I know that I am supposed to feel shocked at the violence and looting going on in London. That I am supposed to think this is all a terrible tragedy, this breakdown in civil society and discourse. That when someone resorts to the use of force, then something valuable has been lost. And I guess it's true that a part of me feels that way. And would feel that way even more strongly if it were my home, my neighborhood, my business or workplace being vandalized and robbed.

But it's not. And there is a part of me. The immature, nihilistic, primitive part of me that loves the idea of a big, fat, violent, destructive riot. I think there's a part of that in everyone, especially every male.

Not just because I want more stuff without paying for it. And, like everyone else, I do. How can we not want more stuff? That wanting is wired into our very brain structure, and continually stoked with subtle and brute-force marketing messages every single day of our lives.

I mostly love the idea of a riot, and participating in one, because, at a very basic level, it's fun to break things.

There is no denying that.

You ever break a window? I used to, back when I was a falling down drunkard. Walking home from bars, I would kick off car mirrors and smash through car windows between the last place I drank and my home. I'm not saying that it was good, or even defensible, but it certainly was satisfying.

It was simple, for one thing. No calculations of risk and reward, no messy considerations of causes and effects of my discontents, no complex web of relationships to navigate. No paralyzing need to imagine another person's reactions. Foot, meet window. Smash. Loud noise. No more window.

Was it nothing more than a petulant and juvenile lashing out because of a feeling of resentment and impotence? Sure.

But I was, and am, resentful. Impotent, too. For me, at least, that seems to be the condition of modern life. On one hand, an incredible level of safety and security and health and food and material comforts that other generations could never have dreamed of. On the other, a constant dependence on other people and a curbing of the individual will for the good of the whole.

I guess looting gives a moment when you have the best of both worlds. The chance to run completely, savagely amuck in the well-stocked and orderly modern world.

I'm actually more surprised that they don't happen more often.

Spoiler Alert: Obama Wins in 2012

The best part about predicting the future is that nobody ever remembers when you are wrong, or holds you accountable. The second best part is that predicting the future gives you a chance to dredge up and recycle old grudges and resentments from the past --- ones that people are already tired of hearing you whine about --- and repackage them as predictions.

With those two big premises out front, I’m going to put on my Nostradamus cap and look into November of 2012. And what I see --- more clear than any reception AT&T has ever given me on my iphone --- is Barrack Hussein Obama sailing into the White House for his second term.

He won’t get re-elected because the economy recovers and shows the wisdom of his policy. He won’t get re-elected because he re-ignites the passion among Democrats that his 2008 campaign set ablaze. He won’t get re-elected because he will be judged to have done a competent job of governance. Sure, those will be the reasons that are offered, but the real reason he won’t get elected is much more simple: The real Republican leadership doesn’t want him out yet. He’s too useful where he is.

The brains behind the Republican machine know that in 2012 there will still too much sewage strewn about the nation leftover from the financial collapse. With Obama still in the White House, it’s his job to shovel it around some more and let it stain him and the Democratic party for a few election cycles. The U.S. is going into a double-dip recession, and --- accurate or not --- the Republican party will blame it on Democratic economic policy.

And anyway, Obama is already doing everything a Republican would do, even better than a Republican could. On his own initiative, Obama is happy to coddle the banks, expand Presidential power, start wars, and punish whistle-blowers. For those things that might unnecessarily upset his Democratic supporters --- keep Bush tax cuts alive, cut Social Security, reduce Medicare payments, sell unions down the river --- the Republicans can arrange to create a “crisis” and “negotiation” for Obama to hide behind.

Having a Democratic President present these moves actually makes them easier to execute since it neutralizes the resistance that a Democratically-controlled legislative branch might develop if a Republican tried them.

The proof that the Republicans want Obama to stay has two forms. First, the corporate and financial industry donations. Through a combination of bribery and threats, the financiers have made Obama their errand boy. Without a viable union campaign funding source, big business is the only way to get the money he needs --- and keep it out of the hands of a real competitor.

Which brings us to the second proof: The Republicans have not presented a real and legitimate challenger for the Presidency. It’s fun to scoff at the second-team and second-rate quality of the Republican primary candidates. But it’s very telling that everyone is either insane (Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann), boring (Pawlenty) or just a little bit off-brand (the Mormon Romney & Huntsman). If there is one thing that the Republican party is good at, it is selecting someone who is electable behind the scenes --- most recently named Bush --- and then jamming him into the Oval Office against all obstacles.

When they don’t do that, like in 1996 (Remember pathetic old Bob Dole?) or 2008 (the even more pathetic McCain) there’s a reason.

So Obama is getting all the corporate money and being given a nice clean run at the White House. That makes him as close to a lock as it's possible to get. So for the forseeable future, we are going to get more or less what we've been getting: Republican policies administered by a Democratic President, followed (probably) by Republican policies administered by a Republican President. Thrilling.

Democracy, Human Rights, Rape

The inspiring sight of a nation peacefully demonstrating to end a 31-year dictatorship. Hundreds of thousands marching in the streets for Democracy. The triumph of non-violence protest over thuggery. The euphoria of watching a tyrant forced to retire. Then we have this.

Lara Logan, star reporter for CBS News was separated from her camera crew in Cairo's Tahrir Square during celebration of Mubarak's resignation. She was subjected to a brutal and sustained sexual assault.

That's so awful. What a nightmare she went through before soldiers and Egyptian women rescued her.

I learned about this incident yesterday and it has been rolling around in my mind ever since. I guess what really strikes me is the contrast between the restraint and high-minded ideals of the protesters --- who specifically protested Mubarak's torture of prisoners --- and the savageness of this action. It's disappointing. It has added a sour note to what was otherwise a inspiring story of idealism in action.

I suppose I should not be surprised.

Immanuel Kant famously said that "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, nothing straight was ever made." For all the high-flown rhetoric and lofty ideals we spout --- and even believe --- we are all savage animals. Or worse, actually. Animals don't have empathy for those they prey upon.

We have the ability to imagine ourselves in the place of those we victimize. Yet we victimize them anyway.