In every dictatorship of any kind there is “rule of law” just that the law is written by the criminal and evil to bend to their purpose. We have it here too. Nothing extraordinary or exceptional about that. It needs to change or the Republic is lost.

Textynn—I agree. The problem, I think, is that Democrats, some of them, were almost certainly collaborators, in that they knew about it, were briefed on it, and, also, do not want certain policies (like indefinite detention and wiretapping) to stop.

But, I agree, there is either a rule of law or there is not.

This mess is exploding in our faces and if we don’t prosecute the Bush Administration for torture, the world is gonna start treating us like the third world nation we are becoming. America better wake up, our Democracy is slipping through our fingers. We are simply being told to accept this as acceptable behavior exactly like a pedophile grooms his victims to accept his demands. This is the opposite of democracy. The exact opposite.

This best we as a nation have gotten out of our leaders on this topic is some weird infantile attempt to blame this on Nancy Pelosi. I’ve heard better cover ups from third graders on the playground. 

The Bush Administration was a totally off-the-wall bunch of greedy corrupt murderous criminals with absolutely no regard for humanity and there’s nothing left to do but admit it.

Night Guant—I dunno, dont want to think about it…lol

The Iroquois refer to Gen Washington as Gen Town Destroyer. In 2004 , the uS Govt “acknowledged the contribution ” of the Iroquois Constitution on the framers of the Constitution and Articles of Confederation. Sounds like we shouldve included MORE of their Constitution, eh?

INteresting. And, we still cant even pass the Equal Rights Amendment…

I agree with you InheritTheWind and I would say that it was a deliberate measure by a cabal whose sole purpose is to bring down our republic and replace it with a corporate theocracy. [Note that the Middle Class did well from its inception in 1945 to 1980 when things started on a spiral of death.]

I would say BigEasy that it isn’t “broken” so much a retooled to fit another function antithetical to its original operation. A purposeful alteration by the cabal (Dominionists) to slowly reshape the Republic into a Theocracy over time. They are very patient and have reached the point to bring it all down. What their minion Obama is doing isn’t fixing it, just keeping it going for a while. It can still fall.

Well no MarthA Hannibal Lector is fiction and did escape asylum prison in the books. The other real ones you quoted have not.

“Or, as someone used to say, “Get ‘em by the balls, and their hearts and their minds will follow”.”—KDelphi

How does that work with women? How about something universal and not just for one gender. Like stomachs and spines, even by the short hairs?

A parlimentery system would have been more representative of us. Or just institute proportional representation in voting counts. Not winner take all.

Too bad our Founders ignored the Ho-de-no-sau-nee of the Iraquois. (Franklin recommended they look into it and use it.) Monocameral with all men, but the women had the power to replace them.

REF: DYSFUNCTIONAL CONGRESS

Again, we could begin with a parlimentary model, making improvements, one phase a time. On the order of how either the Manhatten project was done or NASA in its glory days.

It should be the centerpiece of the Obama administration. What a glorious accomplishment that would be. It is, indeed, broken and the foundation or, if you prefer, the fountain for change.

First accept that we have an obsolete system, commit to change it and begin with a proven example that can be improved. Next, reinstate heavy transportation, namely, high speed rail connecting vital areas of productive activity.

The devil is in the details but it has been done before because the people were inspired and hopeful. If they would just turn over to me, Obama can have the glory and I would have the satisfaction. If not me, maybe you. Patchwork spending is stupid. Think big but define the big goals.

Anarcissie—I didnt “expect” it—I just wished it.

Hawkeye—There is some truth to what you say. It would be more proportionately representative, in some respects.

REF: KDelphi

There are some 435 rocks in the U.S. Congress. They should all be removed, Thursday.

It is time to accept reality and all that comes with European style socialism. We should also change from the failed congressional template and utilize the parlimentary system. It will help reduce the in-your-face corporate lobbyists.

We will be better represented with MPs and a Prime Minister, who must alway face a possible “no confidence” vote every two years. The congressional system sux. Reorganize and replace the lot of the rock heads.

Folktruther, May 27 at 4:36 am #

Good God, Jackpine, look what you started!  You think rocks are sentient?  You’re not a Buhdist, you’re a dingbat.  Lie ISN’T suffering, I think its fun.  Alright,fine, life is islands of fun in a sea of suffering.  but look on the bright side, things may get bette, especially if we are all good soldiers in the war for human liberation.
********************************************

Didn’t you have a Pet Rock back in the 70’s, FT?  Don’t you believe rocks are people too?

Ok, ok, I confess: I didn’t have a Pet Rock.  I thought they were a stupid gimmick then, and still do, something even Ron Popeil wouldn’t be audacious enough to try and sell (who can forget the Inside-the-Egg-Scrambler? Makes a PERFECT Christmas gift!—for a moron, from a moron).

Rocks are, well….rocks.  Some are really nice to look at, fairly rare and insanely expensive to buy, but they are still just, well, rocks.

Well, Kutler wanted Congress to defy their constituents on the higher, more important things, and they certainly did that with regard to the bailouts.

Generally, though, I think Congress represents the various contradictions of their constituencies pretty well.  Voting for the overt theft of Paulsen’s bailout was a considerable exception.  Expecting them to hang tough against their own maximum leader in regard to Bush and company’s war crimes is a bit much, given the fact that a majority of the electorate and those they elected were at least passively complicit in them.

Or, as someone used to say, “Get ‘em by the balls, and their hearts and their minds will follow”.

TDR? LBJ?

Yes, indeed.  Congress - both houses and both parties - is a sick joke.  I disagree that it just sat back and watched the bush administration.  Its members participated fully either directly by their vote to invade Iraq, or by acquiescing to illegal wire tapping, torture, and other civil liberty atrocities.  Their *only* interest is to get re-elected so they can line their pockets with taxpayer dollars and lobbyists’ bribes.

Good God, Jackpine, look what you started!  You think rocks are sentient?  You’re not a Buhdist, you’re a dingbat.  Lie ISN’T suffering, I think its fun.  Alright,fine, life is islands of fun in a sea of suffering.  but look on the bright side, things may get bette, especially if we are all good soldiers in the war for human liberation.

thebeerdr—I loved his article today…still re-reading it…thanks

prgill, I hate to sound too much like an Enlightenment pedant;  but I need to pick a significant nit with your terminology!  The phrase “obey the laws of physics” is, I fear, a dangerously deceptive barbarism.  The actions of bouncing balls (to take the simplest case) are EXPLAINED by the “laws” (that is the word we must use with caution) of physics;  but, once we leave the objective world of science, the concept of obedience entails the taking of MOTIVATED actions.  When jackpine savage writes of verbs without subjects or objects, he is writing of a world of actions without motives;  and this, indeed, is the world of trees and rocks, as well as bouncing balls.  Within that world physics can explain the actions of rocks;  and, if you subscribe to the premise that all biology can be reduced to physics (a premise that has lately met with some resistance in the scientific community), then the actions of trees can also be explained by physics.  Nagarjuna’s stance is one of transcending the ego, which entails transcending the need for motive behind action.

Tempting as this may sound, I cannot accept it.  I have no problem with the premise that all is illusion.  Where I depart from Buddhism is in the belief that the illusion is SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED and NECESSARY to the existence of the individual.  (If our very existence does not have at least of fragment of necessity to it, why bother with it?  As Shaw put it to Tolstoy, even if there were a God who had created us out of some cosmic joke, would we not want to make the joke a good one?)  Like it or not, motives are part of a genetic make-up.  We can understand them better through meditative practices, such as those of Buddhism;  but we cannot transcend them without sacrificing our bodies as well.

Note that none of this contradicts that first “noble truth” of Buddhism.  Life IS suffering.  As a motivated individual, you have a choice:  You can try to escape it, or you can try to deal with it.  I have considered the former option, but the latter always seems to prevail!

Jackpine (and Folktruther), I might add to your discussion of trees, rocks and bouncing balls: Each of these, indeed, all objects demonstrate intelligence to the extent that they obey the laws of physics. I will have a look at Nagarjuna’s argument on dependent origination. Sounds interesting…

Folktruther,

Philosophically i’m a Buddhist (meaning that i don’t practice it per se).  It’s not so much that people are no better than rocks as it is that all life is equal and sentient…and yes, i include rocks as sentient life.  I accept Nagarjuna’s incredible argument on dependent origination, which extrapolates to a conclusion that there is no separateness.  It’s impossible.

Life is suffering…the first noble truth.  There is a way out of suffering, but the path leads inwards not outwards.  And it is our egos that trap us in suffering.  If you want to see enlightenment, watch a tree or a rock…or a ball bouncing in a mountain stream.  No subjects, no objects only verbs.  In this way, yes, the rock is better than man because the rock just is. 

I don’t hate people, i hate egos.  People choose to define themselves with their egos.  And so we’re left with a planet of monkeys raging against the gilded cage of their own construction.  Worse, most believe that the victory of their own ego over the ego of others will improve the lot of all, so rather than direct their energy inward it flows outward and simply inflicts the ego-problem on a wider range of people.

As George Clinton is fond of saying, “Free your mind and your ass will follow.”  I’ve yet to meet a tree or a rock with a fettered mind.

Since there are Bageant fans on Truthdig, here you go:

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2009/05/a-redneck-view-of-the-obamarama.html

Jackpine- You don’t like people more than rocks?  What are you, a geologist?  Look, you have a point that not only does power delude, but people want to be deluded.  But that’s the way people are, and WE ARE PEOPLE, NOT ROCKS! 

Let the rocks take care of themselves, we have an obligation to people.  And we can’t fulfill this obligation unless we identify with people against oppressive power.  And who said that progress was a straightline progression.  History moves sideways, like a crab.

But I like Bageant and the ‘necks too.

Charlie Reese did an excellent piece on this very subject

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18568.htm

“The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?”

It actually helps to have a depraved, sold-out Congress because it forces an examination of the system itself. Since most problems are systemic this is the only way we can obtain relief. Reform efforts will not work because the beneficiaries of this system are enabled sociopaths. They’d rather kill us than share power, and they are very good at keeping us powerless and uninformed.

I’d prefer a parliament with a P.M. rather than a POTUS. Avoids gridlock & builds change right into the system. Doesn’t that sound Obamaesque?

prgill, May 25 at 9:38 am #

Ardee, I don’t understand IRV.
................
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
................

Also, you use the word “subservient”. If I understand your meaning, each of the branches of government willingly defers to the opinion and wishes of the other.
...........................
” For that matter we see a constant struggle to make all three branches harmonious and subservient.”
Meaning that , as we saw with the Bush administration, they appoint activist judges while ranting about the other guys activist judges in order to get their own ideology atop the food chain. While the founders envisioned checks and balances, our two parties struggle to eliminate the checks and destroy the balance.
...................

The Guantanamo issue is as much about the hardened criminals, America-haters,women-haters, radical Islamists and despisers of liberty, as it is about the existence, on the southern tip of Cuba, of an extra-territorial military establishement outside the purview of civilian authority.
........................

Not so much as it is about it being a symbol of torture and false imprisonment around the world. A place where those who have never been formally accused, tried or convicted have been tortured and imprisoned for years and years.
.....................

We do not know what to do with the prisoners held in Guantamo. We do know however, that there is no lack of high security prison facilities in the U.S. and abroad, many of which are more directly linked to our geo-political and security interests.

We also know that we want a fresh start with Cuba, and that closing Guantanamo will give notice that as promoters of the American Way, we are changing the rules for the better.
........................

The closing of Guantanamo refers only to part in which these suspected terrorists are kept, not to the closing of the entire place. As far as I am aware we have no intention f giving the place up. In fact, there is currently a large and expensive remodeling going on there.

This is one of the dumbest articles I have ever read. Ranting and raving about congress without presenting even the slightest hint of a solution is known as grandstanding. How about a constitutional convention?

prgill:
’... We do not know what to do with the prisoners held in Guantamo. We do know however, that there is no lack of high security prison facilities in the U.S. and abroad, many of which are more directly linked to our geo-political and security interests. ...’

The problem is that there is no legal basis for holding the prisoners.  Moving them from one prison to another does not solve this problem.

So send them to Super-Max!  What ARE they afraid of: these guys might then have access to lawyers?  I mean, say a Gitmo transfer talks to Ted K, and he talks to HIS lawyer, well…..before you know it the Gitmo guys will be all lawyered-up, seeking things like their rights under the Constitution, the Geneva Convention and international law.

And we can’t have that, can we? After all, we’re America, Land of the Free.

I must say I AM disappointed with Obama on this.  It’s a no-brainer.

Ardee, I don’t understand IRV.

Also, you use the word “subservient”. If I understand your meaning, each of the branches of government willingly defers to the opinion and wishes of the other.

The Guantanamo issue is as much about the hardened criminals, America-haters,women-haters, radical Islamists and despisers of liberty, as it is about the existence, on the southern tip of Cuba, of an extra-territorial military establishement outside the purview of civilian authority.

We do not know what to do with the prisoners held in Guantamo. We do know however, that there is no lack of high security prison facilities in the U.S. and abroad, many of which are more directly linked to our geo-political and security interests.

We also know that we want a fresh start with Cuba, and that closing Guantanamo will give notice that as promoters of the American Way, we are changing the rules for the better.

Thank you for the link, jackpine.  It’s a fascinating blog and I identify with so much of it.  It’s nice to hear someone talk about average Americans, the new working poor, if you will, but Americans who do read and do understand what’s going on.

prgill, May 25 at 3:45 am #

It seems reasonable to predict that the Legislative Branch will once again defer to the Executive Branch in disposing of the hardened America-haters currently held in Guantanamo.
.................

While trends are not analyzed using one example but must be seen over time, I think the timing of this speculative post on the separation of powers suffers due to the recent rejection of President Obama’s wishes by Congress concerning the closing of Guantanamo.

Perhaps the Executive will win this battle in the end, perhaps not. We have seen, time and again, a Congress embattled with an Executive and sometimes in full accord with it as well. For that matter we see a constant struggle to make all three branches harmonious and subservient.

We have a broken government for certain, but the underlying principles, the mechanism by which we are governed is still sound I believe. Rather than throw babies out with bath water I believe we need several pertinent reforms, such as IRV, real campaign finance reform involving free access to media for all legitimate candidates, an end to lobbying, an independent Justice system, etc.

I still think the Founder’s to have been geniuses, it is we the people who have become less.

Why can’t media and political figures form genuine sentiment or thought? My suspicion is this: Those who grow up in the childrens’ wading pools of America, entranced by their toys and watched over by nanny capitalism in suburbia or Gotham, never glimpse the deep waters, and therefore live out their lives as children, capable only of childish perception. And in dispensing their perceptions as reality from their positions of power, they further infantilize our entire nation.

~Joe Bageant (in response to this)
http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2009/05/dirt-and-family-sea-foam-and-fate.html#more

Folktruther,

The power structure and elite in the United States have indeed deluded the American people for so long that the people don’t even know (generally) how deluded they are.  No question or argument from me on that.

But our current state could not have been achieved without the complicity of the people themselves. Ignorance is not a lack of knowledge but what comes from ignoring.

We are all responsible.

Sure, i’m a touch misanthropic.  But it stems not from hating people so much as from not seeing what’s so special about us as a species.  We are just monkeys with fancy thumbs and ankles and a brain that forces us to be born severely premature.

We have the potential, i suppose, to be more than monkeys but potential is worth diddly squat.

It probably doesn’t help that i don’t believe in progress (philosophically) because it presupposes a straight time-line which i also don’t believe in.

It is not so much that i dislike people but that i don’t like people more than dogs, cats, blades of grass and rocks.  I see no difference.

It seems reasonable to predict that the Legislative Branch will once again defer to the Executive Branch in disposing of the hardened America-haters currently held in Guantanamo.

The problem with “representativity” in Congress is that Congressional authority was emasculated in the process of separating Legislative and Executive powers. Since when do “power of the purse” or “advice and consent” trump executive power? This is like arguing that women hold sway over men because they ultimately control the reproduction process.

A “representative” able to build a viable governing coalition should be able to challenge authority at any time. Successful challenges should be granted leave to govern, perhaps by a supreme council or high court whose interests are CLEARLY identified with the national interests. Clearly, a constitutional convention would have to revisit the entire concept of “separation of powers”.

Jackpine, the Americn people have been systematicaly deluded from childhood by the American truth system.  We are consequently politically clueless, deluded, intimidated and braindead.  What do yo expect: people are people.

I an beginning to suspect that you don’t like people much.  I will pray for you.

REF: Empires fail because of overextended, poor management.

They fail quickly once the governing body that controls the purse strings grow lazy, corrupt and greedy.

In every case, the collapses could have been averted with intelligent, measures to both stop the corruption and waste. The problem and the solution is found in many centuries of written history.

Autocrats and totalitarianism is a bad, temporary solution. Yet, too often the first solution tried once a government collapses.

Perhaps humankind has not evolved enough to govern empires. It just cannot be done—perhaps?

Congress was broken when it was created. The framers threw away centuries of Parliamentary evolution in favour of an untried ideal. It doesn’t work, never has, never will !!

Get used to it or change it from the current elected Monarchy system.

Gingrich’s “Contract with America” and the surrounding and ensuing political developments seem not at all plebiscitory but exactly the Burkean sort of politics Kutler claims to desire.  The Republicans presented a fairly coherent program and said they would attempt to enact it if elected, and did, in the face of a good deal of resistance.  The Congressional vote was, however, not a plebescite; as the Contract itself says, the initiatives would be presented and then debated and possibly modified, or not passed at all, and that is what happened.  If you want a plebescite, I think you need Proposition 13.  Both of these events are remote from the Internet, but I don’t think the Internet would have affected them much.  The Internet did not affect Congress’s vote in favor of the various bailouts, although it was seething with anti-bailout sentiment.  The Internet and the public are divided about 50-50 on unswerving support for whoever is in power in Israel, but the policians are just about 100% on one side.  So I don’t see any evidence that the Internet is contributing to a plebescitory approach to politics.  Quite the opposite, going by what’s been happening.

In judging Wikipedia and the like, it seems to me we have to compare it not to some ideal, but to other, presumably authoritarian, facilities of the same general kind, like Britannica.  While Britannica may (or may not) be able to secure more high-powered expertise, honesty, freedom from bias, and other virtues are not particularly conferred on those with academic degrees or connections.  That is, it’s just as likely that Britannica will choose to err as that Wikipedia will.  And in fact I believe that’s been established objectively.

The problems with the custodes is that they’re no better than the rest of us.

As for crowd-sourcing in general, it is still an experiment, a development.  I don’t think much can be said about it yet besides wild speculation, romantic flights of fancy, and so forth—the prerogatives of youth.

Spend a few hours watching C-Span…when it’s not a camera on a mostly empty room…and everything is quickly explained.

Congress is too representative of We the People.  There’s the lady down the street who uses enough electricity to power an Indian village so that she might have a “decorated” yard for every holiday.  There’s the guy who owns the used-car lot; he always gives a pretty good deal…even if it’s generally on a lemon.  There’s the big shot lawyer who gets liquored up at happy hour until he’s loud and obnoxious.

You’ve got country club jackasses with rich friends, and they type who will do anything to weasel their way into the country club set.  They’re all their, like a demented Noah’s Ark of 20th Century America.

But you’re unlikely to find too many thoughtful people in the august chambers of Congress.  Thoughtful people have already thought better of trying to win the job.

By truedigger3, May 24 at 5:35 pm #

Stanley Kutler wrote:
“Congress wants to close the Guantanamo facility, but it will not accept the responsibility that goes with that action. We cannot hold prisoners in Cuba indefinitely. Sadly, few are willing to stand for principle in the face of undoubtedly misplaced fears”
_____________________________________________________

Neither Obama nor the congress want REALLY to close
Guantanamo prison. All what is going on is theatrics
and make believe posturing.
What is the reason for the so called “misplaced fears”??!! Do the detainees will be transfered to
half-way houses in the hearts of communities??!!
And in the unlikely situation if Guantanamo is
closed, the detainees will be transfered to another
facilities, most likely floating prisons or prisons
in foreign lands also without specific charges or
trials.
The truth of the matter is that Obama is rolling
exactly on the same tracks W Bush was rolling on.
Detentions and future more detentions without trials and specific charges will continue. That was declared
last Friday late afternoon. Renditions will continue!!. Military Commission Tribunals will continue!!
So, where is the CHANGE. Can we keep the HOPE?

Stanley Kutler wrote:
“Congress wants to close the Guantanamo facility, but it will not accept the responsibility that goes with that action. We cannot hold prisoners in Cuba indefinitely. Sadly, few are willing to stand for principle in the face of undoubtedly misplaced fears”
_____________________________________________________

Neither Obama nor the congress want REALLY to close
Guantanamo prison. All what is going on is theatrics
and make believe posturing.
What is the reason for the so called “misplaced fearso

Anarcissie, your points are well taken;  but I have some rebuttals.

As I see it the primary danger we face is the loss of our current representative system in favor of a plebiscitary one.  I would agree with Inherit the Wind that plebiscitary processes surfaced as a threat during the Reagan years;  but the “Contract on America” (as I prefer to call it) has probably been the most significant flexing of plebiscitary muscle in my own lifetime.  This, of course, took place before the Internet floodgates had opened;  but Newt was one of the first to see that such technology would empower enabling any future such “contracts.”  He just got too wrapped up in his own insight to recognize that the other side could be similarly facilitated.  There is definitely merit to comparing the Internet of today with journalism at the time of the Constitutional Convention, but that overlooks the ease of participation that the Internet affords.  As I see it, that ease of participation threatens what Folktruther has called “the American truth system.”  When questions of truth become subjugated to processes like crowdsourcing (the epitome of which is the “Wikipedia Fight Club”), then the fears that Folktruther has expressed begin to approach the reality of our times:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2009/03/michel-foucault-in-age-of-crowdsourcing.html

I grant your point about the reality of Burke’s own practices.  As I see it, that disconnect emphasizes the difficulty of what it means to choose or be a representative.  The process of choice has been undermined by Gingrich-style plebiscitary practices;  the process of being a representative has been undermined by rampant lobbying.  As one poet put it, “You pays your money, and you doesn’t take your choice.”  This basically supports Kutler’s “broken” thesis.

As to your final point, welcome to the world of Plato!  QUIS CUSTODIET CUSTODES?  It is unclear how the membership of a constitutional convention should be “constituted,” let alone monitored for accountability.  We can probably even escalate to a meta-level and worry about who should be addressing such questions!  Perhaps we need to go back to more fundamental basics:  Are the objectives of the Preamble to the Constitution still being satisfied?  If not, can we still engage the processes of that framework to fix the broken system?  I am not yet convinced that the only way to move forward would be through the full-out disruption of wholesale revolution.  If that is just a reflection of Burke’s thoughts on the French Revolution, then so be it!

ThomasG, May 24 at 3:50 pm #

So, does posting the exact same rant in at least three places, regardless of the topic, make you a pundit or a bandit? Spam, spam ,spam, spam…to quote Monte Python.

“Obana’s standup comedy act a few weeks ago, which thrilled the Obama cheerleaders, was performed while he was systematically breaking every campaign promise: to continue war, neoliberalism and a demobilizing police state.  Being entertained while being conned may be good enough for the Obamaites, but the future is becoming bleak for the rest of us.”

This wasn’t lost on me one bit.  I could not even watch the joking.  How do you inform people when the MSM does such a good job at praising him.  Thank God we have the internet as a start.  Obama like to disparage and dismiss internet people—the bloggers and the people who ask “silly” questions like legalizing marijuana.  I find that interesting. 

Here are the only shows on TV that come close to really criticizing Obama’s policies on anything:  The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Rachel Maddow, Countdown, Real Time with Bill Maher (he was a tear this past Friday, the earlier cheerleading gone).  What do these all have in common, though?  They are cable shows.  There are still a significant amount of people that don’t have cable. 

Right now Congress is where we have to start and starting this November.

Subjectified Law and Order

Subjectified law and order is the law and order of CONSERVATIVE RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST REPUBLICANS and their DLC minions of the Professional Middle Class singularity, that is influenced by political special interest and personal prejudice taking place within the minds and emotions of those that are of the CONSERVATIVE RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN and Professional Middle Class singularity, who advocate, make, and benefit from subjectified law and order that is imposed upon the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION as a class and culture and who have had no part in promulgating the subjectified law and order, do not benefit from the subjectified law and order that is imposed upon them and are, in fact, class and culturally subjugated, oppressed and tyrannized by subjectified law and order that is imposed upon them by the American aristocracy and Professional Middle Class singularity, as the dominant classes and cultures in the United States.

Subjectified law and order was used by the British against the American colonists, by the American colonists against the Native people of North America and subjectified law and order is now being used by the ruling classes and cultures of the 30% combined minorities of the American aristocracy and the Professional Middle Class singularity against the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION as a class and culture.

We all know what the result was of subjectified law and order by the British against the American colonists and the Native Nations of the North American continent by American colonists and their descendants.

The result of subjectified law and order was subjugation, oppression and tyranny in the case of the British against the American colonists that resulted in revolution and subjugation, oppression and tyranny by the American colonists and their descendants against the peoples of the Native Nations of North America that led to genocide and internment in concentration camps that exist to the present day.

The result of class and culturally subjectified law and order imposed by the classes and cultures of the 30% combined minorities of the American aristocracy and the Professional Middle Class singularity against the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the United States will be no different than it was in the case of the British and the American colonists, or the American colonists and their descendants against the peoples of the Native Nations of the North American continent; the result will be eventual revolution or continuing subjugation, oppression and tyranny that will lead to genocide and internment of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION as a class and culture.

At the present time, class and culturally subjectified law and order by the classes and cultures of the American aristocracy and Professional Middle Class singularity has in our nation, the United States, with a population of three hundred million, imprisoned more of the common population than China, a nation with a population of one billion more population than the United States.

It is time for a change; it is time for a multi-party political system to be institutionalized in the United States, so that the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULAITON can have a political party and represent themselves in the government of the United States.

It would be a tragedy for the United States as a nation to put off this much needed reform in our political system and allow the subjugation, oppression, tyranny, imprisonment, genocide and internment that history has shown will eventually result.

Congress is essentially irrelvent to the population at the present time because they have been bought and paid for by lobbiests of the ruling class. In the Bushite political revolution, the US power system has switched over to a presidential dictatorship, much as a Roman emperor replaced the Rmoan Senate and other offices while leaving the institutions in place, devoid of power.

What we should be concentrating on is the American truth system, the learned and mass media and other truth organs.  they are essential to the police state that Bushobama is installing to rule during monstrous and increasing class inequality.

The Amerian people don’t understand this police state because it is different, in ceratain ways the opposite, of the mobilizing fascism of pre WW2.  The purpose of the Ameerican police state is not to mobilize the people but to DE-MOBILIZE US.  This was predicted by Michael Lind in 1995 in THE NEXT AMERICAN NATION:

    “Dictatorship in the United States would most likely be demobilizing, seeking to keep people in their homes, rather than putting them in the streets… An American dictatorship would clothe itself in constitutional and legal forms; it would cultivate an aura of nonpartisan technoocacy and business expertise…And American Fuehrer would not rant and strut, but crack jokes and adopt the relaxed, ironical, “cool’ style of a television host.”

Obana’s standup comedy act a few weeks ago, which thrilled the Obama cheerleaders, was performed while he was systematically breaking every campaign promise: to continue war, neoliberalism and a demobilizing police state.  Being entertained while being conned may be good enough for the Obamaites, but the future is becoming bleak for the rest of us.

Truth is more important than votes.  a people’s media is more important than Congress, which is hopelessly corrupt.  The question is: how is it possible to de-Educate and de-inform the population when they are still being indoctrinated with power delusions?

James Madison saw the danger of representatives pandering to “factions,” or groups “actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest adverse to ... the permanent and aggregate interest of the community.”

Kutler’s quote above rings so true. How could we have elected so many little minds to tend such important affairs? What is it in our society that is so pervasive that our government and our businesses are run by such mentally-stunted men and women (mostly men).

Aggregate interests are all but forgotten in business and government. Are we all so self-indulged that we cannot see that we are heading to irrelevance in the world.

Even worse leaders will gladly take of the slack. The Chinese in terms of economic strength and Confucian ways? The Russians in terms of cutthroat ways and an autocratic tradition? The Japanese with their mercantile economic system and their willingness to make us believe they like us?

Compared to other alternatives our warts are less but our leaders are clueless.

Stephen—I have a few problems with what you have written in your blog.

First, the Internet has as yet very little power over the politics of the country.  Most of its effect has been to replace the already-failing mass commercial media with new sources of information, which the ruling class have not yet figured out how to control.  We are seeing something like the burgeoning of print publication in the 18th century, much of which, like today’s Internet, was scurrilous and pornographic, or the tool of fanatics.  The press then, and the Internet now, cannot dictate policy or change administrations.

Second, Kutler complains that Congress isn’t Burkean enough.  As I previously posted (a few paragraphs down) it is very Burkean, very solicitous of the interests and desires of those who head the established order.  A Congress that truly represented the people in any way might have swallowed Guantánamo but they certainly would not have swallowed the bailouts.  Such a Congress would be full of troublemakers, and fans of government would be pulling their hair out about how “unmanageable” it was and comparing it to the French Fourth Republic.  Kutler wold probably be at the front of the crowd.  He doesn’t realize that he’s already got what he appears to want, a monarch and a gaggle of courtiers.

Finally, a Constitutional convention would be populated by the same people we now have in Congress, elected by the same electorate who elected them.  It would be easily cowed by the established order and it is hard to see it doing anything but abolishing the Bill of Rights.

Is the present state corrupt and pathological?  Of course it is.  It is following the path of states, and this is the way the state ends.  If you want something different you have to seek non-state solutions.

“..Congress has been a spectator to President George W. Bush’s Iraq war and to the shameful use of “enhanced interrogation” and other forms of torture which were widely documented during Bush’s presidency.”

Sorry, that would be active PARTICIPANT

ardee—.” While he supported the American revolution he condemned the French, and he was a supporter of authority above all else. ” Yes.

A typical ‘Merkin position, also. The US population tend to idolize “our ” “Revolution”, but, we fight on the side of authority and dictators for other countries, (Iran/Contra, the entire Southern Cone, etc.) We idolized Uribe and demonize Chavez. Mostly, Congress supports multi-nationals, “free trade” and Capitalistic markets, not people.

Burke also said this concerning the “Colonies”:“By adverting to the dignity of this high calling our ancestors have turned a savage wilderness into a glorious empire: and have made the most extensive, and the only honorable conquests, not by destroying, but by promoting the wealth, the number, the happiness of the human race….”

“...Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be..”

Karl Marx on Burke:

“The sycophant — who in the pay of the English oligarchy played the romantic laudator temporis acti against the French Revolution just as, in the pay of the North American colonies at the beginning of the American troubles, he had played the liberal against the English oligarchy — was an out-and-out vulgar bourgeois. ”

Forty years ago Gore Vidal suggested that we needed to convene a constitutional convention to “revisit the rulebook.”  At the time it was pretty easy to argue him down with “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  Now we have an argument that it IS “broke!”  Is it time to revisit Vidal’s suggestion?  Further thoughts at:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2009/05/representatives-without-representation.html

ardee:  But, at the root of the problem is a Congress unresponsive to the constitution, unfeeling to plight of the electorate excepting in empty words without deeds, and only concerned with individual self preservation. I think that, despite the author’s opining that Congress’ ills stem from its pandering to public opinion it is to its own reelection that each member toadies.

Three glaring cases in point:  Spector switching from Repub to Dem because stats show he can’t win as a Repub.  Lieberman, well, what can you say, Dem to Ind to Dem, created a new party to run in Connecticut as an Ind and then left said party out to dry, willing to hang out with buddy McCain and the Repubs until the election, the winds shifted, and he was fearful of losing his Congressional appointment.  Coleman—I don’t know what to say about Coleman.  Shameful to hold up a system for your own hunger for power.

This is no surprise in a society that values individual achievement over societal achievement.  It is and was expected.  Congress is now a commodity to be purchased.  Congress serves wealth.

Now for the hard part.  Serving wealth Congress has created the bailout BUBBLE, and it is ginormous; twelve trillion for the banks and a trillion for stimulus.  Once the stimulus is spent, it’s back to depression in the greatest collapse that America has ever seen.  Obama has faked left and gone right and that choice will be catastrophic.  Don’t even try to stop it, it’s too big.  Don’t bother cleaning your clocks, it’s being done for you.  Watch your lives disappear before your eyes, as we party to our deaths. With outstretched arms people cry, “God why have you forsaken me,” and God replies, “because you bug me.” Like automatons unable to change paths we march to the great (Guiness Book of World Records) radioactive barbeque. Frozen humans packaged to propagandistic perfection, we perish, and all of our things are rendered back to earth.  So why are we here?

Congress is probably a bit more raffish and uneducated than Burke would have preferred, but by and large I think they are precisely what he was talking about as ideal legislators.  As the vote over Paulsen’s bailout (the first one) showed, most of them were quite willing to offend nine-tenths of their constituents in order to service the orders of the ruling class, which I am sure from their point of view was the rational thing to do.  The business with Guantánamo is similar: they know what is going on is unconstitutional, but they know their duty is to rise above their principles.

They are conservatives in the basic sense of the word: they are going to conserve the system that feeds them and gives them privilege and preferment.  If the system goes off a cliff, at least they’ll be on top on the way to the bottom.

They’ve turned Congress into a whorehouse for corporate graft. Most of them should be shot for treason against the Constitution.

re: ardee

Thanks for clearing up this business about Burke. Between the idea and the reality falls the shadow…

This is news?

The words of Burke are seldom read these days, and the ones cited in the article may be eloquent yet I fear they mislead us as to the reasons we have a “broken” Congress.

Burke ( to dwell a moment if you please) is called the “father of conservatism” and gives the lie to those who refer to that political philosophy with epithets. Of course he was a sort of mixed bag to be certain. While he supported the American revolution he condemned the French, and he was a supporter of authority above all else. In the words of Winston Churchill:

“On the one hand [Burke] is revealed as a foremost apostle of Liberty, on the other as the redoubtable champion of Authority.”

In Burke’s own words:

“We fear God, we look up with awe to kings; with affection to parliaments; with duty to magistrates; with reverence to priests; and with respect to nobility. Why? Because when such ideas are brought before our minds, it is natural to be so affected.”

As to the author’s condemnation of Congress, I agree in part that this once august body no longer deliberates with honest intent but sways with the breeze of public opinion in its utterances.

But, at the root of the problem is a Congress unresponsive to the constitution, unfeeling to plight of the electorate excepting in empty words without deeds, and only concerned with individual self preservation. I think that, despite the author’s opining that Congress’ ills stem from its pandering to public opinion it is to its own reelection that each member toadies.

In order to assure a war chest sufficient to win another term Congress panders, not to the public excepting in the most shallow and superficial ways, but to those who can write the large campaign checks so very necessary to an election process designed to weed out the majority from obtaining office or influencing those who run.
It is ,in fact, the same folks who manufacture public opinion in the first place to whom Congress bows.

Are our august legislators so unaware that no one has ever escaped from a federal supermax prison? Of course they are not. Do they have the honesty to stand up to the propaganda machine that omits such facts from its editorials, of course they do not. That is what is wrong with our governance today.

Kutler is wrong.  Congress wasn’t broken 25 years ago but 28 years ago: When Reagan Democrats abandoned Tip O’Neil in the House, forcing O’Neil to call President Reagan and tell him the economy was now in Reagan’s hands.

The end result of that was, of course, the collapse of the American financial system and our economy over the last 2 years.  But the unintended consequence was that Congress stopped doing its job.

You can date it to that one vote and that one phone call.  Luckily, for O’Neil, he isn’t alive to see it.  But neither is Reagan alive to see the catastrophe from the destructive forces he unleashed.

The radio informs me that these prisoners are radioactive!