FBI, DoD, NSA: All Spying on You

Congress most likely will rubber stamp Bush’s eavesdropping program, so what can we, just average citizens, do? I suggest that all of us include - in every message we send - words that might cause these “wiretappers” to begin looking at our e-mail . Words such as: Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Taliban, Hamas. If enough people do this the lines of CIA, FBI, DOD and NSA will be overwhelmed. Maybe we could exchange Mom’s apple pie recipe followed by the words Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Taliban, Hamas at the very end.

It may be wasted effort but here’s a suggestion.
As the debate rages here on these threads and elsewhere, one thing that has been overlooked is where the Grand Presedencia has been claiming his authority.  Whether it’s for eavesdropping, utilizing his back door draft, and other “war powers” authority, it all has by claimed to originate by the emergency powers granted the him by Congress after 9/11.  Our efforts as citizens that are concerned about the “imperialist” authority of this president, need to start sending Congress daily messages that if they oppose these acts as they claim, they need to draft new policy rescinding the emergency powers they granted him.  Enough’s enough with this bulls*#t in my mind, Congress needs to step up to the plate and quit talking the talk here (i.e. Democrats).

Congress won’t do it. Another investigation, a lot of meaningless posturing, a cowardly umpteen page report and then on to the only thing that matters to every member of Congress - the coming campaign for re-election. If anything is to be done, we have to do it. My suggestion is one simple thing that we can do - easily and with greater effect than we might think. If, that is, all of us have the courage to do it. I have friends (and I thought them solidly anti-Bush) who are terrified that they might be hauled into Bush’s star chamber simply because they sent an e-mail criticizing Bush’s policies. We are a nation of (cowardly) sheep.

More Americans favor impeaching Bush, poll says

Today’s topic: Domestic spying

By Jim Puzzanghera

KNIGHT RIDDER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The word “impeachment” is popping up increasingly these days and not just off the lips of liberal activists spouting predictable bumper-sticker slogans.

After the unfounded claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and recent news of domestic spying without warrants, mainstream politicians and ordinary voters are talking openly about the possibility that President Bush could be impeached. So is at least one powerful senator, Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So far, it’s just talk. With Republicans controlling Congress, and memories still fresh of the bitter fight and national distraction inflamed by former President Clinton’s 1998 impeachment, even the launching of an official inquiry is a very long shot.

But a poll released last week by Zogby International showed 52 percent of American adults thought Congress should consider impeaching Bush if he wiretapped U.S. citizens without court approval, including 59 percent of independents and 23 percent of Republicans. (The survey had a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.)

Given those numbers, impeachment could become an issue in this fall’s congressional elections, and dramatically raise the stakes. If Democrats win control of the House of Representatives, a leading proponent of starting an official impeachment inquiry, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., would become chairman of the House committee that could pursue it.

It is encouraging to see this in the mainstream.  All hope is not lost.  As Joe Hill said, “Don’t grieve, organize.” And FDR, “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.”

Congresss will certainly act if re-election is all they care about and there’s enough movement amongst the voters to have this granted power rescinded.  Frankly, that’ll work a hell of a lot faster than random people sending random emails with a couple of terrorist related phrases in it.

Well, I’m not pinning my hope on a public opinion poll of the fickle American electorate. The poll that matters is that conducted on election day - and the American public elected Bush, DeLay, Cunningham, Istook, Frist, Ney, etc.
And that same public has roundly rejected term limits for Congress and continues to oppose the draft.
It’s the system that’s broke. Even McCain had the courage to publicly say this. But what’s needed is less saying and more doing - on the part of all of us. If we just sit back wringing our hands and wailing while hoping that someone will come along and bail us out, we’re done.

...and there’s enough movement amongst the voters to have this granted power rescinded.

Dream on. What really moves the voters? Their pocket books? Fear? Carl knows.

Behind the scenes , the noose is being drawn a little tighter, day by day.  I believe the system is not dead only badly wounded, but it will take grassroots pressure to hold the bastards accountable.  It seems the only out for the Administration may be the declaration of Martial Law.  Will they create a new terrorist crisis to justify it?  Stay tuned.

That same public also elected Pelosi, Kennedy, Durbin, Leahy, Boxer, Reid, Bird, Rockafeller, etc… Luminous is on to it… more and more the citizens are getting fed up; there will come a breaking point.  By the way, your asking the public to write all these emails to get the super secret orgs to look at everybody yet you don’t believe the people are empowered enough to speak up to their reps....sounds like a similiar means to a different end.

mirmir,

What I find significant about the Knight-Ridder story isn’t the poll, so much as the “I” word getting used in the mainstream press.  The sheep need something for their little minds to grasp in order to come to grips with the real lupine threat, rather than the fairy tales with which they have been lulled into drowsiness.

“...yet you don’t believe the people are empowered enough to speak up to their reps...”

I didn’t say that.

Why is it that almost without exception these public forums turn into acrimonious trashing of any contrary idea that another might have? Look, I’m for anything that will work. If writing Congressmen will work, fine. I hope it does. Get on with it.

The system is broke, and eavesdropping by Bush, even the invasion and occupation of Iraq, may not be the most serious threats the nation faces. Little by little, sometimes imperceptibly, we have allowed this nation to become one of the world’s most despised. We have no moral advantage over any nation that I can think of. Habeas Corpus? Forget it. Torture? You bet. Outsource it. Bomb and kill as many kids, women and old folks as you want so long as there’s a possibility that a terrorist might be hiding in a nearby ditch? Sure thing. Piece of cake. Slam dunk.

Maybe some of you students of history will remember accounts of brutal crusader actions of 1209:

“According to Caesar of Heisterbach the papal representative, Abbot Arnaud-Amaury, declared “Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius” — Latin for “Slay them all! God will know his own.” Béziers is believed to have held no more than 500 Cathars, but over 10,000 citizens were killed. The news of the horror at Béziers quickly spread and many settlements were cowed.”

It seems that Bush has adopted this cruel, callous policy. But I suggest that after Bush there will be yet another like him (or worse) if we don’t, right now, begin to make the broad and sweeping changes to the system that might prevent it.

“Will they create a new terrorist crisis to justify it?”

You know this administration pretty well. And if that doesn’t work, how about a holy war against Iran, Pakistan...the Saudi’s, Chavez???

Mirmir,

I apologize I didn’t mean to start a trash and bash deal; I just meant to say the ends are the same just a different means to get there. 

Your 2nd to last post - I like the comments, unfortunately I agree with those comments.

csmelnix…
Thanks, your apology appreciated and certainly accepted. We’re on the same side, allied against a common enemy.
If you, or anyone, should be interested in more of my comments see my last four posts on “Cult of Character.” I would be very happy to have more people read them.

These encroachments on fundamental, Constitutionally protected freedoms by the Bush administration only embolden me to continue to protest and become a thorn in the side of autocracy. I am not fearful of government intimidation, I wear it as a badge of honor that I am so alarming to the powers-that-be that they feel the need to monitor my behavior. Nothing great was ever accomplished without resistance by those fearful of change and in entrenched power positions. This fight will be the test of our generation-can we keep the freedoms that our forefathers fought so hard to provide? I will do my part...will you?

Luminous beauty is likely foretelling the future acurately. Put nothing past this administration. They manufactured one disaster, they will do it again. And with an entirely complicit media there are now no checks and balances and no one credible (or at least with high visibility) left to expose them. They know this.

Glad I live on an unimportant island 3500 miles offshore.

Yo Lumpy,
You may want to look at this poll that was taken two weeks after the “biased” poll that you mentioned. 

But I say go ahead ... you liberals keep talking “impeachment” and keeping talking about “spying”.  We will crush you on those debates.  If the Dems plan on running their campains on that ... then they are in trouble.

.... that’s is too funny lol .... lmao ...

But you never know ... maybe that “PRO-TERRORIST ... ANTI-MILITARY, PRO-MUSLIM ... ANTI-CHRISTIAN, I LOVE FRANCE ...  HATE AMERICA AND IT’S ALWAYS OUR FAULT” platform might be a winner for the Dimwhits. 

And just think, if you dimwhits ran on that platform, you would be telling the truth.  lol ....

------------------------------------------

Poll: NSA Leakers are ‘Traitors’

Thursday, Jan. 19, 2006

Americans overwhelmingly support President Bush’s decision to wiretap suspected terrorists operating inside the U.S. without first obtaining a court order - and a solid plurality believe those who leaked news of the secret operation are “traitors,” a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll has found.

Asked whether the president “should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?” - 58 percent of those surveyed said yes.  Just 36 percent disagreed.

According to Dick Morris, who reveals the poll’s stunning results in today’s New York Post - even 42 percent of Democrats back the Bush surveillance program.

The results flatly contradict a widely reported Associated Press poll two weeks ago, which sampled a dispropotionate percentage of Democrats and concluded that the public objected to the Bush surveillance program.

In another stunning finding, the Fox poll found by that a margin of nearly 2 to 1, the American public believes that those responsible for exposing the super secret surveillance program have betrayed the country.

Fifty percent of those surveyed called those responsible for blowing the NSA’s cover “traitors,” while just 27 percent agreed with media claims that the leakers were “whistleblowers.”

Americans also strongly support renewing the Patriot Act by a nearly 2 to 1 margin [57 to 31 percent].

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/19/124752.shtml?s=ic

tina1
These figures may very well accurately reflect public opinion. Opinion, though, isn’t what will matter in the end. We are, in theory at least, a nation of laws. At times the law and public opinion may be at odds. If the courts do their job Bush may be found in violation of both laws and Constitution. In that case Congress will be obliged, if a shred of honor remains there, to begin impeachment proceedings (as Arlen Specter pointed out in his interview with Stephanopolous) regardless of fickle public opinion.
I’m glad you weighed in, opposing views, too, are needed here.

More on polls.

As I mentioned earlier, the only poll that really counts is the one on election day when voters state their opinions at the ballot box.

Public opinion polls aren’t very reliable, mostly because people tend to be uniformed, misinformed or both. They want good information but very often don’t get it. This Bush administration will probably be remembered as the most secretive in history. Unless you know what it’s up to, how can you hold a well-founded opinion? 75 per cent of the people want the administration to disclose its contacts with lobbyist Jack Abramoff - again according to a poll (ABC’s). Of course the administration has, up to now, refused. Below I list just a few polls that folks can check if they want. There are lots more floating around. Some of these may seem contradictory but that ought not to surprise us.

Jan. 27, 2006 — A clear majority of Americans now disapprove of President Bush’s handling of ethics in government, and three-quarters say the administration should disclose all contacts between White House officials and disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1547685

ABC’s Polling Unit
Poll: Majority Disapproves of Bush on Ethics in Government
Poll: Broader Concern on Privacy Rights, But Terrorism Threat Still Trumps
Poll: Majorities See Widespread Corruption
Poll: Majority of Americans Want the Senate to Confirm Alito
Poll: Public Outlook for the Year Ahead
Poll: Majority Wants Alito on Supreme Court
Poll: Elbow Room No Problem in Heaven
Poll: Bush’s Approval Ratings Climb
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/

Finally!

I’ve written letters for more than twenty years, emailed for fifteen and have only gotten the obvious form letter responses. (Several for the wrong topic.)

Now, is my chance to tell them what they should be doing.

P.S. Remember out there — Look at my library card history.

whattheheck…

The positive side! Great, but if you want to increase the odds that they’ll be read, don’t forget to include this line in all your e-mails:

Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Taliban, Hamas, Jihad, YeHaw!

Thanks, Mirmir — I keep it in mind.

Job losses, not a free market, bipartisan screwing of America, evaporating middle class — haven’t gotten any attention.

mirmir posted this ....

“” I suggest that all of us include - in every message we send - words that might cause these “wiretappers” to begin looking at our e-mail . Words such as: Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Taliban, Hamas. If enough people do this the lines of CIA, FBI, DOD and NSA will be overwhelmed.  “”

-----------------------

That’s great mirmir, lets make it even harder for law enforcement to catch criminals.  Your no different than Jose Padilla or American-born Taliban soldier John Walker
Lindh.  You should be locked up for life in a U.S. Federal Maximum Security Prison.  And you cellmate should be a big black guy, like Tookie ... and you can “toss his salad every night”.

Your a “punk” and a “traitor” ...

But, it’s because of people like you, Michael Moore, Hollywood and LIBERALS in general that guarantee the success of the GOP and ... why the Republicans will stay in the White House in 2008.

So, I really have to say “Thank You” .... even if you are a little punk.

lol ...

You should change your screen name “punk boy” or “cell block biatch”

Yeah, mirmir,

Stop exercising your freedom.  All it does is get the ‘true believer’s’ panties in a bunch.  They hate our freedom.

tiny one,

Watch out or the boogie man is gonna getcha.  Better check under the bed. 

Concerning Your a “punk” and change your screen name
It’s ‘you’re’, a contraction of you are; not ‘your’, the possessive form of ‘you’.  You’re welcome.

Last week Peggy Noonan wrote a piece (Bush the Romantic) in the WSJ Online edition:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007869

I have been concerned for some time about the mixed messages concerning the War on Terror (the title is one of them) coming from the administration.

My reply to her article:

-------------------------------------------

Seeing the trees

Ms Noonan has hit upon what appears to be a primary Bush trait — he sees the forest so clearly, but slips past each tree.

He continues to ignore hoards of illegal immigrants crossing our border while pushing electronic surveillance.

In my neighborhood we have noticed it in his touting free enterprise and the benefits of low priced goods, and the bestowing of global freedoms — while millions of Americans have been losing jobs, benefits and their financial/economic freedoms.

tiny one (thanks luminous)…

“...even harder for law enforcement to catch criminals.”

I always thought that the principal job of law enforcement was to apprehend suspects, and that suspects only became criminals after due process. Bush, though, apparently thinks that courts and jurors are dispensable. He merely points the finger and a suspect instantly becomes a criminal.

“...a big black guy, like Tookie...”

Tiny, what makes you think that I’m not a big black guy? I might be seven feet six of of pure ebony muscle. Look out, little bigot.

I really don’t see what’s so difficult about accepting a dictatorship.  Many people have done so during the history of civilization.  But if Brutus is more your historical idol than Octavian, be my guest in fighting it.  It might be fun.

Heads up.

Everyone should have a firewall on their computer. I do and have been backtracing the port scan atttempts lately. Yesterday I back traced an attempted port scan to the DoD Network Information Center. I have no idea what the Department of Defence is doing port scanning my computer but it got me interested and after a few searches I found that I am not alone.

I found forums full of people who have had the same experience. Opinions ranged from ‘hackers have hacked a DoD computer and are using it for hacker purposes’ to ‘nothing to worry about, if they were really spying on us they would not be doing it from their own IP’ and everything in between.

Hmm .. maybe they would do it from their own IP for intimidation purposes?

Just prior to the DoD port scan I was doing some (google) searches with the words france chirac nuclear response to research for a subsequent post here on ITT on another thread. Coincidence? Maybe.

What? Me worry? Not at all. Nothing to hide and nothing to fear. That’s how I feel ...

... and as Liberal said earlier :

“I am not fearful of government intimidation, I wear it as a badge of honor that I am so alarming to the powers-that-be that they feel the need to monitor my behavior.”

Indeed. Bring it?

I’ll trust that you---David and you---Liberal have nothing to hide; but that’s not the point. It may sound noble when you say you’re honored to be spyed on by the government, but I don’t think you’re thinking this through. In the U.S., our right to privacy doesn’t start and stop with whether or not we have anything to hide.

With all due respect, guys, I really wish you would not be so blaze about everyones’ right to privacy. Why in the world are you justifying illegal eavesdropping by the fact that you have “nothing to hide”? Who determines what should be hidden, anyway?

As far as I’m concerned, my grocery list is none of the government’s business, and if they are snooping around in my computer, then they are not doing the job they swore to do.

If the U.S. government is snooping in your computer, they should, ideally, have probable cause to do so---which means that they should have some evidence to arouse their suspicion that you are a danger to the society that they are supposed to be protecting, which leads to--- secondly, the DOD exists for our defense. 

How is rooting around in your computers making us safer?

And here’s a question guys--- is it o.k. for the government to torture you, since you have nothing to confess? There are some serious boundary issues here, and though I trust you are sincere and well meaning, you are certainly not doing anyone else any favors by claiming that it’s o.k. for the government to spy on people because you’ve got nothing to hide.

Btw, after they get past your firewall, you might want to consider the possibility that the government could leave something on your hardrive.

Lying to “justify” war, smart bombs that hit only the intended target (never mind that the intended target may shelter women, children and old people), Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, torture, outsourcing, eavesdropping and now sequestration of Iraqi women whose husbands are suspected of being – what? – terrorists, insurgents, dissidents, anarchists?

And that democracy that Bush talks about for others while destroying it at home. Iran elected, presumably through democratic processes, a hard-line militant while the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas (by a considerable margin). But Bush won’t deal with them. They aren’t the “democratic” outcomes he wanted.

Rocco…
It isn’t whether or not it’s difficult to “accept” dictatorship, but whether or not, once it’s in place, it’s difficult to reject it.

Tina1 had a point. This morning ABC noted that, according to their latest poll, 56 or 58 percent of the general public approved of Bush’s wiretapping. Wileywitch just posted a splendid response but apparently most people don’t agree – the majority seem to take the position held by David and Liberal – “I’ve got nothing to hide, bring it on.” And the only beef that Congress apparently has is that they didn’t have the opportunity to approve wiretapping before Bush put it in place. They’re miffed that they weren’t consulted.

Bush may very well bring it on, with the acquiescence of Congress and the general public. And anyone who thinks that this administration will stop at the Patriot Act and Wiretapping may be rudely awakened. We lose our liberties, one small step at a time. My friends, it isn’t just Bush that’s taking away our freedoms – it’s also our neighbors.

“That same public also elected Pelosi, Kennedy, Durbin, Leahy, Boxer, Reid, Bird, Rockafeller (sic), etc…”
csmelnix on Jan 26

csmelnix…

This old proverb still resonates (at least with me):
“One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel.”

And here’s a question guys--- is it o.k. for the government to torture you, since you have nothing to confess? There are some serious boundary issues here, and though I trust you are sincere and well meaning, you are certainly not doing anyone else any favors by claiming that it’s o.k. for the government to spy on people because you’ve got nothing to hide.

Wiley,

No, torture is not o.k. whether I have something to confess or not.

I never claimed it was o.k. for the government to spy on people and invade their privacy without probable cause.

I know you didn’t David. Please don’t take my post personally, even though I named you in the post. Same to you Liberal I am an ass sometimes, though lately I’d say that I’m just too lazy to phrase things more carefully and to include all the actual qualifiers that are necessary to speaking my truth more precisely. That was an actual rhetorical question, not a sarcastic taunt.

At first, I took what you said at face value, and didn’t give it a lot of thought. Then, it chewed at the back of my head overnight, so that by the next day it was really bugging me.

I meant what I said, but not in a pointy-finger way, and I do hope that you both will consider being a bit more vocal in opposition to domestic spying in general. Your personal reaction to being personally spyed on is, of course, yours. But, you can see how your action might be construed as a tacit endorsement, yes?

Mirmir, pointed out something I’ve been trying to express for a while---it isn’t just Bush that’s taking away our freedoms – it’s also our neighbors. I feel almost as silly about how easy that is to express as I felt when I discovered that the word or phrase I had been looking for for three years was “perhaps”.

OH WELL. Hug, David?

Wiley,

I understand what you are saying, then and now.

Tacit endorsement? Hmm ... I thought it was tacit opposition. I will try to be less ambiguous.

Hug happily accepted and reciprocated.

Whatever kids,

Let’s just not allow the bastards to intimidate us into being tacitly tacit.

luminous…

“Let’s just not allow the bastards to intimidate us into being tacitly tacit.”

Yes. Straight talk, determined action.

Another disturbing Bush “program.” DOD distributes propaganda disguised as news to Iraqi journalists on its payroll and also to compensated European journalists. That bogus DOD generated news may return to the U.S. and appear in our newspapers, on our radio or TV as actual news reports attributed to “a reliable source.”

mirmir - I guess I get in trouble using ironic devices to make points on this site (see ‘Cronyism’ thread). 

My point - in square terms - is that just as Rome moved from republic to dictatorship due to excess and growth, so do we follow in the same groove.  I think it’s instinctual.  It would be up to any wisdom gained through a study of history to prevent the repeat of Roman excess (credit to George Satayana).

For those who value democracy, it would be wise to give up all you have in defense of it.  Otherwise, stop complaining and accept your eventual servitude.

Tell us how to give up all we have in defense of democracy, rocco---if you value democracy and are wise, that is.

If you don’t value democracy and/or are not wise, then tell us how accepting your eventual servitude is coming along?  Keep us updated, o.k.

wiley - My servitude is coming along splendidly.  I am a respectable citizen these days, with a job, a condo, and a car.  I only have to answer to my masters quarterly, which is a lucky position for a slave.  I don’t have to engage in manual labor as I once did, nor do want for any basic needs.  It is a comfortable prison, and far more desirable than the average wage slave, who make roughly $10 an hour.

I don’t recall ever contradicting my plan of action in these posts.  But I’m the one telling you to accept dictatorship, remember?  If you find my conclusions repellant, there’s a simple solution.  Sacrifice your comfort in the face of totalitarianism.  It takes a lot of nerve. I feel too old and battle-scarred to continue on my original path.  Are you going to pick up the torch, or remain satisfied in criticizing my hypocrisy?

Wiley...irony! Irony!  Embrace it before it’s far too late!

Your “solution” is a sucker’s game, rocco.

wiley - my solution is a sucker’s game...by that I suppose you mean that sacrifice is the way of the fool.  Perhaps. 

So you proscribe resting in comfort, while moderately trying to change minds in an insulated left-wing discussion group.  Have you looked into the efficacy of this?  It’s useful to remember the clock is ticking.

On the other hand, personal sacrifice in the name of social change has a rich history of precedent.  Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Susan B. Anthony, the workers of Flint, Michigan in 1936, Cesar Chavez, and all the people whose support allowed those figureheads to gain international attention, sacrificed their own comfort in the name of a greater good.

Suckers.

So now I propose “resting in comfort”. Find someone else’s words to play with for a while. 

They did not sacrifice so that they could say that they sacrificed, and they spent a hell of a lot of time in the library before they struck out on a path. 

There work is glorious, their deaths are a crime and not something to aspire to.

Your thinking is uselessly simplistic (unless it’s enough for you to appear to have made a point), and your conclusions are trite.

Oh. Look at Jesus. You’re not really doing anything unless you’re getting nailed to a cross.

Or, maybe it’s enough to just list the martyrs? Huh?

PTTTHHHHTTT. Try it on a younger crowd. And when you can report something impressive, call a newspaper.

So what freedoms is it that the new wars are tiring to protect?
When I was in grade school, we would be feed propaganda about the evil Russia. That their government, would and could spy on its citizens at any time. That Russians had no freedoms because of this.
Now that this style of government is here, and since it came internally, the sheep see no threat; threats to our freedoms can only come from the outside. Now those that oppose illegal spying on American citizens are called traitors; traitors to what, the elected officials, the corporate string pullers, or to the freedoms that this country once represented? We can claim to be free but what does this mean? Stand up write your congressmen, and hope that we are not too far down this path to freedom to find our way back to the land of the free.

wileywitch, rocco…

Why this caustic internecine wrangling? Aren’t you two on the same side?

“Your thinking is uselessly simplistic (unless it’s enough for you to appear to have made a point), and your conclusions are trite.”

wiley, is this really necessary? Comments such as this lower the standard of this forum and tend to keep reasonable people, with reasonable arguments, away. Enough already.

rocco…
I believe I understand what you’re saying. In moments of desperation I sometimes think that a benevolent dictatorship is the only viable form of government. Historically, though, benevolence hasn’t much staying power.
Now, as to Bush’s Goebbelization…

mirmir - My position on dictatorships is this: our biology is geared for alpha-dominant relationships.  The less educated a society, the more prone is that society to collapse into biologically-ingrained responses.  So the less civilized we are, the better the odds that a powerful alpha or alphas will take control, and the majority will succumb.  It has happened over and over again in history. 

My point, which is apparently irking wiley, is that action - which will presumably require sacrifice - is time-tested tactic to counter this trend.  It may very well be hopeless, but if one really cares they will work tirelessly for democracy.

As for you wiley, your ire is again confusing, as is your logic.

First of all, Susan B. Anthony’s death was not a crime.  Nor was Cesar Chavez’s.  Or Rosa Park’s.  Or the Dalai Lama’s or Mandela’s (they’re still alive).  They’re not martyrs.  But they chose a difficult path in the name of democracy.  That is a sacrifice which most aren’t willing to do. 

Lastly, you can’t drop something like “Your “solution” is a sucker’s game” without expecting a modicum of sarcasm. 

As far as a younger audience, you’re absolutely right.  You appear to have made up your mind long ago, and don’t wish to question your assumptions.  Children don’t have such blockades.

“It may very well be hopeless, but if one really cares they will work tirelessly for democracy.”

Yes, rocco, I agree. ACTION!!!!

“And when I met Cindy, there in Crawford, I said to her...”
Can anyone finish this????

Only some 300 supporters made their way to Crawford, out of millions of Americans. Sad.

“Does anybody really care?” Not many. At least there aren’t many who care enough to actually do something, something that might involve a bit of risk, a little bother, a touch of sacrifice.

I use the Crawford example because it’s recent and was widely publicized. Of course there are other ways to “actually do something.” But we have to do something, we must act. As a good man once said: “We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”

Before it’s too late. But maybe it already is.

mirmir - I don’t really think it matters whether there’s hope or not. 

And with all due respect, action is a lot more than showing up at protests.  Working with the disadvantaged, doing research, organizing resistance. 

Even capitalists can join the fun.  I’ve been fortunate enough to meet people who understand finance and economics, who are using their skills for humanitarian acts instead of personal enrichment.  That has been instructive.

I’m of the opinion that creating ‘anti-corporations’ could do more in a day than a million students in front of the White House ever could.  Imagine if Chomsky was a mogul?  Think of what could be accomplished…

mirmir: I use the Crawford example because it’s recent and was widely publicized. Of course there are other ways to “actually do something.” But we have to do something, we must act. As a good man once said: “We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”

Sorry.  Missed that part.  Yes, we agree.

I keep mentioning Crawford because it was an event unique in this post 9/11 era. A courageous mother had lost her son in an unjust war. Bush, the person responsible for that war and for the death of her son was just around the corner - he had to pass her and her supporters to enter and leave his ranch. We, all of us, could have taken advantage of that opportunity to show our support for that grieving mother and our disgust with Bush and his policies. It would have been relatively easy, risk free. Bush must have been surprised and pleased at the small turnout. He may even have seen it as endorsement of his policies that so few showed up.

Mirmir, since I live 1500 miles from Texas, I was unable to visit Camp Casey in person, but I attended a solidarity rally in my hometown that was designed to show support for Cindy Sheehan and her quest for justice. That was the best I could do and I was glad to have done it. I helped my hometown’s local peace group to collect several thousnd signatures indicating support for a speedy withdrawal from Iraq which was sent to my local congressman, a Republican. I did this all during the summer of 2005. I do what I can and am proud of it.

mirmir - I’m not knocking that protest.  In fact I’m strongly in favor of it.  My point of contention - which you seemed to more or less agree with - is with ‘activists’ who go to a few protests and do nothing much else.  My favorite satire of this is the People’s Front of Judea in ‘The Life of Brian’. 

I also think debate of this nature is essential for the democratic process.  But it’s far too easy to get locked into these things, spout opinion, and go on about one’s day. 

Bush would like it a lot less if businesses (his donors) were boycotted, parties were organized, private money was spent on research & development of alternative energy, etc. 

I much as I loathe Bush, he’s not the problem.  The lazy American middle class is.  I think it’s fair to say that we represent that group.  Unless you’re reading this from the public library.

Liberal and rocco…

I agree with both of you. Yes, the lazy, apathetic, over fed, overly pampered middle class. While that middle class idles it’s also besieged. Could easy street disappear along with pensions and medical benefits? Life is getting increasingly grim for America’s workers, but will there be a middle class to lead them when (and if) they finally take to the streets? I wonder.

Good on ya, Liberal, keep up the good work.

I’m working class fellas. And I’m going to leave you to your self-righteous little bandwagons.

My thought about what we must do, is to do what human beings are most talented among beasts to do.  Communicate.  Ethos, Pathos, Logos, give it all you can.  Learning to grow your own vegetables is important, too.

What has happened is that much of America’s workforce has, due mostly to the past success of progressive causes, itself become middle class.  At least economic, if not necessarily social or cultural, middle class.  Whether Bush himself is really anybody’s problem but his own, his nominal administration has pursued policies that have seen the national median personal income move steadily in a negative direction, even as the GDP has grown at over 3%.

With Ford and GM promising to cause tens of thousands of shoprats to soon become re-acquainted with their working class roots, and commensurate numbers of white collar workers to discover the exhilarating life of structural unemployment, it doesn’t seem too great an imaginative stretch to think that the numbers of the dissatisfied may soon be swelling significantly.  Given that many of these folks will have more time and opportunity to cruise cyber-world as a result, there seems a possibility newly radicalized voices will begin to appear in forums like this.  I’m looking forward to that.

I would venture a rude guess that it takes about nine weeks to shed much of the soft expectations of the boojie life.

working class is middle class.

“...there seems a possibility newly radicalized voices will begin to appear in forums like this.”

Good post, luminous, and I sincerely hope that newly radicalized voices will show up wherever there’s a forum.

So Dell is relocating 5000 jobs to India. With all the advantages of globalization that accrue to large companies, the U.S. stock market can soar to new heights while U.S. employment falls through the floor. And Chevron-Exxon’s disgraceful mega-profits while the average wage earner sees more and more of his/her paycheck disappearing at the pump. Buy Citgo, all of you, please!!!

I subscribe to John Jeavons’ bioentensive methods myself - nothing better, in my opinion. It works, I can vouch for it.

When much younger and fairly mindless I spent some time in Iceland. Some of the most educated, civilized folks on the planet. They’ve inaugurated a plan to become a wholly fossil fuel free nation. Already there are hydrogen-powered busses picking up passengers. If we Americans ever got serious about putting a similar scheme in place the U.S. might not feel the need to invade other oil rich Muslim nations.

Mirmir, by all estimations, the economy is becoming more barbell than bell curve, with a larger lower class and a fat upper class, like a banana republic.  That means that the middle class will be split two ways.  If you are middle class, I guess you better hope you fall up rather than down.

There are ways to free yourself from the economy: collectives, self-sustainability, conservation of energy.  Creating ‘mutual funds’ with like-minded people in support of like-minded business.  All sorts of cool stuff. 

The middle class has never been taught that there’s any other goal but trying to be rich.  We should remedy that.

“working class is middle class.”

I wonder, rocco, if West Virginia’s coal miners would agree with you. Maybe. I haven’t asked them.

This doesn’t necessarily logically follow my first sentence, but I think it would be a mistake to think that income level alone defines middle class.

This doesn’t necessarily logically follow my first sentence, but I think it would be a mistake to think that income level alone defines middle class.

I don’t.  Middle class is a tax bracket.  There’s an upper-, a lower-, and a middle-middle-class.  The majority of the middle-class works hard.  The reason coal miners do that awful work is because of the pay.  They make more than, say, a secretary.  I wouldn’t classify a secretary as working-class, but I would classify a coal miner, a fireman, or a cop as middle-class. 

The large middle class was America’s beacon for 40 years.  It’s only fairly recently been shrinking as it has.  But unless you qualify for welfare and have a job, you’re not among the working poor.  And I daresay if you have the free time to post on this site, and have enough disposible income to buy a computer in the first place, then you’re probably not waking up at 5 in the morning to pick strawberries all day.

Luminous - here’s to growing tomatoes!

rocco.
You might check with the people who have the education and who have done the research that enables them to define these things with some authority. Perhaps you are one of those.
Why is it that so many who post on these forums simply crouch on their haunches waiting for a chance to pounce on someone? Why is it that so many have yet to learn how to carry on a civil discourse? Is this Rush Limbaugh II?

Middle class (n) - The socioeconomic class between the working class and the upper class.

I stand corrected.

Working Class (n) - In the United States, the population of blue-collar workers, particularly skilled and semiskilled laborers, who differ in values, but not necessarily in income, from the middle class. In Marxism, this term refers to propertyless factory workers.

See, luminous?  Talking out of your ass is part of the learning process as well.  Don’t look at it as pouncing.

Mirmir, not luminous.

The convention of most economists seems to be to divide the population into quintiles.

The point I was alluding to is how after WWII, the success of the industrial and trade unions led to alienation between the rank and file unionized workers who began to identify themselves as middle class, and the unorganized workforce that still to a great extent lives on the edge of poverty. 

There is another set of cultural distinctions (blue collar, pink collar, white collar) between generally less educated wage earners who may well make more than salaried professional, middle management and self-employed persons who tend to identify with bourgeois values.

Another factor is suburbanized sprawl which has undermined the solidarity between more and less prosperous members of ethnic communities, and created vast bedroom communities with a high degree of alienation and rootlessness among their inhabitants.

To play off luminous’s post - that was pretty much what I was trying to get at, imprecise language and all.

So, and this is an open question: need there always be worker bees and queen bees?  While I’d like to think this isn’t necessary, the animal kingdom is pretty clear in its message.  Are we so different?  Aren’t hierarchies natural, and can democracy really function in large populations?  What kind of economic system could allow more equitably the genetic leaders to rise to the top?

About 95 per cent of Americans (at last report I have)consider themselves to be middle class. That perception may change if real income and opportunity among salaried workers continue to decline.

I prefer Fussel’s divisions, although you’ll find a great deal of disagreement among social “scientists.”

I’ve been critized for offering so many quotes, but people aren’t inclined to accept an ordinary person’s opinion while a good many will accept that of a recognized authority. Of course for some the only authority is their own (usually unfounded) opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_in_the_contemporary_United_States

“Fussell argues social class to be determined more by culture, lifestyle, and values than income.”

Fussell’s system

Paul Fussell, in Class: A Guide Through the American Status System lists nine classes:

·Top out-of-sight: the “Old Money” wealthy who avoid public exposure (in part, due to experiences during the 1930s, when it was not to one’s advantage to be wealthy).
·Upper Class: a group of those who are not only wealthy, but usually born into the wealth, and who espouse a different set of values than wealthy middle-class people or “proles”.
·Upper-Middle Class: wealthy, refined people.
·Middle Class: most “white collar” workers, including many of the self-employed, and a group most afflicted with status anxiety and confusion, envying the refinement of the upper-middle class and the leisure of the uppers.
·High Prole: skilled, often wealthy manufacturing or service workers, who may outearn middle and even upper-middle class people but maintain a distinctively “lowbrow” culture.
·Mid Prole: an intermediate level of often poor workers, but with stable employment and relative security.
·Low Prole: the working poor, with difficulty finding steady employment.
·Destitute: the homeless underclass.
·Bottom out-of-sight: those incarcerated in prisons, or otherwise outside the purview of sociology; like top-out-of-sights, they fall so low in society as to become effectively invisible.

Like most who have studied social class, Fussell is a determinist who considers it relatively difficult for anyone to achieve a significant move in social class. Fussell claims that most Americans exhibit some degree of class anxiety or insecurity.

Fussell also proposes the existence of a small subset of Americans who don’t fit into any of the above social classes, known as “Category X”. Recruited from all social classes, they are the intellectual, stylish misfits whom others try to emulate, but by no means qualify as an elite. Fussell claims “X” to be a category rather than class since one gains membership on account of personal qualities and values rather than social background or breeding.

Now, having posted Fussel’s system I’d like to say that arguments of this sort aren’t particularly productive. We seem to harp on the most insignificant items in one another’s posts. I, for one, hope that this will put an end to the discussion on class. Those who want to learn more about it can refer to the literature - there’s plenty. I’d rather return to a discussion of Bush’s wiretapping scheme, perhaps a critique of his whole program of world domination.
How goes the war in Iraq?
Can “we” win in Iran?
Are Saudi’s oil fields and refineries in range of Pakistan’s atomic warheads?
Will Bush be able to further restrict our freedoms by heightening our fear?
That sort of thing.
As for Bush’s Goebbelization…

The general public’s Interest in the Iraq war wanes, as a glance at this forum’s home page would indicate. Also check out these two sites for differing emphasis:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page.html

http://www.alternet.org/

It is the war in Iraq - the war on terror as Bush would have it - that’s being used as a pretext for subverting our freedoms. Isn’t it?

“Aren’t hierarchies natural, and can democracy really function in large populations?” Posted by rocco

Madison made a case for this in Federalist 10. He held it to be false that democracies can only function in small populations. He argued that in fact just the opposite was true - that democracies could function best in large populations. History, in my opinion, has proved him wrong but neither Madison nor any other of the founders could have imagined the nation as it exists now. For that reason I hold that the two-and-a-quarter-centuries-old (justly venerated) constitution cries out for revision. It no longer serves a nation so radically different from the one that existed when the constitution was ratified by a majority of only 13 states, none of them able to boast of a city larger than a few thousand. But this discussion deserves another forum.

I agree mirmir. The Constitution’s economic dimension is clearly antiquated and in need of revision. The fundamental issue of religion and government and the fear that madison and jefferson had of the two mixing IS quite relevant, as history had proven that the two made a volatile mix even at the time of the Consitutional Convention. The Bill of Rights is still relevant as well. The ideas of economics were still in their infancy at the founding of this country. Adam Smith published the Wealth of Nations in 1776, the year Amerika began.

mirmir,

“Fussell is a determinist who considers it relatively difficult for anyone to achieve a significant move in social class.”

Nonsense!

Thousands of Americans are moving down significantly each year — millions since NAFTA in 1994.

mirmir - thanks for the accurate class structure breakdown.

As far as the efficacy of democracy, I agree that is a whole other debate.  Since you used Madison as an example, it may be worth noting that he was an incredible elitist, and feared any notion of popular rule.  He once said something to the effect that the purpose of government was to protect the wealthy class. 

So, his vision of democracy is going strong…

Alright, wth, I agree with you for a change. Going down, down, down. Unless, of course, you just say that working class is middle class, then they aren’t going anywhere unless they’re going somewhere to demonstrate, otherwise they are so locked into their comfort and ease that it’s amazing they even bother going to work.

“Aren’t hierarchies natural, and can democracy really function in large populations?” Posted by rocco

I wonder if any kind of representative government can handle the speed of change today. It seems humanly impossible to cope with the volume of communication.

I can’t believe it would be good (even if possible) to put problems of great consequence up for majority vote and action.  The risk of emotional response (the herd instinct) is too strong. With the media firing from the hip as we’ve seen during Katrina and a few other retracted/corrected stories it is just too scary.

As possibly the Lone Ranger on this site in believing this war is for real and therefore calls for extreme action, I am not very concerned about the government tapping my phone or reading my email.  I also don’t expect it to happen — I’m not that much of a threat to anyone.

I am concerned that millions of people have entered the country and roam free to do mischief. When Y2K was a big deal, the State Department hired “PC experts” and who was there qualified to monitor their activities?  We have been so lax on security for so long anything is possible — food and water supplies, medical prescriptions, power stations — think of the computer targets that could be our whole country to a standstill.

What the NSA or other agencies are doing has a long history.  What is being done in Iraq is mild compared to some old examples.  People need to gain some sense of proportion and understand how our present predicament compares to the past. A friend of mine commented when some military wives complained that their husband’s tours had been extended by six months, “Mac and I were married in 1940 and then he joined the Marines — I never saw him or talked with him for six years.”

I just reread William Manchester’s “Goodbye Darkness” his memoir of his WW2 experiences. This is not your typical John Wayne, Gung Ho account, but a man trying to put to rest his nightmares and sorrows thirty-five years later.  Okinawa: 49,000 U.S. casualties in 85 days of constant shelling, bannzai charges, sucking mud (his buddy buried alive under it). For all of WW2 our killed = 300,000 battle deaths and 100,000 other causes.

Because of these people I was able to go to school, marry and have kids, live another sixty plus years and we are able to sit around and ponder life and death decisions on the internet.  Like now, a lot of what went on then was less than perfect, unconstitutional, whatever. But without it?

Wonderful that you feel so secure from the dangers of political repression, WTH.  What will you think when the gov’t. begins hauling dissidents off to camps?  “Not my problem”?

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/hopeisfortheweak.htm

(My alma mater.)

Posted on ZNet and Dissident Voice, November 15, 2005.

by Robert Jensen

In the face of the vast suffering in this broken world, some people turn away. But others want to rush to action, <i>any action. When there is so much pain around us and in us, how can we not feel that compulsion to act, to do something to relieve what suffering we can, and by that action relieve some of our own pain? Indeed, we should nurture that instinct in ourselves and each other; it is at the core of what makes us human.

But I think it is crucial at this moment in history to not simply rush to action but also to take time to deepen our analysis. That assertion implies that I believe the analysis that underlies many existing liberal/progressive/left movements in the United States is shallow. That is what I believe, and I think that the shallow analysis poses a serious threat to our ability to translate our hope into real change someday.

That might sound arrogant, but it is born more of desperation than arrogance. I don’t contend to have THE analysis. But I believe we are in a period in which traditional ways that liberal/progressive/left forces have understood the world are inadequate. If we continue to pursue strategies based in those understandings, we will lose. Standing here today, I can’t tell you that I know how we can win, or even that we can win. But I can be part of a conversation to try to shift the course onto a winning strategy, and in the course of that conversation we can demonstrate that we should win.</i>

All of the above should be in italics. It’s taken from a talk given on the link above.  Same for most of the rest.

The first, and perhaps most important, move is to recognize that we humans long ago outstripped our ability to fully understand and control the consequences of our actions. The crises we find ourselves in today are largely the product of social systems and technological advances that have moved far past the point we can control them… That is a dangerous thing, especially in this complex world of nation-states and stateless armed forces, this world in which the forces of nature have been distorted by our meddling in creation in ways we have never fully understood.
…
So, step one: Let’s recognize our ignorance. Recognize that as a species we are clever but generally not wise, that our intelligence is not deep enough to pull off this attempt to control the world.

Step two:  Recognize the paradox this lands us in… We have to give up the illusion that our knowledge can run, in sustainable fashion, either the human or non-human systems of this complex world. Yet at the same time, because we have to face the consequences of how we’ve mucked things up, we can’t give up on knowledge completely. The consequences of our hubris require that we continue to seek knowledge in order to reverse the course of destruction. That is a tricky proposition. If we are to pull it off, our pursuit of knowledge must be reined in by humility. We have to both believe in our ability to use knowledge differently, while being wary of that knowledge and the hubris which it has so often sparked.

As hard as it is for any one of us to become a better person, it would be comforting to think that such a personal transformation would be enough. But it isn’t, and it never will be. It is hard for us to confront ourselves and change. But it is immeasurably more difficult to become part of a long struggle to change that which is outside of us. But that is exactly what hope demands of us in this broken world.

But that is not the most difficult thing that hope demands. Perhaps the hardest discovery from which we must not shrink is related to that first point, about the limits of our knowledge. As we intensify our commitment to analyze and act, we have to abandon any certainty about that analysis and action. We must cope with a fundamental uncertainty that will dog us as we must take up our place in the struggle, and that is hardest of all. I believe that to claim to know “for sure” is to mark oneself a coward. It is to say, “I have looked into the face of the crisis, but I cannot bear it, and I have retreated to certainty.”

I see conservative Christians do this. I see agnostic sectarian leftists do it. I see my academic colleagues do it, endlessly. I see my political allies do it. And every day I battle it in myself.

These are radically uncertain times. No one has the answer. There is no “the answer.” There is a rapidly deepening crisis that we first must struggle to understand before we can begin to imagine answers. … we have to pose questions that go beyond the available answers.

Can we hold onto our uncertainty and our convictions at the same time? Can we identify values which we will not surrender and also understand that the path to living those values may be unclear at any given moment? I don’t think we have a choice. If we cannot do this, we cannot honestly claim hope, and if that is our fate then I believe creation will be forever lost to us.

To borrow from a poem by Wendell Berry, it is time to face “the real work.”

<line>The Real Work</line>

It may be that when we no longer know what to do
we have come to our real work,

and that when we no longer know which way to go
we have come to our real journey.

The mind that is not baffled is not employed.

The impeded stream is the one that sings.

End of excerpt from Jensen’s speech.

I could have written as much, all by myself, but that would have been undisciplined, lazy, unauthoritative, not reviewed by academia, not blessed by a rabbi, etc., and therefore illegitimate. Funny how that works, huh?

And it would have been uncouthe, not genteel, crass, clumsy, rude, and uncivilized for me to tell someone directly that I think their time is spent in meaningless pursuit because they don’t satisfy my criterion for time well spent. Without the pretense of only wanting to help someone improve themselves through my selflessness and brotherly love ---why that would breach etiquette itself. <i>Mercy, no!!! I’m too Southern to bear (bayr) it!

God knows I only went to college to learn how to kiss academic ass.

Interesting essay you excerpted, Wiley.

This - hopeisfortheweak - from the URL puzzles me. Satire? or Sublime? or both? I will be thinking about this hope is for the weak idea. I like it as sublime satire.

I liked the poem at the end the best and will post it on my fridge.

You might want to read the whole talk, David. He is not kidding. Neither am I. The closer we get to the brink the more useless or dangerous the people with all the answers become. Technical plans that will fix everything right up should be especially suspect.

This spying business and data mining sums up the stupidity of the technical solution. The more information you have, the more likely you are to see patterns---whether the events in the pattern are related or not. It’s how our brain works. One of the most difficult exercises in art school is to make something that appears random. Even if you think you’re working randomly, patterns will emerge. We’ve nearly started a nuclear war by seeing patterns in separate world events that weren’t related, but appeared to be at the time. We need to put this stuff into perspective.

When looking for a gang member, do the police monitor every call ‘s home state? Detective work is detective work. Being a terrorist doesn’t change that.

This James Bond techno-wizardy may be romantic, but how effective can it really be? Maybe they should start reading every piece of mail that comes from a foreign country. Does that sound intelligent? Can you associate---try very hard---associate a plan to read every piece of mail that enters the country, with intelligence?

OOH, ooh---this reminds me of one of my favorite stories---Louis Lapham’s stories, actually.  In the early days of the Cold War, the C.I.A. was trying to figure out a way to get their cutting edge surveillance bugging equipment near the Kremlin. They had a bright idea. They got 100,000 dollars together and hired a Chippendale furniture artist to carve a hollow oak tree. Then they made all the necessary arrangements, put the bugging equipment into the “tree”, shipped it to Moscow, and then had it planted in the fur woods next to the Kremlin.

The Ruskies got the latest in bugging technology and a Chippendale tree.

LB, Mirmir, Rocco, Wiley…

“What has happened is that much of America’s workforce has, due mostly to the past success of progressive causes, itself become middle class.  At least economic, if not necessarily social or cultural, middle class.  Whether Bush himself is really anybody’s problem but his own, his nominal administration has pursued policies that have seen the national median personal income move steadily in a negative direction, even as the GDP has grown at over 3%.”

------------------------------------------
This is NOT a Bush policy. This is a national policy of long standing for Republican and Democratic parties. The most powerful party is the Lobbyists. Over 40% of those lobbying for foreign companies and countries are former congressmen. (How many middle class congressmen can you name?)

There is always a lot of concern expressed at this site for minorities. Many became middle class due to our manufacturing. No college degree, many without high school, black, brown, yellow and white were able to hold their heads up and advance their next generation. That is all but gone.

No one, Republican, Democrat, union, journalist, has acted to prevent or even slow it.  NAFTA, a Clinton sponsored project, has cost us millions of jobs, exploited Mexican workers and enriched corporate management. Even shareholders have been short changed through options, “too difficult to expense.”

Government numbers are so phony they are useless. Worse than useless because they disguise the problems and dull the pain while the malignancy multiplies.

“And when I met Cindy, there in Crawford, I said to her...”

Can anyone finish this????
-------------------------------------

Yes…

Oh, sorry, I thought they said Cindy Crawford was going to be here.

“Standing here today, I can’t tell you that I know how we can win, or even that we can win. But I can be part of a conversation to try to shift the course onto a winning strategy, and in the course of that conversation we can demonstrate that we should win.”

Win what? Excerpts from Bush’s speech? “staying the course,” “we’re winning?” What the hell does Jensen mean? And Wendell Berry, as much as I admire him, equally fuzzy. “ real work?” “real journey?” Aren’t the Republicans doing “real work?” Didn’t DeLay and others take more than one “real journey?” And the radical christian right - really working I believe. Straight talk, brothers, please.

Once more, with feeling…

*How goes the war in Iraq?
*Can “we” win in Iran? (irony intended)
*Are Saudi’s oil fields and refineries in range of Pakistan’s atomic warheads?
*Will Bush be able to further restrict our freedoms by heightening our fear?
*What are you doing?
*As for Bush’s Goebbelization…
That sort of thing.

Oh, yes. The truly burning questions:
*Can the Steelers pull it off?
*Will Brokeback Mountain sweep the Oscars?

Bush says that if we’d had his wiretapping scheme in place before 9/11 that tragedy might not have happened. I don’t believe it. I think that Tennent (famous former lacrosse player) gave Bush good, credible information. I believe that Bush and those AEI fellows knew that an attack was coming (maybe not the specific details or targets) and saw it as a pretext for launching their long-anticipated attack on Iraq. Hasn’t the U.S. a long history of doing just that sort of thing? This, I think, is the most relevant question on Iraq: If the U.S. had concentrated all its effort on al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the Taliban in Afghanistan rather than attacking Iraq, would the world be safer? That is: would the terrorist threat be less than it is today?

A hard working lady. A few paragraphs and the URL for the whole bit of wit…

http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=1208&catid=6

George W. Bush Declares Cindy Sheehan an Enemy Combatant

by Kamal El-Din

Unconfirmed sources report that the recently arrested anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan has been declared an enemy combatant and flown to Guantanamo Bay Cuba for questioning and indefinite incarceration. Sheehan was arrested in front of the White House today during a daring attempt to protest against the war in Iraq without a permit. The President was rushed to saftey to an underground bunker from where he issued an Executive Order declaring Sheehan an enemy combatant. Sheehan was then put on board a plane to Guantanamo Bay Cuba.
“America is a safer place now that Cindy Sheehan is behind bars in Cuba.” Said White House spokesmen Ben Lion. “Sheehan was apprehended today during a daring daylight protest against the President without a permit. The President frowns on this sort of ant-American behavior and exercised his right to have her arrested and held without charge and flown to a foreign country where she will be deprived of her rights. As an enemy combatant Ms. Sheehan will be afforded first class treatment that may or may not include torture.”

whattheheck - I must disagree that the culture of lobbyists isn’t Bush (i.e. Republican) policy.  The number of lobbyists have doubled during this administration.  And people who say that Abramoff et al. is a “bipartisan” problem are full of shit.  Paul Krugman wrote a great article on this yesterday.  If anything, he ensured that less money went to Democrats.

Democrats are no saints, but Republicans are definitely little devils. 

A word on etiquette by Paul Carus:

The most important laws of nature in the ethical domain are those which regulate all the various and sometimes very delicate relations of man to man, which concatenate our fates and set soul to soul in a mutually helpful responsion.

“Since you used Madison as an example, it may be worth noting that he was an incredible elitist...”

Many have held that notion in the past, few today. You might want to read fairly recent books by Drew R. McCoy, Joseph J. Ellis, Robert Allen Rutland, Bernard Bailyn, Lance Banning and Gordon S. Wood as well as articles and essays by them and others on the subject (yes, those books and many others that I often return to sit on my shelves, close at hand). In recent years there has been a long awaited, much needed reexamination - reevalution if you prefer - of the revolution and the founding.

The constitution and the founding are certainly relevant today (although the direct connection with Bush’s wiretapping may not be immediately obvious) as Bernard Bailyn makes clear:

“We must get the two-hundred-year-old story straight, in some way, in order to make sense of our own world.”

To repeat, this discussion needs another forum. I started an exchange that predictably has fizzled out. If you are interested you can read my original posting and the comments that followed here:

http://www.kucinich.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=8303&sid=f24e6bcf549f32466ab80 02914afe496f

rocco and others…

For more of my comments on the subject of good government/constitutional change click on this URL (if you’re interested, that is):

http://lists.gp-us.org/pipermail/iowa-work/2003-November/000505.html

mirmir -

‘In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body.’

James Madison. At Lenin’s Tomb, commenter David Traynier quoted it from: Jonathan Elliot, ed., ‘The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 1787’ Philadelphia: Lippincott, 2nd edition, (1937[1836]), p. 450

An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labour under all the hardships of life, & secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this Country, but symptoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarters to give notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded against on republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded against? Among other means by the establishment of a body in the Govt. sufficiently respectable for its wisdom & virtue, to aid on such emergencies, the preponderance of justice by throwing its weight into that scale.

June 26, 1787(http://www.adena.com/adena/usa/rv/rv011.htm), Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 as reported by James Madison

I admittedly haven’t read the books you’ve suggested, but that’s some pretty strong stuff.  How exactly do the authors you mentioned handle this sentiment?

rocco…
It would be impossible to summarize all that’s written by these authors - I wouldn’t try.
It isn’t fair to any of the Founders to select a few random quotes supposing that a few lines could accurately portray the whole man. The arguments are complex, the debate long and passionate. There were few (maybe none) involved in the noble struggle who did not change one or more of their fondly held notions as they debated and, above all, listened. That is what I, at least, would expect from great intellects.
I think that Madison, justly considered the “Father of the Constitution,” as well as the other Founders, would be surprised and shocked that we have so little modified the Constitution in its more than 200 years of existence.
If you want to read some of the authors that I mentioned I suggest that you begin with:
*Gordon S. Wood’s “The Creation of the American Republic”
*Bernard Bailyn’s “The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution”
*Drew R. McCoy’s “The Last of the Fathers: James Madison and the Republican Legacy.”
Having read these three books (and they are imminently readable) I’d be surprised if you weren’t stimulated to go on to read others.

mirmir - It’s never fair to anyone to be mythologized.  But that is what we have done to the Founders.  Christ, we capitalize the word ‘Founders’ as if they we on high.  Every one of them that I have studied (and Madison isn’t among them) were incredible personalities with all-too-human contradictions, foibles, etc. 

And while it may not be an accurate summation of the man in toto, someone’s own words are always fair game.  Adams will always be held accountable by history for the Alien & Sedition Acts; Jefferson for his maddeningly warped views on human freedom and the institution of slavery. 

If Madison held those views (and to be fair, he saw the House as a popular counter...but held in check by its republican nature) in 1787, and if he indeed is the Father (the ‘cap’ thing again) of the Constitution, then it’s fair to say that the Constitution is an elitist doctrine.  It maintains elitist rule.

I am a big fan of the Constitution, and from a historical perspective, it’s downright miraculous.  But it think that we need to view it with modern eyes, and from your previous posts I think it’s safe to say we agree on that.  I will keep my eye out for the books you recommend...thanks.

To get this line of thinking back on topic: is it possible to amend a 200+ year-old document which governed a pastoral society with an agricultural-based economy to control a 21st century urban and suburban landscape fueled by corporate finance and high technology?

I often make parallels between America and Rome in my posts.  Rome too was a small agrarian society governed by a wonderful compromise between the rich and the middle class.  As Rome’s conquests grew, the republican rule was no longer functional.  It deteriorated into an empire with totalitarian rule.  The Roman people, made fat and lazy through pillage, didn’t bat an eye.

I saw a poll that 50% of the people in the US are unfazed by the actions of the NSA.  Ave Caesar!

“...someone’s own words are always fair game.”

Yes, but our words change over time. I’d hate to be held accountable for what I might have said when I was 20. I’ve learned, the Founders learned (yes, for me always capitalized - I revere them). I think that what they accomplished was remarkable, little short of miraculous, FOR THEIR TIME. I doubt that it would have been possible to have gotten anything better. I said that they would probably be “shocked” that we have scarecly changed their constitution. I ought to have said that they would be horrified, astounded, incredulous. We consider the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other historical documents to be sacred, right up there with the holy bible, and not subject to criticism or change. If you want to read another book that talks about this “sacred” business read Pauline Maier’s “American Scripture.” A fine book.
I’m no fan of myths as guide to action or understanding.

So, the fall of the middle class didn’t start with NAFTA?
WTH has made a good point and a joke.

Well rocco and mirmir it appears that posting here is suddenly a valuable pursuit. Because you’re doing it, right?

Why is it so important to you,mirmir, to set the off topic agendas?

Do you two have any evidence that protests are effective? Does doubt ever enter your mind or are you too well grounded in the self-comforting idea that demonstration would work if only more people would show up? They don’t show up because they’re “lazy” and “comfortable”? That’s the only way to explain their absence is it? That’s very convenient.

Have you ever stopped to consider that protest marches worked in the sixties because of the nature and character of our society at that time, and that it doesn’t work now because this isn’t the sixties, among other reasons? How is that the ability to attend a lot of protests is less in the comfort zone than going to work at your second job so the family has health insurance?

Thinking that you are doing the real work of democracy because you attend protests, is like someone thinking they’re one of the great artists because they can copy masterpieces. Leading is not following.

Mirmir and rocco you have both retreated into the comfort of certainty.

ah, wiley.  Isn’t the struggle for vindication exhausting?

Why is it so important to you,mirmir, to set the off topic agendas?
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 1, 2006 at 5:18 PM

OK, I’ve strayed far from the topic. This is my last posting, promise.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 17, 2006 at 10:02 PM

Mirmir, please look through the other threads. The threads here are long. We wander around. It’s good. Ignorance is no problem---who isn’t ignorant?
Hang out.  Relax. The water’s fine, once you get used to it.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 17, 2006 at 10:31 PM

Hey mirmir, there are crowds on other posts. We have primarily sustained this thread by talking beyond the article. Happens all the time. It works.  Can anyone get a conversation going about Iran on any related threads?
There’s a challenge.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 18, 2006 at 9:36 PM