters to think seriously about encouraging Dr. Milton Wolf”—a physician and Tea Party activist—“to run against Sen. Moran in the August GOP primary.” (Moran hastened to issue a statement saying that he would oppose Obama’s nominee regardless.) Purist issue groups often have the whip hand now, and unlike the elected bosses of yore, they are accountable only to themselves and are able merely to prevent legislative action, not to organize it.

We reformed political money. Starting in the 1970s, large-dollar donations to candidates and parties were subject to a tightening web of regulations. The idea was to reduce corruption (or its appearance) and curtail the power of special interests—certainly laudable goals. Campaign-finance rules did stop some egregious transactions, but at a cost: Instead of eliminating money from politics (which is impossible), the rules diverted much of it to private channels. Whereas the parties themselves were once largely responsible for raising and spending political money, in their place has arisen a burgeoning ecology of deep-pocketed donors, super pacs, 501(c)(4)s, and so-called 527 groups that now spend hundreds of millions of dollars each cycle. The result has been the creation of an array of private political machines across the country: for instance, the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads on the right, and Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate on the left.

Private groups are much harder to regulate, less transparent, and less accountable than are the parties and candidates, who do, at the end of the day, have to face the voters. Because they thrive on purism, protest, and parochialism, the outside groups are driving politics toward polarization, extremism, and short-term gain. “You may win or lose, but at least you have been intellectually consistent—your principles haven’t been defeated,” an official with Americans for Prosperity told The Economist in October 2014. The parties, despite being called to judgment by voters for their performance, face all kinds of constraints and regulations that the private groups don’t, tilting the playing field against them. “The internal conversation we’ve been having is ‘How do we keep state parties alive?’ ” the director of a mountain-state Democratic Party organization told me and Raymond J. La Raja recently for a Brookings Institution report. Republicans told us the same story. “We believe we are fighting for our lives in the current legal and judicial framework, and the super pacs and (c)(4)s really present a direct threat to the state parties’ existence,” a southern state’s Republican Party director said.

The state parties also told us they can’t begin to match the advertising money flowing from outside groups and candidates. Weakened by regulations and resource constraints, they have been reduced to spectators, while candidates and groups form circular firing squads and alienate voters. At the national level, the situation is even more chaotic—and ripe for exploitation by a savvy demagogue who can make himself heard above the din, as Donald Trump has so shrewdly proved.

We reformed Congress. For a long time, seniority ruled on Capitol Hill. To exercise power, you had to wait for years, and chairs ran their committees like fiefs. It was an arrangement that hardly seemed either meritocratic or democratic. Starting with a rebellion by the liberal post-Watergate class in the ’70s, and then accelerating with the rise of Newt Gingrich and his conservative revolutionaries in the ’90s, the seniority and committee systems came under attack and withered. Power on the Hill has flowed both up to a few top leaders and down to individual members. Unfortunately, the reformers overlooked something important: Seniority and committee spots rewarded teamwork and loyalty, they ensured that people at the top were experienced, and they harnessed hundreds of middle-ranking members of Congress to the tasks of legislating. Compounding the problem, Gingrich’s Republican revolutionaries, eager to prove their anti-Washington bona fides, cut committee staffs by a third, further diminishing Congress’s institutional horsepower.

Smoke-filled rooms were good for brokering complex compromises in which nothing was settled until everything was settled.
Congress’s attempts to replace hierarchies and middlemen with top-down diktat and ad hoc working groups have mostly failed. More than perhaps ever before, Congress today is a collection of individual entrepreneurs and pressure groups. In the House, disintermediation has shifted the balance of power toward a small but cohesive minority of conservative Freedom Caucus members who think nothing of wielding their power against their own leaders. Last year, as House Republicans struggled to agree on a new speaker, the conservatives did not blush at demanding “the right to oppose their leaders and vote down legislation without repercussions,” as Time magazine reported. In the Senate, Ted Cruz made himself a leading presidential contender by engaging in debt-limit brinkmanship and deriding the party’s leadership, going so far as to call Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a liar on the Senate floor. “The rhetoric—and confrontational stance—are classic Cruz,” wrote Burgess Everett in Politico last October: “Stake out a position to the right of where his leaders will end up, criticize them for ignoring him and conservative grass-roots voters, then use the ensuing internecine fight to stoke his presidential bid.” No wonder his colleagues detest him. But Cruz was doing what makes sense in an age of maximal political individualism, and we can safely bet that his success will inspire imitation.

We reformed closed-door negotiations. As recently as the early 1970s, congressional committees could easily retreat behind closed doors and members could vote on many bills anonymously, with only the final tallies reported. Federal advisory committees, too, could meet off the record. Understandably, in the wake of Watergate, those practices came to be viewed as suspect. Today, federal law, congressional rules, and public expectations have placed almost all formal deliberations and many informal ones in full public view. One result is greater transparency, which is good. But another result is that finding space for delicate negotiations and candid deliberations can be difficult. Smoke-filled rooms, whatever their disadvantages, were good for brokering complex compromises in which nothing was settled until everything was settled; once gone, they turned out to be difficult to replace. In public, interest groups and grandstanding politicians can tear apart a compromise before it is halfway settled.

Despite promising to televise negotiations over health-care reform, President Obama went behind closed doors with interest groups to put the package together; no sane person would have negotiated in full public view. In 2013, Congress succeeded in approving a modest bipartisan budget deal in large measure because the House and Senate Budget Committee chairs were empowered to “figure it out themselves, very, very privately,” as one Democratic aide told Jill Lawrence for a 2015 Brookings report. TV cameras, recorded votes, and public markups do increase transparency, but they come at the cost of complicating candid conversations. “The idea that Washington would work better if there were TV cameras monitoring every conversation gets it exactly wrong,” the Democratic former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle wrote in 2014, in his foreword to the book City of Rivals. “The lack of opportunities for honest dialogue and creative give-and-take lies at the root of today’s dysfunction.”

We reformed pork. For most of American history, a principal goal of any member of Congress was to bring home bacon for his district. Pork-barrel spending never really cost very much, and it helped glue Congress together by giving members a kind of currency to trade: You support my pork, and I’ll support yours. Also, because pork was dispensed by powerful appropriations committees with input from senior congressional leaders, it provided a handy way for the leadership to buy votes and reward loyalists. Starting in the ’70s, however, and then snowballing in the ’90s, the regular appropriations process broke down, a casualty of reforms that weakened appropriators’ power, of “sunshine laws” that reduced their autonomy, and of polarization that complicated negotiations. Conservatives and liberals alike attacked pork-barreling as corrupt, culminating in early 2011, when a strange-bedfellows coalition of Tea Partiers and progressives banned earmarking, the practice of dropping goodies into bills as a way to attract votes—including, ironically, votes for politically painful spending reductions.

Congress has not passed all its annual appropriations bills in 20 years, and more than $300 billion a year in federal spending goes out the door without proper authorization. Routine business such as passing a farm bill or a surface-transportation bill now takes years instead of weeks or months to complete. Today two-thirds of federal-program spending (excluding interest on the national debt) runs on formula-driven autopilot. This automatic spending by so-called entitlement programs eludes the discipline of being regularly voted on, dwarfs old-fashioned pork in magnitude, and is so hard to restrain that it’s often called the “third rail” of politics. The political cost has also been high: Congressional leaders lost one of their last remaining tools to induce followership and team play. “Trying to be a leader where you have no sticks and very few carrots is dang near impossible,” the Republican former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott told CNN in 2013, shortly after renegade Republicans pointlessly shut down the government. “Members don’t get anything from you and leaders don’t give anything. They don’t feel like you can reward them or punish them.”

Donald Trump had no political debts or party loyalty. And he had no compunctions—which made him the perfect vector for anti-establishment sentiment. Like campaign contributions and smoke-filled rooms, pork is a tool of democratic governance, not a violation of it. It can be used for corrupt purposes but also, very often, for vital ones. As the political scientist Diana Evans wrote in a 2004 book, Greasing the Wheels: Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress, “The irony is this: pork barreling, despite its much maligned status, gets things done.” In 1964, to cite one famous example, Lyndon Johnson could not have passed his landmark civil-rights bill without support from House Republican leader Charles Halleck of Indiana, who named his price: a nasa research grant for his district, which LBJ was glad to provide. Just last year, Republican Senator John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was asked how his committee managed to pass bipartisan authorization bills year after year, even as the rest of Congress ground to a legislative standstill. In part, McCain explained, it was because “there’s a lot in there for members of the committees.”

Party-dominated nominating processes, soft money, congressional seniority, closed-door negotiations, pork-barrel spending—put each practice under a microscope in isolation, and it seems an unsavory way of doing political business. But sweep them all away, and one finds that business is not getting done at all. The political reforms of the past 40 or so years have pushed toward disintermediation—by favoring amateurs and outsiders over professionals and insiders; by privileging populism and self-expression over mediation and mutual restraint; by stripping middlemen of tools they need to organize the political system. All of the reforms promote an individualistic, atomized model of politics in which there are candidates and there are voters, but there is nothing in between. Other, larger trends, to be sure, have also contributed to political disorganization, but the war on middlemen has amplified and accelerated them.

Illness pathogens thrive in our bodies when our immune system is compromised: “This is how Donald Trump and other viruses got through…”

By the beginning of this decade, the political system’s organic defenses against outsiders and insurgents were visibly crumbling. All that was needed was for the right virus to come along and exploit the opening. As it happened, two came along.

In 2009, on the heels of President Obama’s election and the economic-bailout packages, angry fiscal conservatives launched the Tea Party insurgency and watched, somewhat to their own astonishment, as it swept the country. Tea Partiers shared some of the policy predilections of loyal Republican partisans, but their mind-set was angrily anti-establishment. In a 2013 Pew Research poll, more than 70 percent of them disapproved of Republican leaders in Congress. In a 2010 Pew poll, they had rejected compromise by similar margins. They thought nothing of mounting primary challenges against Republican incumbents, and they made a special point of targeting Republicans who compromised with Democrats or even with Republican leaders. In Congress, the Republican House leadership soon found itself facing a GOP caucus whose members were too worried about “getting primaried” to vote for the compromises necessary to govern—or even to keep the government open. Threats from the Tea Party and other purist factions often outweigh any blandishments or protection that leaders can offer.

So far the Democrats have been mostly spared the anti-compromise insurrection, but their defenses are not much stronger. Molly Ball recently reported for The Atlantic’s Web site on the Working Families Party, whose purpose is “to make Democratic politicians more accountable to their liberal base through the asymmetric warfare party primaries enable, much as the conservative movement has done to Republicans.” Because African Americans and union members still mostly behave like party loyalists, and because the Democratic base does not want to see President Obama fail, the Tea Party trick hasn’t yet worked on the left. But the Democrats are vulnerable structurally, and the anti-compromise virus is out there.

A second virus was initially identified in 2002, by the University of Nebraska at Lincoln political scientists John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, in their book Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. It’s a shocking book, one whose implications other scholars were understandably reluctant to engage with. The rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, however, makes confronting its thesis unavoidable.

Using polls and focus groups, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse found that between 25 and 40 percent of Americans (depending on how one measures) have a severely distorted view of how government and politics are supposed to work. I think of these people as “politiphobes,” because they see the contentious give-and-take of politics as unnecessary and distasteful. Specifically, they believe that obvious, commonsense solutions to the country’s problems are out there for the plucking. The reason these obvious solutions are not enacted is that politicians are corrupt, or self-interested, or addicted to unnecessary partisan feuding. Not surprisingly, politiphobes think the obvious, commonsense solutions are the sorts of solutions that they themselves prefer. But the more important point is that they do not acknowledge that meaningful policy disagreement even exists. From that premise, they conclude that all the arguing and partisanship and horse-trading that go on in American politics are entirely unnecessary. Politicians could easily solve all our problems if they would only set aside their craven personal agendas.

If politicians won’t do the job, then who will? Politiphobes, according to Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, believe policy should be made not by messy political conflict and negotiations but by ensids: empathetic, non-self-interested decision makers. These are leaders who will step forward, cast aside cowardly politicians and venal special interests, and implement long-overdue solutions. ensids can be politicians, technocrats, or autocrats—whatever works. Whether the process is democratic is not particularly important.

Chances are that politiphobes have been out there since long before Hibbing and Theiss-Morse identified them in 2002. Unlike the Tea Party or the Working Families Party, they aren’t particularly ideological: They have popped up left, right, and center. Ross Perot’s independent presidential candidacies of 1992 and 1996 appealed to the idea that any sensible businessman could knock heads together and fix Washington. In 2008, Barack Obama pandered to a center-left version of the same fantasy, promising to magically transcend partisan politics and implement the best solutions from both parties.

“Pork” can be a vital tool of democratic governance.
No previous outbreak, however, compares with the latest one, which draws unprecedented virulence from two developments. One is a steep rise in antipolitical sentiment, especially on the right. According to polling by Pew, from 2007 to early 2016 the percentage of Americans saying they would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who had been an elected official in Washington for many years than for an outsider candidate more than doubled, from 15 percent to 31 percent. Republican opinion has shifted more sharply still: The percentage of Republicans preferring “new ideas and a different approach” over “experience and a proven record” almost doubled in just the six months from March to September of 2015.

The other development, of course, was Donald Trump, the perfect vector to concentrate politiphobic sentiment, intensify it, and inject it into presidential politics. He had too much money and free media to be spent out of the race. He had no political record to defend. He had no political debts or party loyalty. He had no compunctions. There was nothing to restrain him from sounding every note of the politiphobic fantasy with perfect pitch.

Democrats have not been immune, either. Like Trump, Bernie Sanders appealed to the antipolitical idea that the mere act of voting for him would prompt a “revolution” that would somehow clear up such knotty problems as health-care coverage, financial reform, and money in politics. Like Trump, he was a self-sufficient outsider without customary political debts or party loyalty. Like Trump, he neither acknowledged nor cared—because his supporters neither acknowledged nor cared—that his plans for governing were delusional.

Trump, Sanders, and Ted Cruz have in common that they are political sociopaths—meaning not that they are crazy, but that they don’t care what other politicians think about their behavior and they don’t need to care. That three of the four final presidential contenders in 2016 were political sociopaths is a sign of how far chaos syndrome has gone. The old, mediated system selected such people out. The new, disintermediated system seems to be selecting them in.

Political Chaos is the Disease Symptom. “This is the disorder that exacerbates all the other disorders.”

There is nothing new about political insurgencies in the United States—nor anything inherently wrong with them. Just the opposite, in fact: Insurgencies have brought fresh ideas and renewed participation to the political system since at least the time of Andrew Jackson.

There is also nothing new about insiders losing control of the presidential nominating process. In 1964 and 1972, to the dismay of party regulars, nominations went to unelectable candidates—Barry Goldwater for the Republicans in 1964 and George McGovern for the Democrats in 1972—who thrilled the parties’ activist bases and went on to predictably epic defeats. So it’s tempting to say, “Democracy is messy. Insurgents have fair gripes. Incumbents should be challenged. Who are you, Mr. Establishment, to say the system is broken merely because you don’t like the people it is pushing forward?”

The problem is not, however, that disruptions happen. The problem is that chaos syndrome wreaks havoc on the system’s ability to absorb and channel disruptions. Trying to quash political disruptions would probably only create more of them. The trick is to be able to govern through them.

Leave aside the fact that Goldwater and McGovern, although ideologues, were estimable figures within their parties. (McGovern actually co-chaired a Democratic Party commission that rewrote the nominating rules after 1968, opening the way for his own campaign.) Neither of them, either as senator or candidate, wanted to or did disrupt the ordinary workings of government.

Jason Grumet, the president of the Bipartisan Policy Center and the author of City of Rivals, likes to point out that within three weeks of Bill Clinton’s impeachment by the House of Representatives, the president was signing new laws again. “While they were impeaching him they were negotiating, they were talking, they were having committee hearings,” Grumet said in a recent speech. “And so we have to ask ourselves, what is it that not long ago allowed our government to metabolize the aggression that is inherent in any pluralistic society and still get things done?”

I have been covering Washington since the early 1980s, and I’ve seen a lot of gridlock. Sometimes I’ve been grateful for gridlock, which is an appropriate outcome when there is no working majority for a particular policy. For me, however, 2011 brought a wake-up call. The system was failing even when there was a working majority. That year, President Obama and Republican House Speaker John Boehner, in intense personal negotiations, tried to clinch a budget agreement that touched both parties’ sacred cows, curtailing growth in the major entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security by hundreds of billions of dollars and increasing revenues by $800 billion or more over 10 years, as well as reducing defense and non-defense discretionary spending by more than $1 trillion. Though it was less grand than previous budgetary “grand bargains,” the package represented the kind of bipartisan accommodation that constitutes the federal government’s best and perhaps only path to long-term fiscal stability.

Former House Speaker John Boehner explained to Jay Leno before he resigned: “You learn that a leader without followers is simply a man taking a walk.” (Steve Helber / AP)
People still debate why the package fell apart, and there is blame enough to go around. My own reading at the time, however, concurred with Matt Bai’s postmortem in The New York Times: Democratic leaders could have found the rank-and-file support they needed to pass the bargain, but Boehner could not get the deal past conservatives in his own caucus. “What’s undeniable, despite all the furious efforts to peddle a different story,” Bai wrote, “is that Obama managed to persuade his closest allies to sign off on what he wanted them to do, and Boehner didn’t, or couldn’t.” We’ll never know, but I believe that the kind of budget compromise Boehner and Obama tried to shake hands on, had it reached a vote, would have passed with solid majorities in both chambers and been signed into law. The problem was not polarization; it was disorganization. A latent majority could not muster and assert itself.

As soon became apparent, Boehner’s 2011 debacle was not a glitch but part of an emerging pattern. Two years later, the House’s conservative faction shut down the government with the connivance of Ted Cruz, the very last thing most Republicans wanted to happen. When Boehner was asked by Jay Leno why he had permitted what the speaker himself called a “very predictable disaster,” he replied, rather poignantly: “When I looked up, I saw my colleagues going this way. You learn that a leader without followers is simply a man taking a walk.”

Boehner was right. Washington doesn’t have a crisis of leadership; it has a crisis of followership. One can argue about particulars, and Congress does better on some occasions than on others. Overall, though, minority factions and veto groups are becoming ever more dominant on Capitol Hill as leaders watch their organizational capacity dribble away. Helpless to do much more than beg for support, and hostage to his own party’s far right, an exhausted Boehner finally gave up and quit last year. Almost immediately, his heir apparent, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, was shot to pieces too. No wonder Paul Ryan, in his first act as speaker, remonstrated with his own colleagues against chaos.

Nevertheless, by spring the new speaker was bogged down. “Almost six months into the job, Ryan and his top lieutenants face questions about whether the Wisconsin Republican’s tenure atop the House is any more effective than his predecessor,” Politico’s Web site reported in April. The House Republican Conference, an unnamed Republican told Politico, is “unwhippable and unleadable. Ryan is as talented as you can be: There’s nobody better. But even he can’t do anything. Who could?”

Of course, Congress’s incompetence makes the electorate even more disgusted, which leads to even greater political volatility. In a Republican presidential debate in March, Ohio Governor John Kasich described the cycle this way: The people, he said, “want change, and they keep putting outsiders in to bring about the change. Then the change doesn’t come … because we’re putting people in that don’t understand compromise.” Disruption in politics and dysfunction in government reinforce each other. Chaos becomes the new normal.

Being a disorder of the immune system, chaos syndrome magnifies other problems, turning political head colds into pneumonia. Take polarization. Over the past few decades, the public has become sharply divided across partisan and ideological lines. Chaos syndrome compounds the problem, because even when Republicans and Democrats do find something to work together on, the threat of an extremist primary challenge funded by a flood of outside money makes them think twice—or not at all. Opportunities to make bipartisan legislative advances slip away.

Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country’s last universally acceptable form of bigotry.
Or take the new technologies that are revolutionizing the media. Today, a figure like Trump can reach millions through Twitter without needing to pass network‑TV gatekeepers or spend a dime. A figure like Sanders can use the Internet to reach millions of donors without recourse to traditional fund-raising sources. Outside groups, friendly and unfriendly alike, can drown out political candidates in their own races. (As a frustrated Cruz told a supporter about outside groups ostensibly backing his presidential campaign, “I’m left to just hope that what they say bears some resemblance to what I actually believe.”) Disruptive media technologies are nothing new in American politics; they have arisen periodically since the early 19th century, as the historian Jill Lepore noted in a February article in The New Yorker. What is new is the system’s difficulty in coping with them. Disintermediating technologies bring fresh voices into the fray, but they also bring atomization and cacophony. To organize coherent plays amid swarms of attack ads, middlemen need to be able to coordinate the fund-raising and messaging of candidates and parties and activists—which is what they are increasingly hard-pressed to do.

Assembling power to govern a sprawling, diverse, and increasingly divided democracy is inevitably hard. Chaos syndrome makes it all the harder. For Democrats, the disorder is merely chronic; for the Republican Party, it is acute. Finding no precedent for what he called Trump’s hijacking of an entire political party, Jon Meacham went so far as to tell Joe Scarborough in The Washington Post that George W. Bush might prove to be the last Republican president.

Nearly everyone panned party regulars for not stopping Trump much earlier, but no one explained just how the party regulars were supposed to have done that. Stopping an insurgency requires organizing a coalition against it, but an incapacity to organize is the whole problem. The reality is that the levers and buttons parties and political professionals might once have pulled and pushed had long since been disconnected.

Political Prognosis and Treatment of the disease: “Political chaos syndrome as a psychiatric disorder.”

I don’t have a quick solution to the current mess, but I do think it would be easy, in principle, to start moving in a better direction. Although returning parties and middlemen to anything like their 19th-century glory is not conceivable—or, in today’s America, even desirable—strengthening parties and middlemen is very doable. Restrictions inhibiting the parties from coordinating with their own candidates serve to encourage political wildcatting, so repeal them. Limits on donations to the parties drive money to unaccountable outsiders, so lift them. Restoring the earmarks that help grease legislative success requires nothing more than a change in congressional rules. And there are all kinds of ways the parties could move insiders back to the center of the nomination process. If they wanted to, they could require would-be candidates to get petition signatures from elected officials and county party chairs, or they could send unbound delegates to their conventions (as several state parties are doing this year), or they could enhance the role of middlemen in a host of other ways.

Building party machines and political networks is what career politicians naturally do, if they’re allowed to do it. So let them. I’m not talking about rigging the system to exclude challengers or prevent insurgencies. I’m talking about de-rigging the system to reduce its pervasive bias against middlemen. Then they can do their job, thereby making the world safe for challengers and insurgencies.

Unfortunately, although the mechanics of de-rigging are fairly straightforward, the politics of it are hard. The public is wedded to an anti-establishment narrative. The political-reform community is invested in direct participation, transparency, fund-raising limits on parties, and other elements of the anti-intermediation worldview. The establishment, to the extent that there still is such a thing, is demoralized and shattered, barely able to muster an argument for its own existence.

But there are optimistic signs, too. Liberals in the campaign-finance-reform community are showing new interest in strengthening the parties. Academics and commentators are getting a good look at politics without effective organizers and cohesive organizations, and they are terrified. On Capitol Hill, conservatives and liberals alike are on board with restoring regular order in Congress. In Washington, insiders have had some success at reorganizing and pushing back. No Senate Republican was defeated by a primary challenger in 2014, in part because then–Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a machine politician par excellence, created a network of business allies to counterpunch against the Tea Party.

The biggest obstacle, I think, is the general public’s reflexive, unreasoning hostility to politicians and the process of politics. Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country’s last universally acceptable form of bigotry. Because that problem is mental, not mechanical, it really is hard to remedy.

In March, a Trump supporter told The New York Times, “I want to see Trump go up there and do damage to the Republican Party.” Another said, “We know who Donald Trump is, and we’re going to use Donald Trump to either take over the G.O.P. or blow it up.” That kind of anti-establishment nihilism deserves no respect or accommodation in American public life. Populism, individualism, and a skeptical attitude toward politics are all healthy up to a point, but America has passed that point. Political professionals and parties have many shortcomings to answer for—including, primarily on the Republican side, their self-mutilating embrace of anti-establishment rhetoric—but relentlessly bashing them is no solution. You haven’t heard anyone say this, but it’s time someone did: Our most pressing political problem today is that the country abandoned the establishment, not the other way around.

In conclusion to await the Collapse of our Civilization because of The Donald is not the right course of thought or action.

However to be sure — the coming Collapse is imminent, not because THe Donald is the new President of the United States, but because we live in an unsustainable way.

Each and every day we do the same stupid things that we’ve done before and yet expect some miraculous change to occur by itself.

Each and every day we rape our environment and pollute our atmosphere.

And even daily, we destroy our ecosystems with abandon, as if they were going to somehow magically regenerate themselves.

We drive the planet and all species to destruction without consideration.

We slash and burn the living skin of our planet, all the while we demand more cow protein from the unsustainable farms that are springing up all over the Amazonas.

Daily we pollute all the environmental commons, near and far.

We destroy areas of boreal forest the size of whole European countries to wrest some oil from the frozen rocks in the tar sands projects of Alberta.

And then we transport that oil to distill it into gasoline so that we can burn it up and create more and more global warming as we release the CO2 into the atmosphere.

And we do all that for profit. We destroy our home for profit as if it justifies everything.

And daily the rapacious elites or Morons and Criminals, are getting wealthier, and wealthier — further ensuring that the Collapse in near.

Not because of their useless accumulated wealth but because the division between the uber-wealthy and the masses of labor and the unemployed, is getting far greater than what can be termed as sustainable.

And as we all know UNSUSTAINBLE SOCIETIES AND CIVILIZATIONS COLLAPSE.

You see the point is that when the 1% of the 1% owns as much wealth and more than the other 90% of Society — we are slated to go the way of the Mayans, the Incas, the Toltecs, the Olmecs, or the ancient Mesopotamians, and the willy burial pyramid building Egyptians.

Have we learned anything from observing those Morons losing their way and driving themselves into oblivion, or we need to study some others to believe?

How long will it take for any student of History to cotton-on to the idea that we are already sleep-walking off the cliff?

How long will take for us to start electing Leaders that understand that our course of history is clearly unsustainable, and our environmental destruction is unavoidable — therefore our collapse is inevitable too.

How long will it take for you to wake up Motherfuckers?

Or maybe you don’t think the science is correct eh?

It’s alright… we all know that we are not gonna be here forever.

Right…

And if you don’t believe me — just ask the Dinosaurs.

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:
Now go and mull it all up.

Out of Politics and Chaos, New Emergent Life Arrives… or Not.

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | July 23, 2016

Utmost Fish

Been working with a great CRISPR company down in Silicon Valley for a while now and think that we just had a breakthrough…

A tremendous breakthrough in both Science and Technology but equally important is that we had a new breakthrough in Finance by completing the First round under my Leadership for this amazing and much promising Startup that will lead the world in this exciting new field of Genetics

Things are moving very fast, but during this funding cycle that I initiated for this Company I had to pull together a syndicate of friends and other Angel Investors along with a few select early stage Venture Capital friends that over the years have gained my trust and I choose to give them first dibs.

Yet the rigorous intellectual discussions that helped me close this First Round for this amazing StartUp, led me to hold a series of round table discussions about not just this Company, but also about all the things that this new BioInformatics, and the new BioTech and Med-Tech or gene editing and splicing disruptive technology that change the world today and help us live healthy lives in our collective tomorrows — really works in the critical and well reasoned minds of the smartest investors, and also in the imagination of those not quite so smart…

So I thought to share some pertinent data and snippets of these intelligent discussions for the benefit of all the Leaders, the CEOs, and Founders of Great Science & Tech Startups out there — that read this blog religiously.

So here’s the gist of it:

Just think about companies such as Google, Genentech, SpaceX, Cancer9, Gilead, Icos, and WellHeart, that were started by really smart people who had the domain expertise and the willingness to think and perceive the world differently, and who were crazy enough to put everything on the line to risk their lives and reputation just to make a difference in your lives, and maybe put a dent in the Universe…

Screen Shot 2016-07-23 at 10.40.32 AM

But as an investor and especially when you are not an advanced Scientist, or a Medical Doctor, or you are an Angel without deep domain expertise, especially when you don’t have the relevant background — how do you get it?

How do you grog the concept of this complex science StartUp solution?

How do you understand?

And even if you make a half hearted attempt at understanding — how do you communicate forward your deficient understanding in order to make it better?

At the end of the day — how do you communicate and get to be accepted as a Player, so you can be invited to play ball in this open Darwinian green playing field where I’ve invited You to play with the Big Boys?

How do you prove your worth in sharing info and communicating with these erudite folks that often times speak at a much higher level of abstraction that most of us are normally accustomed to understanding?

And how do you educate all those other folks who want to play junior VC and get their teeth kicked in by the elders who want them to pay for their education, or by the uncompromising Sharks, and the VC shysters who are adept at fleecing the fools at the Carny?

And if you factor in there the Clowns and the leggy bitches, or the boobsy Blondes, and the always cute “Damsels in Distress” who bat their eyelids while claiming that they seriously only want to save the world — if you were good enough to invest a million, or ten, or even a hundred million US dollars of legal tender into their blood sucking Startup — you’ll become overnight Rich & Famous and get to kiss the star eyed lady wearing the black turtleneck sweater, straight in the noisemaker.

Now you get the idea and most of you already know that the sea is full of shoals and the beach is teeming with caymans, salt water croks, and aligators, and further inside, the sharks are hungry as hell. So be careful when you go swimming in the wild waves of the Internet crowdfunding and equity funding and when you go wading at the early stage investment seas, because this make for a really cruel, brutish and short lifetime for the unsuspecting investor.

Screen Shot 2016-07-23 at 10.38.50 AM

As a primer — I tell my co-investors that a startup’s pitch or the Founder’s spiel is not about knowing if the science behind the new technology is a breakthrough, but about the full value of the solution to the problem that the new Startup is bringing to the World.

That is the value that American Angels and the American Venture Company gives to all of our co-investors. From offering frequent meetings, and guiding their hand to the best Startups and to the best Term sheet, all the way to offering practical insights, and rules of the road tips amidst the constant exploration of the considerations of how to best invest in truly disruptive technology while mitigating risk and maximizing returns.

Today there is a plethora of deals floating around the internet as general solicitation-type pitches, and specifically, deals we’re all hearing about in the med-tech and the BioTech arena that are being compared to space-age technologies and are being launched unashamedly as Reg A financing opportunities for the Hoi-Poloi of the Internet who don’t even know what Reg A is let alone knowing what the specific StartUp is going to be doing with their money, even if they understood the Science as all Investors ought to do, and yet this vast new majority of unaccredited investors doesn’t bother to learn.

So it’s a giant crapshoot game going on out there and as we all know how these things end — it will surely not be pretty…

Screen Shot 2016-07-23 at 10.39.14 AM

Of course I am not commenting on my already voiced skepticism about the viability of getting retail Reg A deals to closure when those deals involve issuers with extremely technical pursuits, but about the basic issue I have that is that super-technical deals should not be sellable to retail unaccredited investors, and to the general public because they poison the well when copycats come up with hokey pokey and baloney fraudulent deals that just look technical when they are just ponzi schemes.

And I think that facts will bear me out on this because a “regular” person without a scientific background can’t even distinguish, let alone evaluate such an opportunity that requires scientific knowledge and deep rational thinking with critical abstraction devotion, just to be able to get through the reading of the patents and the IP that these great companies have.

And I would pose these further Socratic question to the Senators and House Lawmakers, to the White House economic development, and Finance folks, to the SEC Regulators and to the Public alike:

Should we be promoting the Reg A as a tool for all and sundry to use to become another snake oil and hair potion “shopping mall” paradise, for the hacksters, the hawkers, and the fraudsters of the Web, in order for them to peddle fake hopes & broken dreams, to the public while themselves thrive by lighting upon unsuspecting investors who can ill afford to lose their life savings?

Screen Shot 2016-07-23 at 10.39.49 AM

I am thinking of the little old ladies and the orphans fund here, just as much as I think of the ill informed young and optimistic hopeful early stage investor that we commonly call Angel. And if we think of it solipsisticaly — we ought to ask if it is even appropriate, to sell such deals to unaccredited investors who have much to lose and very little to gain?

Should we be educating all of you about early stage investment so that you can become proper Angels or should we accept the usual old saw of “Buyer Beware” that “Caveat Emptor” should fully apply and always cover with a fig leaf this Wild-West internet fashion du jour, and we should best let sleeping dogs lay lest we spoil this newfound Freedom to trade in early stage Equities and make a ton of money off the stupids?

From this point of view and if this issue is seen from a Financial Authorities Regulatory perspective or that of an SEC licensed dealer-broker, we’ve got investor suitability issues to think about, but above all that we have ETHICS to uphold and the Moral Sentiment of Market makers and of our Good Selves, that we have to be able to look into our children’s eyes and tell them that we do an honest days work to earn their keep.

And above all, we ought to be our Brother’s keeper and our Sister’s safe holder, and the protectors of our Community, because that’s what Real Men and Women do.

We are not those silly mach jackasses that hawk fake valueless stocks like Theranos and so many others to unsuspecting investors.

And especially because of that and perhaps even more importantly because Regulation A legally allows for the sale of securities to an unaccredited investor — we should be asking the following hard questions too:

Is it really ethical, wise, and beneficial to sell that type of equities and complex stock deals to unaccredited investors, or even accredited ones but not savvy Angels and Early Stage Venture Capitalists?

Moreover, should a complex BioTech StartUp company even want investors inside their deal who are in constant need of education and explanation? Do we want to get into the midst of sophisticated investors’ meeting those people who clearly don’t have the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend the science and the solution we are developing?

Will we need to dummy-down things and discussions to their level?

Won’t this bring the intellectual level of the company down to the low median?

Or should we be spending all of our meeting time within the company educating the poorly educated, so they can play catch up?

This is the stuff that I like to engage my intellect and to think about and thus further the Common Progress. And I like Philosophy and this is the type of Socratic Dialogue that I like to engage into with my students and my colleagues alike…

And the reason WHY we should all be doing this is quite clear. Because it is very important for our rational and critical thinking, in order to create jobs and prosperity. And because only when we get into it and we break the Angel Investment process into the constituent parts, we can make correct informed decisions by staying fully informed and by intelligently determining our course of action and investment — we can successfully take fast actions for maximum gain with control and minimum risk exposure.

I think all of you can understand the value of that course of Investment philosophy and practice. And further think that each one of you now wants to engage with me in the changing of our daily investment practice towards the constant improvement and betterment of our own Life to guide us towards a better future self, and to help us reach and manifest fully, our own version of the American Dream and requisite wealth.

Isn’t that what Socrates promoted and strived for when he chose to enjoy his last few days by taking lessons in music and dance after he was assigned the death penalty?

We all live under a certain death penalty — yet methinks that we should enjoy every minute of our Life left and we ought to learn and improve ourselves constantly in order to better both our Lives and the life of the world around us.

Screen Shot 2016-07-23 at 10.38.25 AM

Death and Taxes are a certainty, and we ought to have the requisite nest egg to take care and pay for both. So if nothing else — learn to invest for these inevitabilities and you might come to realize gains far beyond the modicum of success, or well beyond what you want to leave behind for your children, your spouses, and your legacy.

Come then learn from me in one of my monthly meetings all around the world and especially in Seattle, in Silicon Valley, and Shanghai — if you have the chance…

And you are also invited herewith to join me, in order to find the Truth amongst the falsities. Come see True Entrepreneurship in action. Join my conversation in order to seek Veracity amidst the ruins of the Internet, and learn to discern the best and most profitable course of action for Angel Investor complex science and Life Sciences deals today.

Know what to do.

Join me here: http://www.meetup.com/AmericanAngels

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

Although investor suitability surely comes into play, I think this is a philosophical question more than anything else.

And it surely is one question that CEOs, VCs, Finance brokers, CFOs, and marketing chiefs might want to consider deeply — before pitching certain companies on going the retail route for high street investment from the “poorly educated.”

So let us all remember, that crowdfunding, in state fundraising, and Reg A equity selling, all three — still have tremendous value & utility for sophisticated individuals, companies, and institutions — just not so much for the masses of young investors who don’t understand the meaning of risk capital out there.

Yet as we all know there is a whole lot of fish in the great blue sea out there.

And what I am simply doing here, is an attempt to teach you how to catch the utmost fish, because I want you to get into the habit of truly catching a lot of fish, for yourself, for your family, and for your legacy.

Because as you know — death is nigh, and the taxes are always upon us, and methinks, you best be well prepared for that eventuality.

So get out of your cave and come play with me…

The fish are biting, the weather is good, and the natives are friendly.

Especially the natives of the female persuasion.

Screen Shot 2016-07-23 at 10.12.41 AM

 

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | July 21, 2016

BREXIT TALKS

The Impact of BREXIT on the United States and the Special Relationship

Thursday, Jul 28, 2016, 6:00 PM

Columbia Tower Club
701 Fifth Avenue Columbia Center 76th Floor Seattle, WA

113 Churchillians Attending

Let’s talk BREXIT….BREXIT what is it good for?BREXIT and it’s impacts for the United States economy, security, and defense…BREXIT what is it good for?INDEPENDENCE.British Independence, from the Tyranny of an unelected and undemocratic Berlin & Brussels corrupt regime that has takes over the European Continent.Freedom from this autocratic …

Check out this Meetup →

Let’s talk about Economics, Politics, and the Law of Unintended Consequences, of BREXIT and the effects across the world.

#Brexit Is All About Taxation (and Regulation) Without Representation.

Taxation from Brussels and Faulty Leadership from Berlin without any Democratic input from our citizens.

That’s why leaving was a far better choice than staying put in a suffocating relationship.

This is what #Brexit Is All About: Taxation (and Regulation) Without Representation.

The High Cost of Indirect Taxation from the EU to the UK is a horrendous economic burden.

The cost of the U.K.’s EU club membership, so to speak, varies year-to-year, but it averages between 8 and 10 billion pounds—the equivalent of $11 billion and $14 billion—making the kingdom the third largest net contributor after Germany and France. But the costs don’t stop there.

Towering above the contribution to the EU’s budget are costs associated with the bloc’s endless regulations and all the agricultural stuff et al — in what I refer to as a heavy indirect taxation, without any representation.

According to Open Europe, a nonpartisan European policy think tank, the top 100 most expensive EU regulations set the U.K. back an annual 33.3 billion pounds, equivalent to $49 billion. This amount exceeds what the U.K. Treasury collects in Council Tax (a tax on domestic property) on an annual basis.

Screen Shot 2016-07-02 at 12.37.36 PM

Let’s talk BREXIT….

BREXIT what is it good for?

BREXIT and it’s impacts for the United States economy, security, and defense…

BREXIT what is it good for?

INDEPENDENCE.

British Independence, from the Tyranny of an unelected and undemocratic Berlin & Brussels corrupt regime that has takes over the European Continent.

Freedom from this autocratic regime that imposes on all Peoples of Europe a fascist system of undemocratic and corrupt “TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION”

BREXIT is the regaining of our LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY & INDEPENDENCE.

SIMPLE AS THAT…

The main Reason that Great Britain has been doggedly pursuing it’s own Independence is simply because the British People felt that they were faced with the imminent threat of Economic, Political, and National Cultural Extinction.

That sentiment encompasses the whole of the important main reason for the astounding results of the LEAVE campaign that brought to us the historic Independence movement that BREXIT represents and that the British people are celebrating today.

Everything else follows from that important sentiment.

And the fact that this Referendum was so upside down that confused everybody is an indication of this most important sentiment of the Citizens and the Voting public.

One of my takeaways from my last trip to England and the United Kingdom…

My visit convinced me that the Brexit debate was a lot nastier, uglier and corrosive than even I could have imagined.

We had a great conference at the Churchill Society inside London’s Chatham House, and the carefully arrived at takeaway — arrived at through fact based debate, reason, and the Science of Chaos & Complexity as well as Emergence theory — was that we are far better off, without the Brussels and the Berlin overlords.

We are far better without the German conceived fully undemocratic system of Brussels bureaucracy that we have come to know as: “Taxation without Representation.”

Yet this is what Brussels and Berlin still demand of us…

Many smart people and gifted politicians along with Scientists and citizens graced our podium, but none was nearly as eloquent a speaker as my friend Boris Johnson the London Mayor that recently stepped down to lead the Brexit campaign. He has also written a book about my grandfather Winston Churchill and about the Life of London that are sure to grace my library since he gave both of them to me as a gracious gift for my return to this great city…

Still for Politics, in the whole of the UK and especially in London, there seems to be an overwhelming leaning towards the “leave” camp. People are animated towards the idea of Free Britain and an Independent United Kingdom like never before, and are excited to experience this new moment in their Lifetimes.

My friend the old Mayor of London Boris Johnson paid us a visit at the Churchill Society conference and spoke eloquently and passionately about our need to be Free from the yoke of tyranny that Berlin & her minnie-me Brussels, and her minions have imposed upon the English people. We also spoke together at the Guildhall in favor of BREXIT in front of the Business and Merchant class of Leaders and we nailed it with this most difficult crowd of skeptical individualists… It was a glorious night.

Boris Johnson indeed led the communication effort and offered many many passionate speeches for the Brexit block, and he is credited with a big part of the Win. Today he is likely to be the next Prime Minister of the UK after the next national elections. Yet currently he was elevated to the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs upon the swift and celebratory win of the referendum for the LEAVE campaigners and after David Cameron stepped down and Theresa may became the new Prime Minister.

And the message of the overwhelming vote for BREXIT is that of course we are better off alone, yet it’s very likely for the results of this election to be contested by the regressive elements and the appeasers of Germany and the EU, and still the economic outcomes will be brilliant for the UK and maybe not so much for the EU. Still this is going to be a nasty divorce no matter how civil we attempt to be based on our being able to maintain our calmness, resolve, and composure.

Yet at the very least this will be a fantastic shock-test for the European Union, and also for the EURO coin, and maybe a bit for the G10 currency markets, and the Forex, and the Libor rates, all the way from the lead-up to and the aftermath of the vote, and for a few weeks thereafter. But because of renewed expectations of growth from the upset — the global markets will rally, and rally wildly and thus reach new heights for most indices. Smart investors ride the waves and this is not exception.

With all guns blazing the traders are aiming at the hapless EURO that stands to be assaulted and tested to the limits far more so than the British pound.

Much activity will ensue…

All the FX traders and Hedgies on the planet will swarm for some quick action, and as Mr Draghi and the ECB will be found “wanting” with their tiny “bazooka” in defense of the EUROzone — and surely the EUROstory will end up pearshaped, but there you have it.

Cheers,

Dr Churchill

Screen Shot 2016-06-23 at 10.45.53 PM

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | July 9, 2016

Life’s matter

Like all people we think a lot about death.

And of course we all think about Life.

Most of days we also think plenty about Sex.

And some days we only think of Love.

Yet most always we think and feel the Spirit…

So in that Spirit space of Compassion and Kindness let’s look at what we can do together to stem the bloodshed and the begotten violence that has poisoned our Society.

So let us think about Peace.

Let us think about reconciliation.

Let us think about kindness.

Let us think about Compassion.

And lastly, let think about Love…

Let’s think about Love and Death, and the Spirit and all the other things that come to mind every day – but today we shall think of all of them n the context of humility and grace in order to invite a clear understanding into our lives about the pivotal issue of race relations that bedevils our young country.

Almost one year ago, a young man Michael Brown was shot and killed in Ferguson, Mo for no particular reason…

And since then, many more people who were innocent have died in the hands of the Police.

As a fitting response, the collective anger and devastation of the black community has become a powerful national movement that brings massive numbers of people on the streets to demonstrate and peacefully assemble to discuss this tragic turn of events in our Lives…

Out of all that simmering collective anger the movement “Black Lives Matter” has been born and is now working to transform everything from social media to social consciousness — towards a new understanding of our Race and it’s gradients of value measured in color and social respect.

Because ultimately that’s all what this is all about.

And today at the CHurchill Society — we had a debate about whether it’s our job, and by extension the job of all social and political leaders — to coach white folks, and black folks alike without worrying about our deep feelings od racial insecurities. The whole point is that we white people should be the ones thinking more about black people — their feelings, their experience and their reality, which can be dramatically different than our own. But at the same time, we should put our feelings a little bit on hold so that we can defeat the structural racism that exists in Society because that ugliness we experience today and most days of wanton violence — won’t change until white people change.

There are already white people who want to change, and want to help spur change in their communities. Many people are reticent to speak out, for fear of misspeaking; others want to do something, but don’t know what to do. Instead of continuing to unconsciously reinforce structural racism in America, there are many white people who want to consciously help deconstruct and dismantle it. But how?

It is not up to Black Lives Matter, nor any movement led by and for communities of color, to make space for or articulate a vision for white people. The expectation that black leaders and movements should automatically do so is a subtle extension of the sort of white-centric entitlement that gives rise to the need for such movements in the first place. Then again, we haven’t exactly blazed a path to enlightenment and liberation so far on our own.

It’s too passive and doesn’t provide a sense of risk equal to the level of risks black folks experience every single day. Black folks are never safe, so it’s important for white co-conspirators or comrades to think about the level of comfort — safety — that is assumed to them by sitting on the sidelines and not actively engaging in the movement for black lives because it seems “too risky.” I want comrades who will show up when I’m most vulnerable and be in active solidarity with my struggle as a person in a black body and take some risks, because I’m putting my life out on the line every single day.

Be complicit in dismantling racist structures by taking risks, putting your bodies on the line in the streets, sharing access to resources (and releasing agency over them), living in some discomfort with difficult conversations in collaboration, knowing when to listen and organizing other white folks.

In St. Louis, we eradicated the word “allies.” We call our white folks our comrades. Because they’ve stood in front of and next to us when we asked them to. A living demonstration of white privilege is to see a line of white people handled by the police with kid gloves, who they carefully push past to brutalize us black folks.

Racism is an illness that afflicts each and every one of us. It steals our humanity, our capacity for empathy, the righteous indignation that is our birthright. I don’t believe in allies; I believe in the decolonizing power of solidarity. White people ought to challenge themselves to engage in more spaces of risk and difference.

Black people don’t need to be convinced that anti-black racism, structural inequity and skin privilege are facts; white people do… White people have to do the hard work of figuring out the best ways to educate themselves and each other about racism. And I don’t know what that looks like, because that is not my work, or the work of other black people, to figure out. In fact, the demand placed on black people to essentially teach white folk how not to be racist or complicit in structural racism is itself an exercise of willful ignorance and laziness.

You can’t be progressive and anti-black. The two are synonymous. But just because you have progressive politics doesn’t mean you’re not racist as hell, that you don’t think black people are less than; it doesn’t mean you have a racial analysis. Being progressive doesn’t give you a pass. You have to do the work within yourself if you’re going to be in this space.

Let’s expand what being progressive in America really means…

The conditions that are taking the lives of black and Latino communities with heart-shattering speed cannot be solved with economic solutions alone. A progressive movement that isn’t organizing to dismantle structural racism isn’t a progressive movement. It’s a movement of white middle-class self-interest, where white people on both sides of the aisle are fighting to retain white privilege in different ways.

Let’s stop saying all lives matter, because it doesn’t mean anything… And let’s truly understand why you shouldn’t say that. Whatever people need to do to understand why that’s not OK, they need to do that. What we’re saying right now is that all lives will actually matter when black lives matter — and black lives don’t matter right now. So we need to say black lives matter to change that. We need to change that individually, we need to change that within our communities and we need to change that systemically.

Today we must all move and get beyond just saying that Black Lives Matter… I want white people to do the work of pushing Democratic darlings to take more seriously the impact of structural racism…. Beyond saying #BlackLivesMatter, I want to hear more about what each of them will do to ensure a world where #BlackLivesMatter — and that means weighing in for an end to deportations and citizenship for all, fighting to end mass incarceration, ensuring that domestic workers have full rights in and outside of the workplace and on and on.

Let’s all right now stop acting like black people are stupid or that they can’t take care of themselves…

We are all politically savvy, and we can easily recognize that women have a higher voter turnout than men, and black women have an even higher turnout record that white women or for that matter — anyone else in this society…

Clearly today — no candidate can win without black women, yet a bunch of black women stood up and expressed their feelings on an issue that is literally killing our people and white people are acting like they were a bunch of uppity Negroes who didn’t know their place in society or in their homes.

These are young people who are learning as they go. Every movement has growing pains. I’ve seen too many people who are writing off their efforts because they don’t think the effort is being organized in the right way. That is not helpful. White allies need to give these young people space to grow, space to fail, space to learn. And they need to amplify their voices.

White liberals and progressives have a responsibility to organize their communities for social justice using an explicitly anti-black racism frame. There is no need to hide behind black or people of color organizations. Commit yourself to organizing poor and working class white folks. We are capable of organizing our communities. Our children need everyday white folks to work harder to ensure that black women don’t have to worry about dying after failing to signal properly, walking while transgender or trying to protect their children.

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:

Only white society and white people can save themselves from white supremacism and racism by opening up their heart and seeing things as they are…

Not as someone else tells them how things are.

Get your own Compass from your own Heart.

And get started on the journey towards healing the rift between races.

Get started on the road towards bridging the chasm that separates the people based on the color of their skin.

Get started on the road to healing and make sure that your vehicle on this great journey is your Compassion.

Get started and wherever you are in your journey with issues like these, and whether you’re someone who tries to live a life of racial consciousness on a daily basis, or you’re someone who has historically stayed out of conversations like this one because they’re just too intense – there’s room for you.

Everybody has room to grow.

God knows that and will help steer you in the right direction…

All it takes is remembering that race isn’t something that Black America gets to forget about – they live with it, they live in it, and it burdens them each and every hour of every day — all 24 hours of the day.

And all it takes is softening your heart to understand what it must be like to live in a country where someone who looks like you is shot down in the street on a far-too-regular basis, and then you have to listen to people debate whether or not that person deserved to die.

If nothing else, what you can do is sit for a second. Consider what it would be like to not be you. How the world could be a very different, scarier, and less safe place. How you have the opportunity to stand up for something here, and say definitively that you are ready to do your part, to learn, to listen. How this is a moment where humility and deep compassion need to drive our response of holy outrage. How this movement has already started, and we as White people need to just get on board.

Any little change you make in the way you talk about and/or perceive situations like this – that will make a difference. Changing your little corner of the world will make a difference. Not allowing people to make racially insensitive jokes just “because this is the South;” not accepting prejudice around you; not jumping to conclusions about who did and deserved what – all of that makes a difference. And a difference is what we need.

Because a human being breathed his last yesterday after being shot to death. In a parking lot. By a cop.

Because we have to find a way to make America everyone’s America.

Because now is the moment to lift your voice, regardless if you are White, Black, or Brown — let’s get together once again.

Let’s do this for ourselves, but most importantly let’s do this for America.

God Bless America.

 

Screen Shot 2016-07-09 at 10.45.27 AM

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | July 8, 2016

We are better than this…

THE WHITE HOUSE

President Obama: “We are better than this.”

Today, President Obama spoke on the fatal shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.

“I’d just ask folks to step back and think: What if this happened to somebody in your family? How would you feel? To be concerned about these issues is not political correctness, it’s just being American and wanting to live up to our best and highest ideals.”

If you haven’t yet, you should take some time to watch the President’s full remarks, or read them below.

President Obama’s remarks on the fatal shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile

Good evening, everybody. I know we’ve been on a long flight, but given the extraordinary interest in the shootings that took place in Louisiana and Minnesota, I thought it would be important for me to address all of you directly.

And I want to begin by expressing my condolences for the families of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.

As I said in the statement that I posted on Facebook, we have seen tragedies like this too many times. The Justice Department, I know, has opened a civil rights investigation in Baton Rouge. The governor of Minnesota, I understand, is calling for an investigation there, as well. As is my practice, given my institutional role, I can’t comment on the specific facts of these cases, and I have full confidence in the Justice Department’s ability to conduct a thorough and fair inquiry.

But what I can say is that all of us as Americans should be troubled by these shootings, because these are not isolated incidents. They’re symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system. And I just want to give people a few statistics to try to put in context why emotions are so raw around these issues.

According to various studies — not just one, but a wide range of studies that have been carried out over a number of years — African Americans are 30 percent more likely than whites to be pulled over. After being pulled over, African Americans and Hispanics are three times more likely to be searched. Last year, African Americans were shot by police at more than twice the rate of whites. African Americans are arrested at twice the rate of whites. African American defendants are 75 percent more likely to be charged with offenses carrying mandatory minimums. They receive sentences that are almost 10 percent longer than comparable whites arrested for the same crime.

So that if you add it all up, the African American and Hispanic population, who make up only 30 percent of the general population, make up more than half of the incarcerated population.

Now, these are facts. And when incidents like this occur, there’s a big chunk of our fellow citizenry that feels as if because of the color of their skin, they are not being treated the same. And that hurts. And that should trouble all of us. This is not just a black issue. It’s not just a Hispanic issue. This is an American issue that we should all care about. All fair-minded people should be concerned.

Now, let me just say we have extraordinary appreciation and respect for the vast majority of police officers who put their lives on the line to protect us every single day. They’ve got a dangerous job. It is a tough job. And as I’ve said before, they have a right to go home to their families, just like anybody else on the job. And there are going to be circumstances in which they’ve got to make split-second decisions. We understand that.

But when we see data that indicates disparities in how African Americans and Latinos may be treated in various jurisdictions around the country, then it’s incumbent on all of us to say, we can do better than this; we are better than this — and to not have it degenerate into the usual political scrum. We should be able to step back, reflect, and ask ourselves, what can we do better so that everybody feels as if they’re equal under the law?

Now, the good news is, is that there are practices we can institute that will make a difference. Last year, we put together a task force that was comprised of civil rights activists and community leaders, but also law enforcement officials — police captains, sheriffs. And they sat around a table and they looked at the data and they looked at best practices, and they came up with specific recommendations and steps that could ensure that the trust between communities and police departments were rebuilt and incidents like this would be less likely to occur.

And there are some jurisdictions out there that have adopted these recommendations. But there are a whole bunch that have not. And if anything good comes out of these tragedies, my hope is, is that communities around the country take a look and say, how can we implement these recommendations, and that the overwhelming majority of police officers who are doing a great job every single day, and are doing their job without regard to race, that they encourage their leadership and organizations that represent them to get behind these recommendations.

Because, ultimately, if you can rebuild trust between communities and the police departments that serve them, that helps us solve crime problems. That will make life easier for police officers. They will have more cooperation. They will be safer. They will be more likely to come home. So it would be good for crime-fighting and it will avert tragedy.

And I’m encouraged by the fact that the majority of leadership in police departments around the country recognize this. But change has been too slow and we have to have a greater sense of urgency about this.

I’m also encouraged, by the way, that we have bipartisan support for criminal justice reform working its way through Congress. It has stalled and lost some momentum over the last couple of months, in part because Congress is having difficulty, generally, moving legislation forward, and we’re in a political season. But there are people of goodwill on the Republican side and the Democratic side who I’ve seen want to try to get something done here. That, too, would help provide greater assurance across the country that those in power, those in authority are taking these issues seriously. So this should be a spur to action to get that done, to get that across the finish line. Because I know there are a lot of people who want to get it done.

Let me just make a couple of final comments. I mentioned in my Facebook statement that I hope we don’t fall into the typical patterns that occur after these kinds of incidents occur, where right away there’s a lot of political rhetoric and it starts dividing people instead of bringing folks together. To be concerned about these issues is not to be against law enforcement. There are times when these incidents occur, and you see protests and you see vigils. And I get letters — well-meaning letters sometimes — from law enforcement saying, how come we’re under attack? How come not as much emphasis is made when police officers are shot?

And so, to all of law enforcement, I want to be very clear: We know you have a tough job. We mourn those in uniform who are protecting us who lose their lives. On a regular basis, I have joined with families in front of Capitol Hill to commemorate the incredible heroism that they’ve displayed. I’ve hugged family members who’ve lost loved ones doing the right thing. I know how much it hurts. On a regular basis, we bring in those who’ve done heroic work in law enforcement, and have survived. Sometimes they’ve been injured. Sometimes they’ve risked their lives in remarkable ways. And we applaud them and appreciate them, because they’re doing a really tough job really well.

There is no contradiction between us supporting law enforcement — making sure they’ve got the equipment they need, making sure that their collective bargaining rights are recognized, making sure that they’re adequately staffed, making sure that they are respected, making sure their families are supported — and also saying that there are problems across our criminal justice system, there are biases — some conscious and unconscious — that have to be rooted out. That’s not an attack on law enforcement. That is reflective of the values that the vast majority of law enforcement bring to the job.

But I repeat: If communities are mistrustful of the police, that makes those law enforcement officers who are doing a great job and are doing the right thing, it makes their lives harder. So when people say “Black Lives Matter,” that doesn’t mean blue lives don’t matter; it just means all lives matter, but right now the big concern is the fact that the data shows black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents.

This isn’t a matter of us comparing the value of lives. This is recognizing that there is a particular burden that is being placed on a group of our fellow citizens. And we should care about that. We can’t dismiss it. We can’t dismiss it.

So let me just end by saying I actually, genuinely, truly believe that the vast majority of American people see this as a problem that we should all care about. And I would just ask those who question the sincerity or the legitimacy of protests and vigils and expressions of outrage, who somehow label those expressions of outrage as “political correctness,” I’d just ask folks to step back and think, what if this happened to somebody in your family? How would you feel?

To be concerned about these issues is not political correctness. It’s just being an American, and wanting to live up to our best and highest ideals. And it’s to recognize the reality that we’ve got some tough history and we haven’t gotten through all of that history yet. And we don’t expect that in my lifetime, maybe not in my children’s lifetime, that all the vestiges of that past will have been cured, will have been solved, but we can do better. People of goodwill can do better.

And doing better involves not just addressing potential bias in the criminal justice system. It’s recognizing that too often we’re asking police to man the barricades in communities that have been forgotten by all of us for way too long, in terms of substandard schools, and inadequate jobs, and a lack of opportunity.

We’ve got to tackle those things. We can do better. And I believe we will do better.

Thanks very much, everybody.

 

 

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | July 7, 2016

Ulysses

The thunder and the sunshine, are opposed ..
Free hearts, free foreheads—you and I are old;
Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;
Death closes all: but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done.
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices.
Come, my friends,
‘T is not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Yours,
Dr Churchill
PS:
Tennyson’s mastery will always keep me company in hard times and good times alike….

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Categories