Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

America the Great ... Police State

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 28, 2009
police car
AP / Nick Ut

By Gore Vidal

(Page 2)

One interesting fallout from the tragic business in Cambridge – and it is tragic, let me tell you – was that the president was forced to speak suddenly in his own voice, and at his very best, and not swathed in the authority of his great rank, but simply as a citizen making a sensible comment about a nobody policeman. Yes, I mean “nobody” literally – I know all human beings, if they are Americans, are highly valued and worshiped, indeed, for their wonderfulness and their helpfulness to fellow citizens. I state this ironically, as you might suspect. After all, why would the young man be armed unless he was a superior citizen, elected, as it were, by his fellows to ride herd on an unruly mob unless he was demonstrably special by virtue of being legally armed, which is how we are supposed to tell them from us?

But there the president was, saying, this is stupid. But he did not say, “How dare you go after a 58-year-old man who is one of the great scholars of the country and think you can get away with it?” Unfortunately, it never seemed to have crossed the president’s mind in this crisis that he is expected to do something about it. I know there is a great deal, as they say, on his plate, but after displays of this sort, he should call together a commission involving every section of the country. Every municipality is complaining about local police forces run wild. And no one does anything about it. And our masters are armed to the teeth and would seem more likely to fire at us instead of at the troublemakers. I can’t think of any civilized country that would allow this, from the look of these bulky guardians of the peace, to whom no right-minded person would allow even a slingshot to be given.

So, we are a weirdly militarized citizenry governed by the worst elements in the United States, and something is bound to blow up, as I have felt for some time now. In my wanderings around the U.S., I talk to people without money, without power, ordinary voters, as well as nowadays, people maimed by war, or time, or life or whatever, and I am convinced more and more that this is a vicious country in which the police are allowed to run amok, absolutely independent of anyone, and that is why from time to time they are allowed to get away with murder. One surprisingly knew that a wrinkle has been discovered in the seamless surface of our troubled state. Policemen are seldom tried for their crimes, or indeed, held responsible for what they do, which disturbs the peace and causes distress among the orderly.

I would suggest that the president, if he wants to be useful—and not many presidents do in my experience—he might as well call together a commission in response to citizens of every major municipality in the United States who are complaining to central authority about police forces out of control. And no one dares do anything because the police will say, “Well, you know they are acting like this because they are bad people who hate us because we are good people, rescuing cats from trees and otherwise loved by every decent person in the land.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
What the police in their ignorance have not figured out is that they have lost all credibility since World War II. They are sort of parasites on the fringe of society and do no particular good for anyone except possibly themselves. Certainly to hear them complain—you’ve never heard such whines as from a policeman who feels he’s been wronged! Apparently, all Earth owes him a living, and he’s the bravest man on any block.

One aspect of the events in Cambridge was that the president could have been characteristically brilliant on this subject, as he has been on so many subjects having to do with our general welfare as citizens (and he is also one of the useful, hands-on presidents), but the media, conditioned always to miss the point, went out of their way to miss the point here by many a mile. They blamed it all on – you guessed it – RACE! Well, you can blame anything on race, including Scripture, or the tides and the moon, and this and that, but that president and that professor are by coincidence both black, which to the plain horror of the media, had nothing to do with the brave little corporal who was feeling his oats and wanted to have some fun with an older man who couldn’t fight back. They get very bored in those jobs, and, of course, he was armed with a gun, and able to kill anybody he wanted and probably get away with it—what a temptation!

Anyway, the president has not done what he should have done, which is to have reminded us that the United Kingdom—a more livable nation than the United States, let me say with first-hand experience of both—has disarmed its police. There are no angry men wandering around carrying guns over there. This is a lesson to us, but we’ve armed practically every grange house in the United States because our regular guys just want to swagger around.

Incidentally, it was quite funny to hear one of the favorite adjectives that our new masters use to describe vicious civilians who deliberately mock them, like the professor and myself on Fifth Avenue, and I think they would include the president, too, if the Secret Service was not lurking nearby. Their term for any civilian who criticizes them is “arrogant,” but they are themselves far gone in arrogance and spite.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By guysorow, December 11, 2011 at 1:40 pm Link to this comment

I have a great deal of respect for GV, never the less I am perturbed by his
take on racism and class in the UsA. Without the tool of racism there can
be no classism. Ackniwledge that all men are equal and suddenly a new
motive would be needed to direct wealth and opportunity. A new race
would emerge in that vacum. Probably one of a discernable difference in
another physical trait. A new “race” would be classifie out of necessity. Race
is, and shall always be, the force behind class. Sorry V, you’re. Not often
wrong, but you are on this matter.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 26, 2011 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

FBI Targeting Political Activists as Terrorists

Anti-terrorism resources are being used to target environmentalists,
peace, animal and political activists who hold different views than the
government.

http://www.commondreams.org/video/2011/05/26

Report this

By A. Benway, May 26, 2011 at 8:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The first principle of any policy is to be in power. This is sometimes congruent with the sense of the people, who loan their authority to the people in power, either in response to intimidation such as Vidal describes, or willingly - it all depends on the policy goal. Imperial Conquest? Well, that would require the intimidating abilities of a police state - quite natural after WW2 when the US gained the conquests of the Axis powers. This, in turn, was the result of the FDR policy that prevented revolution in the US…and saved his plutocratic class. Now we see the result - called “globalization”.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 25, 2011 at 6:07 pm Link to this comment

litlpeep, May 25 at 4:19 pm,

Those loyal party boosters, as you call them, are Lite-Right Democrat
loyal party boosters, as loyal cooperators with the Hard-Right, New
Democrats that separated into a NEW CLASS, a Middle Class, as a
class and culture that is separate and apart from the American
Populace, the 70% Majority Common Population of the United States
that IS the Left.

Have you never wondered why so many members of the American
Populace are members of the Republican Party that does not represent
the American Populace either?

It is because the Left, the American Populace, is not represented by a
political party in the making and enforcing of legislated law and order;
the Democratic Party abrogated this responsibility when they decided
as a Middle Class to become a New Class that represented ONLY the
interests of the Middle Class to the exclusion of the American Populace,
the Left.

Report this

By litlpeep, May 25, 2011 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment

I miss Gore Vidal’s brilliant commentary.

I wonder how so many well-meaning registered “democrats” can still read this site’s articles
and also remain loyal party boosters to that sham
party.  I wonder if their brain is left…out.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 15, 2011 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment

The unemployed Americans, May 15 at 11:09 am,

Populous and populace do not
mean the same thing, the words are specifically
different, as populous refers to many
inhabitants; while populace refers
specifically to the common people, the
masses; the majority common population, the
American Populace or Back Street America that is
being attacked, apart from the minority
populations of Wall Street and Main Street who
are the attackers
and have been the
attackers ever since the Conservative Revolution
began in the 1980’s, which is why I use the word
populace, instead of the Right-Wing’s
most preferred populous

It is more important than ever that the populace
of the United States, the Left, the Majority
Populace, Back Street America all over the United
States be represented by a political party,
because the cumulative voting strength and
contributions of the 70% Majority Common
Population of the United States as a united class
and culture are all that stands a chance to
counter balance the fascist leanings of the
current Right-Wing Supreme Court led by Roberts
and his Right-Wing Cronies and the corporate
interests of Wall Street and Main Street.

Wall Street has the Republican Party;  Main
Street has the Democratic Party; and the
American Populace have no political
party
and are unrepresented in the making
and enforcing of legislated law and order in the
United States of America, which is why the
American Populace is being tyrannized.

Even though it appears to be Main Street being
attacked, it is more specifically a Back Street
attack upon the American Populace and the
infrastructure for the American Populace that is
causing and has caused the destruction of small
town Main Streets across the USA and
imprisonment of a large majority of America’s
populace because of oppressive and tyrannical
laws made by Wall Street and supported by Main
Street to oppress the populace and destroy the
populace’s public school system.

If the 70% majority American Populace as a class
and culture, do not choose to be ruled by Wall
Street supported by Main Street, then Back
Street must always forgo backlash
votes
between the Democratic Party and
the Republican Party and secure a political party
of their own with representatives for America’s
populace in government of the United States by
whatever expedient means necessary in order
that the American Populace as a class and
culture will be able to have an equal part in the
making and enforcing of legislated law and order
in the best interest of the 70% majority American
Populace as a class and culture in the United
States that is currently being assaulted by
oppressive and tyrannical laws.

It is not necessary for the American Populace to
take over the Republican Party that represents
Wall Street’s American Aristocracy, as the Tea
Party did to help the Right; but the American
Populace, who are the Left, do have to take over
the Democratic Party of Main Street America’s
Middle Class, because the Democratic Party is the
only political party of the two that can be secured
for the 70% majority populace of the United
States, because it can be made to represent the
entire American Populace and form a balance, at
least until more political parties that are equal
with the Democratic Party and the Republican
Party can be formed through legislation to
represent the New Middle Class. 

Awareness in the 70% majority populace must
emerge and when awareness is sufficient to
establish a new order that will represent the
70% majority populace in the making and
enforcing of legislated law and order in the best
interest of the Majority Populace in the United
States it must be done to counter the Fascist
tyranny of the Corporate Right.

Report this

By The unemployed Americans, May 15, 2011 at 11:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

More bills, more laws, more and higher fines, more jails and prisons, longer sentences, etc…

From $1k+ parking tickets to doing years in prison for selling a tulip without the proper paperwork, there are so many laws today with huge fines and minimum sentences that people are just tripping over them and getting in serious trouble that is ruining their lives while just trying to live normal lives like our grandparents once did without getting in trouble.

More laws, more prisons, more fines, more poverty, more McCriminals on the way. Stay tuned to the tax eating and growing gobblement for more information.

Report this

By whereslora, February 11, 2011 at 9:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In our small city of 50,000 the police routinely perform searches with dogs through the high school parking lot, looking for that deadly killer drug marijuana. (Maybe the local detention centers need more clients?) Last week they pulled a co-worker’s daughter out because they smelled pot on her truck. She doesn’t smoke. The cop said that even if someone who had smoked had walked past her truck, it would smell like pot. Give me an f’ing break. They questioned, intimidated, and embarrassed her. Meanwhile, another student was wringing her hands in fear because she had left her pipe in her car. They didn’t find that. Since I’ve smoked pot for 40 years I can tell you that it’s not dangerous. It’s not criminal. It’s not immoral. It’s simply illegal and a tool that they use to intimidate in a thousand and one ways. I see clearly that we are living in a police state. Yet, others around me accept this kind of behavior by the police as if it were normal. That’s what scares me. It’s not just that the police are intimidating, but that most people accept it as okay even ‘necessary’, even if they don’t like it.

Report this

By ardee, January 29, 2010 at 6:11 am Link to this comment

ThomasG, January 21 at 8:11 pm #


American Populace/Back Street America:

Why does Night-Gaunt January 21 at 1:28 am, decry the effect and support the cause?

*************************************

Why do you think anyone will support your attempted assassination of perhaps the most even tempered and fair minded poster on this site?

Why do you think emboldened caps make up for sanity and rationale?

Report this

By JOHNATON, January 28, 2010 at 2:10 am Link to this comment

The FBI is now CREATING, COMMITTING CRIMES” with ENTRAPMENTS, in order to solve crime!
Good for the CRIME BUSINESS and THEIR PROMOTIONS.

  But They Simply “Closed Their Eyes” When PRESCOTT BUSH was Financing Hitler’s Nazi WAR Machine, and committing REAL CRIMES” HIGH TREASON for Decades.
  Including During the WAR.  Producing the Funds the BUSHES needed to UNDERMINE THE AMERICAN VOTING, ELECTION, process with VOTER INTIMIDATIONS and RIGGED VOTING MACHINES.

  (LINKS MAY NOT WORK}
  But you just know they are entrapment when you first hear them on the News, THEY JUST DON’T SOUND RIGHT!  Like when they Discovered The Lost 15 yrs old Girl. COPS & NEWS said SHE WAS BEING CAGED UNDER THE STAIRWAY!  I KNEW THAT WAS ANOTHER “LIE”.  SHE WAS UNDER THE STAIRS, HIDING FROM THE COPS. KNOCKING DOWN THE DOORS!
Later they Told The “TRUTH”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

http://www.workers.org/2009/us/entrapment_0604/

http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=61cfbaae2677e2fca4d4babe1d116d88

http://ztruth.typepad.com/ztruth/2009/10/detroit-muslim-leaders-call-shooting-death-of-imam-entrapment.html

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, January 24, 2010 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment

John Hanks, January 22 at 12:28 pm and
the American Populace/Back Street America,

It is now more important than ever that the populace of America, the Left, Back Street America, be represented by a political party, because the cumulative voting strength and contributions of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the United States as a United Class and Culture are all that stands a chance against the Corporate Interests of Wall Street and Main Street.

Wall Street has the Republican Party.  Main Street has the Democratic Party.  Back Street, the American Populace, does not have a political party.

If Back Street, the American Populace, does not want to be ruled by FASCISM of Wall Street and Main Street, Back Street will have to forgo backlash and,  by whatever expedient means necessary, secure a political party to represent Back Street, so that Back Street can make and enforce law and order in their best interest that will counter balance the fascist leanings of the current Right-Wing Supreme Court led by Roberts and his Right-Wing Cronies.

For all who would believe that populous and populace are the same thing, the words are different.  Populous makes reference to many inhabitants.  Populace makes specific reference to the common people, the masses; the American Populace/Back Street America ARE the masses of Common People of the United States apart from the Minority Populations of Wall Street and Main Street.

Report this

By John Hanks, January 22, 2010 at 8:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is how the Third Reich go started.  American money poured in to finance Hitler.  Then every party formed its own militia.

Report this

By elisalouisa, January 22, 2010 at 6:38 am Link to this comment

“Well they have finally gone and done it. A master stroke of a stake into the very
heart of the Republic! On 1/21/2010 the Republic was dealt a sever blow. Now
that the corporations, and their equally rich owners, can spend whatever money is
required to purchase whomever and whatever they want or need to win.”

Thank you for pointing this out Night-Gaunt. Of course, this has not been given
the proper attention in the news media. No surprise. Our vote cannot compete with the power/elite. This has been true for sometime with some reservations, now they have clinched it.
As to President Obama proposing “giving regulators the power to limit the size of
the nation’s largest banks and (this is the big one) limit the scope of their risk-
taking activities” we shall see.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, January 21, 2010 at 11:15 pm Link to this comment

Well they have finally gone and done it. A master stroke of a stake into the very heart of the Republic! On 1/21/2010 the Republic was dealt a sever blow. Now that the corporations, and their equally rich owners, can spend whatever money is required to purchase whomever and whatever they want or need to win. You might as well forget about mounting any kind of campaign because they can outspend all of us combined many times over. So unless the Congress can put some kind of collar on this monster it will run free and squash us all. They may not even need a financial collapse to get their empire now. A Black Day indeed. Watch Keith Olbermann‘s show (1/21/2010) and see just how bad we have changed in just one Supreme Court ruling that makes the infamous 1857 “Dredd Scott” pales by comparison. (No pun or innuendo intended.) Only the fools will think this is overblown at best or embrace it at worse.

No Campaign Limits?
“In a ruling that has overwhelming implications for how elections are funded, the Supreme Court has struck down a key campaign-finance restriction that prevents corporations and unions from pouring money into political ads. In a 5-4 ruling, in the Citizens United v. FEC case, the door is now wide open for unrestricted amounts of corporate money to flow into American politics. The Republican-appointed right-wing five members of the court explicitly said that corporations are “persons” under the law, and thus entitled to Constitutional rights just like the Founders fought and died to give to you and me. The four dissenters pointed out that corporations will now own politicians, will dominate our politics, and that democracy itself is now at risk. Benito Mussolini invented a new form of government where corporations ran the government - he called it “fascism.” Welcome to Mussolini’s America.”

“President Obama is proposing now “giving bank regulators the power to limit the size of the nation’s largest banks and the scope of their risk-taking activities,” an idea championed by Paul A. Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve and an adviser to the Obama administration. The proposal would prohibit commercial banks from proprietary trading for their own accounts. If true, and if he really does it right, this could signal a major change in direction for President Obama, away from giving the banksters whatever they want and toward protecting the average person from these corporate predators.”
-Thom Hartman

Welcome to the new America, the old one won’t last very long now.

Peace

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, January 21, 2010 at 4:11 pm Link to this comment

American Populace/Back Street America:

Why does Night-Gaunt January 21 at 1:28 am, decry the effect and support the cause?

From time to time Night-Gaunt makes sounds that are like the Left, but when the Right-Wingers rant, Night-Gaunt will appease their rants with the cooperation of a Corporate Democrat———— What is Night-Gaunt? ——  A Right-Winger?  —— A Corporate Democrat posing as a Left-Winger? —— Or, a Back Street Left-Winger that doesn’t know what is in his own best interest?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, January 20, 2010 at 9:28 pm Link to this comment

Republics degenerate or transform into police states of various types. Winner take all and very narrow election systems help those who would rise to power. Especially those with little or no empathy. Without such a restraint on the need for power they can accomplish anything to do it. Many others will join them for various reasons to get that. We have degenerated that far to the point of an inverted totalitarian system. We are very close to collapsing economically then the shock doctrine trained capitalists will come out to rebuild us as a Holy (Corporate) American Empire both inside and out. So we must not fall or we will fail. They are prepared for it, we are not. It will be the Republic that falls not an empire. That will come later.

Report this

By John Hanks, January 20, 2010 at 7:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The main thing to do is to point out totalitarian acts and comments.  I believe the corporatists killed Kennedy and then did all the other murders, for instance.  I think the idiot elite may use nukes.  Israel certainly wants it.  Anyway, word of mouth is a very powerful weapon and we should use it a lot.

Report this

By JOHNATON, January 20, 2010 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment

The only prominent persons talking about the POLICE STATE IN AMERICA) is Gore Vidal!
  The others are RON PAUL & ALEX JONES!
Ron Paul would have to demonstrate, that he is not a Republican, to assert credibility!  He has not done that!
  ALEX JONES has to stop talking Crazy” and being a CONSPIRACY THEORIST (911) with no evidence!
  But if you go to his site, you can read the incidents that happen Coast to Coast that clearly points to a police state!  These acts cannot be Fabricated, just the facts! Not Opinionated!
5 yr old handcuffed, MO
5 yr old handcuffed FLA
4th grader arrested at school for scissors!
Woman calls 311 to report City Garbage Truck Idling
at her address, spreading refuse on her lawn!
Fined $100 for littering, as payback & intimidation!
These are in addition to BUSTING DOWN DOORS killing 23 yr old mother, her pet dog, Wounding her Baby.
And a 87 yr old and a 94 yr old woman, MURDERED IN THEIR HOMES BY THE POLICE!  IRAQ VET shot in chest after police chase.  BRIDES GROOM attacked and murdered leaving bachelors party.  Man forced to lie on ground, and shot in back, on camera! Sudanese woman in labor on way to hospital, thrown in tank!
Delivered dead baby in jail!  Mother at Airport with mental issues, COPS called, DANGER: NON MEDICAL NON THINKING DEPT. Out of view of public the woman strggled. All the police know is, YOU’RE RESISTING!
So they HOG TIED HER. And left her to Die!
They said they just cuffed her, she must have twisted & strangled herself. (THEY HOG TIED HER)
  The worst in modern history and it speaks to where we are today in America!  A 14 Yr old Boy brought a BB Gun to school and made threats!
They called SQUAT, SHOT HIM IN THE HEAD, CASE CLOSED.
No Jessie Jackson, No Al Sharpton, Phil Donahue.
No PRESS, DEMOCRATS, Michael Moore, Bill Kunstler.
To Ask (WHAT THE FUCC).  No DEAD BODIES when SQUAT arrived on the scene, they were told the guns probably weren’t real. The father pleading to be allowed to talk to his son!
14 YR OLD, IN THE LAVATORY, 1 WAY IN 1 WAY OUT!
ONE OF HIM, A TON OF THEM, ARMED LIKE BLACKWATER IRAQ.  But the child was taking a ODIOUS American PROBLEM AND MAKING LIGHT OF IT! SO THEY KILLED HIM!
CHARLTON HESTON and his Armies are old enough to know better.  But they killed the kid! (AND SILENCE)

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, January 6, 2010 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment

Because the American Populace, Back Street America, is NOT Represented by a Political Party in both houses of the U.S. Congress and the Government of the United States, and is denied participation in the Making and Enforcing of Legislated Law and Order in the United States, the United States by way of Exclusive Law and Order legislated to serve the interests of the American Aristocracy and the Professional Middle Class and exclude the best interests of the American Populace, has imprisoned more of the American Populace than China, and China has a population of ONE BILLION more citizens than the United States.

The claim of the British Colonists of Colonial America against Britain was “Taxation without Representation”.  Today, the reality of the American Populace with regard to their status relative to Governance of the United States is that the American Populace is not being politically represented and included in the Making and Enforcing of Legislated Law and Order in the United States; the American Populace is subject to “Legislation without Representation”, as a 70% Majority Common Population of the United States———— that is subject to “Legislation without Representation”— think about that!!!!!!!    “Taxation without Representation” caused the American Revolution and “Legislation without Representation” is worse, when will the American Populace rebel against “Legislation without Representation”.

This thread is called “America the Great Police State”— How can America be anything other than “America the Great Police State” when the American Populace, the 70% Majority Common Population of the United States are subject to Class and Cultural Law and Order of the 10% minority population of the American Aristocracy and the 20% minority population of the Professional Middle Class at the top of the Societal and Economic Pyramid of the United States; and the 70% Majority Common Population of the United States, the American Populace, are excluded from the Making and Enforcing of Legislated Law and Order in the best interest of the American Populace?

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, January 6, 2010 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

Thank you, NightGaunt, and you raise a good historical point.

ThomasG hits on a significant issue as well:  We do not have a system that
lends itself to coalition governance.  It pretty much is “winner take all.” 
Government by the “Ins” and opposition by the “Outs,” both in the Executive
and the Legislative Branches.  Sometimes, of course, the “Ins” in the White
House are faced by different “Ins” in Congress, so that roughly provides some
enforced “coalition” governance, or the whole thing breaks down.  Lately, there
have been members of opposition parties appointed to Cabinet posts -
Secretaries of Defense Cohen (under President Clinton) and Gates (currently,
under President Obama), for instance.  That is a slight concession to at least
bi-partisanship, of not true coalition.

Parliamentary forms of government sometimes produce coalition governments
when no single party has a majority.  We have seen how chaotic that can be. 
The whole “Ins” versus “Outs” dynamic of our system, with its executive
separate from its legislature, probably inevitably gravitated to a two-party
makeup.  The laws regulating elections are passed by the party in power, and
whichever party that is, they tend to reinforce the two-party system, I agree.

However, my original point was that there is no constitutional provision that
establishes political parties and no law that specifically precludes the
establishment of more than two.  In fact, the government campaign finance law
would actually assist a third or fourth party’s existence.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, January 6, 2010 at 10:30 am Link to this comment

John Hanks, January 5 at 9:48 pm,

Neo Cons, Republican Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS, from the time of Goldwater through Reagan, Bush I and Bush II have Borrowed and Spent the U.S. into Bankruptcy, deindustrialized the U.S. for the benefit of Cheap Asian Labor, financialized the U.S. Economy for Short-Term Profit, and created the largest Financial Bubble of TOXIC Capital that the world has ever known, in pursuit of short-term, obscene profit that broke in 2008 and has cost the American Populace TENS of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS and left the American Populace to be poor and have nothing but their dreams and obligations for the American Populace and generations of their progeny to pay back the TENS of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS that they were forced to pay to recapitalize TOXIC CAPITAL for Wall Street and Main Street, while Back Street, the American Populace, do without to pay for the Self-Serving Mess created by Wall Street and Main Street.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, January 5, 2010 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment

Blueboy1938, well put. I would add too that some of our founders thought the idea of political parties were anathema. but it happened anyway. Just like a standing army that many Americans both Federalist and anti-Federalist. We see the outcome of that.

Report this

By John Hanks, January 5, 2010 at 5:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sepharad:  I have some good individual Jewish friends and acqquaintances.  But I have no use for Zionists and Neocons.  It was the Neocons who engineered 911, along with help from Republicans.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, January 5, 2010 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment

Blueboy1938, January 5 at 6:14 pm,

Legislated laws, rules and regulations are what institutionalize Political Parties and what has institutionalized the Democratic Party and the Republican Party; by making the bar too high with Election Laws, Rules and Regulations that favor the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, all Other Political Party activity is effectively discouraged and duopoly of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is established and a Winner Take All Political System is thereby established that excludes the diversity of Coalition Governance that represents all of the differing and diverse political factions in the nation in favor of a Winner Take All System that represents ONLY TWO Political Factions—— the American Aristocracy and the singularity of the Professional Middle Class———— and excludes the 70% Majority Population of the American Populace

The following are only a few election sites relative to federal, state, county and city law in the United States:

http://www.fec.gov/law/law.shtml

http://www.ncsconline.org/wc/CourTopics/StateLinks.asp?id=26

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/topic_category.aspx?category=514

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:bGrczAv04IUJ:www.sos.arkansas.gov/elections/elections_pdfs/register/march_reg_02/108.00.02-002.pdf+County+Election+Rules+Regulations&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbQpDWPG8P4fz4UE8wi1bw93kFzZvQ

http://www.cabq.gov/clerk/elections

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, January 5, 2010 at 2:14 pm Link to this comment

I’m sorry, MarthaA, but I believe that it is fairly safe to say that no political
party has been set up by any legislation whatever.  The first political parties
were the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist parties.  The Democratic-
Republican Party, now the Democratic Party, followed in 1792.  There have
been a plethora of parties since, with the current Republican Party appearing
only in 1854 in the welter of ante-bellum termoil.  None of these parties were
established by congressional legislation, which would be the only way such a
law - or laws - could be passed “under the Constitution,” presuming you
meant the U. S. Constitution and not that of India or South Africa, for instance.

It is fair to say you are right that establishing a successful third party is
virtually impossible, but that is not because of any law that prevents or inhibits
it.  Now, there are state laws regarding how candidates get on a ballot, but they
don’t seem to keep would-be candidates off.  Getting elected is quite another
matter, and depends on organization, political climate, issue positions, and
buckets of money.  The two major parties have the edge in all of those factors
to date, but the growing conservative rebellion within the Republican Party has
the greatest potential for a spin-off in recent years, providing it can coalesce
around charismatic leadership.

Report this

By Mark A. Adams JD/MBA, January 5, 2010 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Night Gaunt, you are right to question why all of the power to prosecute resides in the hands of prosecutors.  After all, are we a government of, by and for the people or one of, by and for the ruling elite? 

If you think about the nature of government, you will realize that all forms of government, no matter what you call them, result in rule by an aristocracy as government agents are given various powers over the general public.  Some agents have very limited power and some have vast power.  Therefore, if you want liberty and justice and don’t want tyranny and oppression, the question that any intelligent person should ask is, “How can we keep aristocratic government agents from abusing their power?” 

Our Nation’s Founders understood this, and in the Constitution, they provided us with the means to hold government agents accountable.  However, those means have been undermined, and the two most powerful means of controlling government have been eliminated. 

If you want to learn about the two most powerful rights to control the government and how they were stolen, see Why Does the Government Ignore Our Wishes? at http://dailycensored.com/2009/09/11/why-does-the-government-ignore-our-wishes/ and don’t miss my 18 minute speech.

If you take a look, you’ll learn why they get away with violating our rights, abusing their power, and committing horrible crimes. My article on torture includes a link to the U.S. Supreme Court case which explains how one of our stolen rights makes the difference between justice and injustice, between freedom and slavery.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, January 5, 2010 at 11:59 am Link to this comment

Mark A. Adams JD/MBA I don’t trust Grand Juries. I would like to see them eliminated. It would also be good if one didn’t need lawyers to understand the law. Why is it that all the power resides in the prosecuting attorney for the state and the defense is the least possible?

Report this

By John Hanks, January 5, 2010 at 8:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Police steal from the dead too.  They are often the first on the scene, so they just help themselves.  If we ever have martial law it will really be martial lawlessness.

Report this
Mark A. Adams JD/MBA's avatar

By Mark A. Adams JD/MBA, August 16, 2009 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA, I appreciate your outrage.  However, rather than criminalizing speech, we should just work to restore our right to present evidence of criminal conduct to grand juries. 

Without a gatekeeper which I call prosecuting princes, we would be able to present evidence of criminal conduct like the false arrest of Prof. Gates, the rape of Hope Steffey, and the theft of elections directly to a grand jury of citizens who would most likely indict the criminal fascist scum who commit such crimes with impunity under our current system.  Check out my article http://dailycensored.com/2009/06/24/why-does-the-u-s-government-torture-people/ and you’ll learn just how out of control our government is, the outrageous crimes which are committed by government agents every day and covered up by the “news” media, and what a U.S. Supreme Court Justice says about the importance of the right to present evidence to grand juries. 

By the way, I represented Clint Curtis in his election contest. If you want to know more about that, see Have American Elections Really Been Stolen? – The Proof at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Have-American-Elections-Re-by-Mark-Adams-081029-64.html  It was a Top Scoop on Scoop for several days. See it at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0810/S00428.htm Also, check out Would Congressional Democrats Cover Up Neo-Con Election Fraud? No Way, Right?!?! at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Would-Congressional-Democr-by-Mark-Adams-081102-529.html This article was also a Top Scoop on Scoop for several days.  See it at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0811/S00030.htm

As Gore Vidal mentioned, we need to restore the Constitutional republic which once provided us with the ability to protect ourselves from tyrants.  To do so, enough people need to realize how our rights were once secured and demand a restoration of those rights.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 16, 2009 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

Mark A. Adams JD/MBA,

I remember the Republican Election Fraud and Clint Curtis reporting what Republican Sweeney was up to in controlling the voting machines in Florida. 

I know the Right-Wing is corrupt, but it didn’t occur to me they would be as outright corrupt as they were with you, usually their corruption is all hid behind deceit. 

It is time for the Liberals and the Left to bring the Right-Wing dominated Police State back to neutral before they start killing Liberals and the Left as happened in Hitler’s Germany.

WE THE PEOPLE need to vote out or impeach all the Right-Wing judges that carry a political vendetta against the Liberals and the Left.

We must legislate laws to criminalize SOCIOPATHIC ORGANIZED POLITICAL SOPHIST PROPAGANDA, so that neither party will be able to use SOCIOPATHIC ORGANIZED POLITICAL SOPHIST PROPAGANDA as a weapon, like a knife or a gun, against the other political party, as is being done in our world today by SOCIOPATHIC ORGANIZED RIGHT-WING POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE SOPHIST PROPAGNADISTS led by sociopath Dick Army and his Freedom Works organization working with other Right-Wing minions to destroy the constitution and law and order in the United States for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

Report this
Mark A. Adams JD/MBA's avatar

By Mark A. Adams JD/MBA, August 15, 2009 at 7:34 pm Link to this comment

Interesting side discussion of the problem with our system resulting from control by two parties.  Some realize that there is little difference between the two and note that they both seem to favor the big money interests.  As a result, many of us recognize that we are ruled by the Money Party. 

I won the first two injunctions getting a third party candidate into the debates since Ross Perot scared the hell out of the rulers in the debates in 1992.  For more on that, see this short video at http://blip.tv/file/1672498 and if you want to know what happens to attorneys who rock the boat by getting third party candidates into debates, exposing election fraud, and judicial corruption, see this video at http://blip.tv/file/1339250 and don’t miss the links below it.

For evidence confirming that we do live in a fascist police state, see this article and the links in it at http://dailycensored.com/2009/06/24/why-does-the-u-s-government-torture-people/  If you check it out, you will also learn about the fundamental right which was stolen from you which allows government agents and those who can influence them to treat you any way they wish. 

For information about another fundamental right to control the government which has been stolen from you and how to restore it, see http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-to-Stop-Election-Theft-by-Mark-Adams-081023-879.html

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 15, 2009 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment

BlueBoy1938,

MarthaA Said:  “We have ONLY two political parties that have been set up by constitutional legislation; understanding that there are ONLY two constitutional political parties is major.”

Blueboy1938 Answered: “The United States Constitution says nothing about political parties.”

MarthaA’s Answer to Blueboy1938: Law is made under the Constitution, and the law institutionalizes the two political parties by making onerous legal requirements for all political parties other than the two institutionalized parties; the laws are so onerous that not even Ross Perot with his billions could contest.  The political system in the United States is set up to limit who is on the ballot. 

If you don’t understand how this works, try to get on the ballot, and you will get educated right away.

The only way to compete with a Two-Party Political System is to Change the system and use the laws to institutionalize a Multi-Party Political System and for the Common Population to do it it will have to be through the Democratic Party.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, August 15, 2009 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

MarthA:

“We have ONLY two political parties that have been set up by constitutional legislation; understanding that there are ONLY two constitutional political parties is major.”

The United States Constitution says nothing about political parties.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 15, 2009 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,

Primary Elections are for REFORMING political parties. 

In my memory the Democratic Party used to represent FARMERS and LABORERS, in my memory the REPUBLICAN PARTY never did anything but represent BIG CAPITALISTS, maybe at one time REPUBLICANS represented FARMERS and LABORERS, but not since I have been alive.

The most recent party that has represented FARMERS and LABORERS is the Democratic Party, and in Minnesota is still called the Democratic Farmer Labor Party.

We have ONLY two political parties that have been set up by constitutional legislation; understanding that there are ONLY two constitutional political parties is major.

The Common Population must use the Primary Elections as the political tool for which it was set up—- to vote out all representatives and senators that do not represent the Common Population, and keep voting out all people who do not represent the Common Population, until the Democratic Party is cleaned up—- REFORMED to represent the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the United States as a Class and Culture.

Both political parties did not originally represent Big Capitalists, originally only one party, the Republican Party, represented Big Capitalists and the Democratic Farmer Labor Party represented the Common Population, hence still Minnesota’s democratic party carries the name Democratic Farmer Labor Party.

When you contend for both parties you are playing into the Right-Wings hands, as the only party that was ever noted as representative of the Common Population was the Democratic Farmer Labor Party, that is currently still included in the Democratic Party, as that is the party of Senator Al Franken, not just the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Farmer Labor Party, that represents FARMERS and LABORERS.

Anyone who is a member of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION should forget about the Republican Party, because they can not and will not ever receive any representation from that side of the spectrum, and concentrate full bore on cleaning up the Democratic Party and making the Democratic Party represent the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION. 

Don’t say it can’t be done, otherwise you are defeated before you start.  It can be done, and we can do it.  Yes We Can.  But not if we keep divided the Common Population between the two political parties, we of the Common Population must use the one party and make it represent us and then after we get control of the party, legislate constitutional laws for other parties to be equal with the two political parties we now have.  We have to use what we have not what we haven’t got.  We do not have but TWO political parties; all other parties sit under these two parties jurisdiction, and even if a president was elected from a different party, that different party president would still have to work with the Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

The Republican Party represents the means of production and distribution, the interests of capital, who in the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the United States has capital interests in the means of production and distribution?  And, if not, why on earth would they be voting for, or be a member of the Republican Party?

What do you think the Primary Elections are for?

Report this

By elisalouisa, August 15, 2009 at 11:41 am Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt:You defuse a bomb, you don’t set your own to blow up too. We need to close down their tactics and maintain order to let people have their say. That is the point of these town meetings. A counter shout fest does not accomplish that. All people need their turn and what they are doing is stopping that.
*****************************
At one time there were towns with factories where people worked, were prosperous and had hope. Everyone knew each other. At that time Town Halls served a purpose. Problems were discussed and possible solutions brought forth. Now “towns” are no longer what they used to be. Factories have moved out.  People look to the internet and discuss on blogs and boards what they would have discussed at Town Hall meetings.” You can’t go home again” as is being proven. Such meetings are manipulated. Perhaps that was the intent, however, it has backfired.

Report this

By Folktruther, August 15, 2009 at 11:25 am Link to this comment

Ardee, the Dems are not concerned with real policy reform primarily, but in winning elections.  That is why they play the policy game so badly.  They don’t want to win if it costs them money and thus power, but they have to pretend for the Dem ranak and file.

But I suspect I am telling you what you already know.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, August 15, 2009 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

The Democrats are infiltrated just like the Republicans only it hasn’t ejected all of the liberals and moderates like the Republican party has.

The rhetoric is nicer and they throw sops to the people but in the end the same kinds of things are passed. Sometimes moderated by the likes of Feingold & Kucinich but not too many times.

Ending the monopoly and changing the system are the only way the other parties with other ways of doing things are ever going to be able to make a good difference. The bad differences are already being made.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 14, 2009 at 11:21 pm Link to this comment

ardee,

Some, but not all.

Report this

By ardee, August 14, 2009 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA, August 14 at 1:52 am #

ardee,

That’s because the Republicans own the media.

.....................................

More accurately it is because the same folks who own the Republican legislators also own their Democratic counterparts.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, August 14, 2009 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

If the lies have greater access then they will trump truth as we see time and again. The sad fact of who is controlling most of the information outlets is very few, down to five mega corporations. This of a small number who are even interested in news in the first place.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 13, 2009 at 10:52 pm Link to this comment

ardee,

That’s because the Republicans own the media.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, August 13, 2009 at 8:15 am Link to this comment

You defuse a bomb, you don’t set your own to blow up too. We need to close down their tactics and maintain order to let people have their say. That is the point of these town meetings. A counter shout fest does not accomplish that. All people need their turn and what they are doing is stopping that.

What you expertly do is defuse and disperse. Doing it gently but with sufficient force to tamp out that fire. So I respectfully disagree.

Report this

By ardee, August 13, 2009 at 3:55 am Link to this comment

Truth trumps lies. The problem with our current mess is that lies are all the public gets to hear.

If the Democrats are so concerned with real reform why on earth do they play the game so poorly? They are well financed, well organised, supposedly well intentioned, have a majority in the Legislature and a President in the biggest bully pulpit there is.

On the opposition side we find declining membership, declining representation in govt and increasingly radical positions on everything. Yet the voices we hear loudest and most often are Republican…..

Report this

By Sepharad, August 11, 2009 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment

Martha, Perhaps the best way to combat the “birthers” et al disrupting town meetings on health program might be to do the same thing but just as skillfully and well-planned. That is, what seems to make them effective at blocking debate is by planting their people dispersed among the attendees and shouting over the speaker, then joined by other plants so that the speaker thinks that perhaps the entire audience is against him. It might be worth trying to mimic that with progressive/left protesters distributed the same way and using the same technique, only shouting over the first “birther” protester and giving the speaker a window.

I think that having police intervene by muscling out “birthers” protesters out of the hall would be tantamount to suppressing the right to free speech. Unfortunately, hate speech is still covered by the Constitutional amendment. If you make it OK to shut down hate speech, then it can be a precedent to shutting down free speech of any kind. That is what the ACLU’s entire premise is based on, that what is done to one can be done to everyone.

Fighting fire with better fire is a better option, though it would take a lot of coordination and discipline. If we lose the right to free speech, ANYBODY’s free speech, worthless or hateful or dumb though it be, we will be well on our way to a real police state. Nobody standing up to the brownshirts got a whole lot of people into a world of hurt in the ‘30s and ‘40s.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 10, 2009 at 9:20 pm Link to this comment

M. Henry Day,

Hitler is describing what is necessary to do to take over the government, and Hitler did take over, and the liberal Weimar Republic became history—- and Right-Wing EXTREMIST CORPORATIONS ruled Hitler, just like Right-Wing EXTREMIST Rupert Murdoch type CORPORATIONS that rule the media today; hopefully the government will somehow pull out from under corporate control.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, August 10, 2009 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

Interesting analysis, MarthaA.  However, it does not change the fact that the police authorities first need a complaint that alleges a specific crime.  A 911 call from some beset member of Congress who reports, “People are screaming at me - really loudly!” probably will not suffice.

Of course I understand perfectly the motives behind such behavior to be interdiction of civil discourse.  Your Mein Kampf quote was very á propos.  It is being incited by the RNC and their henchmen and women on talk radio and Fox News.  As Hitler stated, it is a very effective technique precisely for the reason that I gave:  The police will not simply remove the trouble-makers; they will shut the meeting down.  If any arrests are made, they are as likely to be made from those who protest the closure of the meeting as those who provoked it.

The only “defense” against this form of disruption is to shut down the meeting, which is precisely what the shouters want.  They either want to prevent any rational dialogue from taking place by drowning it out, or to force the conveners to shut down their own meeting.

Report this

By Gordy, August 10, 2009 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

That was well interesting, MarthA.

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, August 10, 2009 at 5:29 am Link to this comment

Just remember, Marth A, that Hitler here is not describing what happened to political meetings under Nazi rule, but that which happened to the Nazi’s own political meetings in the early 1920s under Weimar Republic, which, with all its many faults, was an attempt at parliamentary democracy. The «decent people» to which he refers are, of course, the Nazis, and the «DISTURBERS», «threateners», and the «DETERMINED GANGSTER» those who protested against them. So can it go….

Henri

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 9, 2009 at 10:38 pm Link to this comment

Blueboy1938,

The police don’t seem to have a problem picking up other people expressing their opinions, even in their own homes, and I doubt that these REPUBLICAN disturbers could be in any way making all that noise to express their opinion.  They are there to close the meetings down, nothing more, a tactic from the Republican EXTREMIST Play Book, “Mein Kampf”. 

A loud speaker would be an asset, but the people would have to have a way to talk without all the noise, or all the Republican Hitleresque noise would only be magnified.

BTW, Here’s Hitler’s words from his book, “Mein Kampf”:

“It makes no difference whatever, whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again, and that we gradually in the eyes of the workers themselves APPEAR to be the ONLY POWER that anyone reckons with at the moment.”

“One can never count on protection on the part of the authorities; on the contrary, experience shows that it ALWAYS and EXCLUSIVELY benefits the DISTURBERS.  For the sole actual result of intervention by the authorities—- that is, the police—- was at best to dissolve, in other words, to close the meeting.  And that was the sole aim and purpose of the hostile DISTURBERS.”

“If through some sort of threats it becomes known to the authorities that there is danger of a meeting being broken up, they DO NOT ARREST the threateners, but forbid the others, the innocent, to hold the meeting, and what is more, the run-of-mill police mind is mighty proud of such wisdom.  They call this a ‘precautionary measure for the prevention of an illegal act.’  Thus, the DETERMINED GANGSTER is always in a position to make political activity and efforts impossible for decent people.  In the name of Law and Order, the State Authority gives it to the gangster and requests the others please not to provoke him.”

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 9, 2009 at 10:37 pm Link to this comment

Blueboy1938,

The police don’t seem to have a problem picking up other people expressing their opinions, even in their own homes, and I doubt that these REPUBLICAN disturbers could be in any way making all that noise to express their opinion.  They are there to close the meetings down, nothing more, a tactic from the Republican EXTREMIST Play Book, “Mein Kampf”. 

A loud speaker would be an asset, but the people would have to have a way to talk without all the noise, or all the Republican Hitleresque noise would only be magnified.

BTW, Here’s Hitler’s words from his book, “Mein Kampf”:

“It makes no difference whatever, whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again, and that we gradually in the eyes of the workers themselves APPEAR to be the ONLY POWER that anyone reckons with at the moment.”

“One can never count on protection on the part of the authorities; on the contrary, experience shows that it ALWAYS and EXCLUSIVELY benefits the DISTURBERS.  For the sole actual result of intervention by the authorities—- that is, the police—- was at best to dissolve, in other words, to close the meeting.  And that was the sole aim and purpose of the hostile DISTURBERS.”

“If through some sort of threats it becomes known to the authorities that there is danger of a meeting being broken up, they DO NOT ARREST the threateners, but forbid the others, the innocent, to hold the meeting, and what is more, the run-of-mill police mind is mighty proud of such wisdom.  They call this a ‘precautionary measure for the prevention of an illegal act.’  Thus, the DETERMINED GANGSTER is always in a position to make political activity and efforts impossible for decent people.  In the name of Law and Order, the State Authority gives it to the gangster and requests the others please not to provoke him.”

Contrast these words from Hitler with the Right-Wings determined gangster disruptions today, because it is the same, and it is cause for concern.

Report this

By Folktruther, August 9, 2009 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment

no police.  No sound system.  A large number of
6ft 6 soft spoken bouncers.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, August 9, 2009 at 5:17 pm Link to this comment

Freedom of speech is a benefit of living in this still free country.  Unless law enforcement officials determine that there is unlawful assembly or disturbing the peace or some form of assault, they are prevented from arresting those expressing an opinion, even at the top of their voice.

It seems to me that the simple solution to this uncivil demonstrating is for the town hall organizers to get rock concert level sound systems.  That way, they will have all the decibel level power they might need to either drown out the yellers or break their eardrums.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 9, 2009 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment

Speaking of POLICE STATE, to my knowledge, there are a lot more police than there have ever been, so these police should be picking up and filling jails with the disturbers at the Democratic Party Meetings around the country, because they are not there to learn or even protest peacefully, they are there to rattle and make noise to keep a democratic political meeting from happening and they should be picked up an put in jail.

Report this

By Sepharad, August 8, 2009 at 10:23 pm Link to this comment

Gordy, It’s not that it’s “harder”—just that there is not the support the good newspapers could give you. Papers like the LA & NY Times, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Louisville Courier-Journal et al no longer have the resources to put into it. You might spend a year or more on a single story, on salary all the time, and once it’s finished there’s not necessarily any more newsprint than something in the features section on gardening or decorating.

The other problem is that in some sorts of stories you get information from sources who would never talk to you again once the story breaks—local drug dealers, pols on graft—so you probably need to go to another paper in another part of the country to do the same sort of thing. In time you get to be a specialist on some topic or other. In-depth stories and investigative are not the same thing. You can stay on the same paper, write any number of indepth stories on subjects that are NOT on illegal or dangerous topics, or re political or police corruption to the extent that people resign.

Seymour Hersch and Sebastian Junger do amazing work and are appropriately rewarded for it. But they are the exceptions, not the rule. They do mag articles, and books, and movies are sometimes made using their work.

Report this

By garth, August 8, 2009 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

M. Henri Day,
No need to be so testy.  The next day, I checked the link off the link you provided and it was to Onion.  Thanks for the link,

stcfarms,
You are not only smart (IQ 162) but realistic.  On the weight of your IQ, I will reconsider your previous remarks about the fruitlessness of taking on the state. (Do you have any room on the raft?)
However, the local cops and the salary that they’re pulling down with overtime, I’d guess that they have better stuff than I have.  They’d probably trash the place and for fear of making too much noise, they’d strangle the cat.
I am serious, though, about those events.  Maybe I am Shtoopit, but I was brought up in a different USA.

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, August 8, 2009 at 3:18 am Link to this comment

Garth, my link, as I presume you know and as I checked before posting, led to an article in the Onion. You may dislike the site, in which case you are free to abstain from visiting it….

Henri

Report this

By stcfarms, August 7, 2009 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment

Garth,

  They stole only your passport? It sounds as if you may have gotten on a terrorist list. It would of course be a much higher class of police that would pull something like that, the local police would have robbed you blind and shot your cat.

Report this

By garth, August 7, 2009 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment

M. Henri Day, your link led to a page that sold internet names.
But getting back to the article, I am more in agreement with Mr. Vidal.  This is a police state, though, not one that most U.S. citizens would recognize.  It has hight tech reinforcements.
From personal experience:
About eight or nine years ago a young girl disappeared from a swimming pond in Warren, MA.  The next week, I went on vacation to western MA.  During my morning walk to get the papers I noticed a suspicious man in a white compact car that sort of fit the description given in the initial news reports.  I thought of stopping at the police station, but for some reason I rejected the idea.
Later, when this tory was still unsolved and appeared in the tv program, America’s Most Wanted, I called their number to leave a tip.  I was left on the line without talking to anyone except the first woman.
A few weeks later, my trash barrels were stolen from in front of my house.  Then again.  The second time they were stolen, my neighbor told me that he saw a car pull up on the sidewalk and push the barrel down the street, then get out of his car and throw the barrel in the trunk of his car.  A short time later the picture window of my house was shot out by supposedly, a BB gun.  Two policemen visited the house when we called it it.  The next day, when I was at work, a Detective visited my wife, which, as you might imagine, set her off.
During the Bush campaign, I called Stepahnie Miller using the name, Fred, and proposed that Bush was invading Iraq to gain access to the Iraqi water supply, the Euphrates and the Tigris.  This was on a Friday.  The immediate response I got from Miller and her co-cluckers on radio was less than acceptable, and the call-in session was cut short.  Three days later, someone called our house asking for Frederick.  Again, I failed to inform my wife and she just told the caller that “no one by that name lived at this residence.”
The most scary experience, however, is when I sent an email to the TehranTimes.com to proclaim that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was not in revenge for Israeli soldiers, but it was to destroy Lebanon, the only other democracy in the middle east.
A few weeks later, some one or some persons entered my house while I was out and stole my passport.  I had it in a drawer in a leather carry case.
How I know that some one entered my house is that I left my cat outside, and when I came home, she was inside.  I re-enacted the possiblie scene, and I could see how the cat wanting to get in and the intruder wanting to get out in a hurry might miss each other.
To requote Obama, the Cambridge Police not only acted stupidly, they are beyond stupid.  They shtoopit.

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, August 7, 2009 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

Let us, merely to prove we can do it, return to the subject of Mr Vidal’s article, i e, the United States as (alleged) police state. This brief news article, (http://preview.tinyurl.com/msjd2y) from an impeccable and unbiased source, says it all….

Henri

Report this

By Gordy, August 7, 2009 at 2:26 am Link to this comment

Is it any harder to do investigative journalism these days?  My guess is that there’s little money in it unless you make it big like George Monbiot, someone like that.

Report this

By Sepharad, August 6, 2009 at 10:35 pm Link to this comment

Interesting idea, re people’s militias to protect us from an out-of-control government. (If such a thing is actually possible, we could’ve used it after W. and gang went a little crazy.) The problem is that except for the Electoral College (which, like the appendix, could be removed and never missed), in theory our President is elected by the majority of American citizens.

So in essence we would be waging war against ourselves. We did that once. We should have been able to avoid it and probably would have had we not lost true statesmen like Daniel Webster and Henry Clay over a decade before things got out of hand. The lesson is clear: Elect more statesman-like Congress people, perhaps more in the mold of our current President. Whether you like his policies or not, the man is highly intelligent, articulate, balanced, more concerned about the citizens’ welfare than his political fortunes, and able to control his own ego ... when necessary.

Assuming we are unable to elect wiser and more honest Congressmen, that even an intelligent, well-meaning President is unable to rein in a shift toward a Soviet style police state, and that the U.S. Supreme Court tends to incrementally parse laws that encourage that tendency, what are we left with?

Assuming that we are well-informed citizens of one mind (highly unlikely in such a diverse society; I doubt there would be agreement on many pertinent issues even on this self-selected website), we would have to give the proposition considerable thought and analysis long before the need for a people’s militia arose, by which time it could be too late.

The UK and Euros are far more homogenous, even including their increasing minority groups. The UK is relatively small, and as a people probably more educated and, as Gordy points out, treat their poor more kindly and consistently than we do. They also have socialized medicine. And the monarchy. These elements alone virtually guarantee a more civil society in which people comprehend each other better than we do.

In America, we are divided into too many overlapping yet contentious segments and first will have to identify a common cause or at least a principle that is large enough to join together at least temporarily. Our other problem is that generally speaking, the segment of people who join the NRA and speak of taking their guns from their cold, dead hands are no more likely than outlaws to want to overthrow a goverment unless they can control it and we’d end up right back where we started—a government wanting to control everything.

We have the National Guard, military vets, state and local police, border patrol, regular military, special forces, and government agencies such as the FBI, Secret Service, and CIA. All of these groups have within them individuals who did not sign up to participate in a Soviet-style police state. It would take some time, but the best people to fight unprincipled armed robots of the state are principled armed and trained individuals who are most devoted to protecting the Constitutional, civil and minority rights of all Americans. They also have learned discipline, and many though not all have at least studied if not experienced guerilla tactics, and be helpful in training citizen soldiers. Identifying the right individuals would be the hardest part, and also they would have to understand that they aren’t betraying a trust but protecting a trust—the Constitution’s covenant with the people—not a government intent on trampling that trust.

Report this

By Sepharad, August 6, 2009 at 9:38 pm Link to this comment

Gordy, You are spot-on that good investigative reporting read by an open-minded MASS audience is a bulwark in preserving civil liberties. As an ex-investigative reporter and longtime student of the press, the newspaper genre in the U.S. peaked with Woodward & Bernstein and virtually disappeared under subsequent administrations, from Carter and Reagan on. (The very best went independent via magazines and books, e.g. Seymour Hersch, and a decade or so later were joined by writer-researchers such as Sebastian Junger.)

Unfortunately the component lost and never quite regained was the sort of mass readership in the pre-Internet days, when there were still hundreds of good metropolitan newspapers and of course the stalwarts such as the LA and NY Times, both of which had extensive international desks, many foreign correspondents and local stringers. Broadcast pop journalism still pulled in the masses, but except for earnest PBS, television was geared to entertainment and cut its news desks drastically. By then the mass readership had become a mass audience, and accurate information dissemination has never quite recovered, despite the avalanche of material available on the Internet. The vetting (that is, fact-checking) process has pretty much dissipated apart from the thorough work that the best writers and historians do on their own.   

Today, most of the good stuff is international reporting for printed media that have the independence and the money to do it—the NYTimes is a good example and usually doesn’t let its moderate-left stance affect reportage; they even try to balance their regular columnists. It’s very expensive to maintain foreign correspondents and offices and local stringers. As newspapers shink and disappear almost as fast as jobs in the U.S., most foreign reporting has really taken a hit. “Embedded” journalists with combat/infrastructure building/winning-hearts-and-minds teams do pretty well from the on-the-ground level, but when you live with people, whether NATO troops or the Taliban (as Junger did; spent nearly a year running around with Mullah Omar and his soldiers) you become somewhat partisan, hard to avoid, but any voice with actual detail is valuable. Especially when it’s combined with many other voices and other perspectives.

People like to say it’s a small world, usually meaning that human beings are all alike and if we truly understood one another we’d all get along. That is an ideal. The reality is that it’s technologically possible to go everywhere, pollute everywhere, do business everywhere, make war everywhere (or jump into someone else’s war everywhere). It’s very dangerous to interact anywhere in the world without a deep understanding of the cultures and societies in question ... without first clearly understanding the objective ... without considering whether it’s necessary from a survival or a financial point of view, and only then deciding if the interaction is sufficiently ethical and beneficl to dive in.

Report this

By stcfarms, August 6, 2009 at 5:05 pm Link to this comment

Guns are not to protect you from noisy idiots, they are to protect you from the police state. I suppose that you might commit suicide or keep a can of gasoline in your house but the rest of us know better. In the final analysis you have as much right to demand that I give up my guns as I do to demand that you give up your imaginary god creature, none.

Report this

By John Hanks, August 6, 2009 at 4:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A gun is a good defense against noisy idiots that might be easy to spot.  Otherwise, you are more likely to commit suicide with one.  They are like having a can of gasoline in your house.

Report this

By Gordy, August 6, 2009 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

I dunno people, in the UK for example gun control seems to have little to do with liberty; it seems wrong to take this one strand and believe that so much rests on it.  Civil Liberties have taken knocks here post-9/11 too, but we’ve been a disarmed population for generations and the idea of a militia hasn’t existed here for a long time except for the Home Guard during WW2.  We have a slightly better news media and treat the very poor somewhat better.  I doubt that arming the population would suddenly improve the cause of liberty.  Perhaps it is just a very different context, I dunno. 

I associate recent political oppression with a rise in Regan-style media savvy in politics.  Strong investigative journalism that was actually consumed by a mass market would make a massive difference - we’re living in a time when we really are told, ‘war is peace, freedom is slavery’.  But the intellectual battle is also just another strand.

Report this

By stcfarms, August 6, 2009 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

IQ only measures problem solving ability, one part of intellect. In math, science or even handyman tasks I excel but I am extremely limited on the social level and proper english usage. IQ is irrelevant in most situations, it is not until your truck engine stops 50 miles from the nearest road that you begin to fully appreciate the ability to logically follow out the various systems of the engine to find the problem and correct it.

Social skills must be very important as I do not believe that George Bush was elected for his intellect, or even his language skills for that matter. I guess that you might find me unsuccessful, I never got beyond 9th grade and have not had a job since 1977. On the other hand I paid cash for my house, have never been in debt and have everything that I need. You would be shocked at how well you can do in a barter economy…

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, August 6, 2009 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

I have often advocated for universal military training so that most everyone could have comfort with weapons in general. That and the ethical system of Mutual Aid. Not just in pistols and rifles either! Rather like our compulsory education in general only on an equal level and not based on what the financial situation of any given area.

More in the Swiss model. [Check out Switzerland’s restructuring of their country in 1848 and how they used the USA as a template. Ironic.]

IQ is fine as it goes but hardly a telling bit of information. I have scored 126,145 and 103 in that order about over 6 years of time. Emotional intelligence, how we interact and form alliances and contacts, mean more in the long run. That and happenstance of your situation are more important to your success.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 6, 2009 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

Gordy,

The Minutemen were just ordinary people, they were not part of the military, they were the people.

In the years just before the Revolutionary War, volunteers were organized into military companies and trained to bear arms, these men were called Minutemen, because they were prepared to fight at a “minute’s notice.”

When the Massachusetts militia was reorganized in 1774, the Provincial Congress provided that 1/3rd of all new regiments were to be made up of Minutemen. 

The Minutemen were a form of CIVIL-DEFENSE.

http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm

Report this

By stcfarms, August 6, 2009 at 11:42 am Link to this comment

Of the 175 million gun owners only 3.5 million are storm troopers, you tend to paint with a very broad brush. You can rest assured that at least one gun owner is going to live out on the deep ocean and my guns are going with me. Humans are basically stupid, fearful creatures that wish to impose their views upon everyone else and quite willing to use force to do it. If it was not for the second amenment the other amendments would be long gone.

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, August 6, 2009 at 10:36 am Link to this comment

«People that perceive guns as weapons are the real danger, guns are only a tool.» I fear that I fail to understand the above period - are weapons not a subset of tools ? What I wished - but I fear, failed - to convey, was that those with a penchant for using this particular type of tool are probably going to be the storm troopers on which the establishment of full-blown fascism in the United States will be based, if, indeed, it does come. Whether, thereafter, the fate of the leaders of this/these movement[s], will resemble that of Ernst Röhm and other leaders of the SA is something my crystal ball does not allow me to prognosticate, but I do not consider it unlikely ; after all, the suits tend to run things in the end and, given the connexion between fascism and imperialism, they are likely to prefer a professional military to a people’s militia….

Henri

Report this

By stcfarms, August 6, 2009 at 10:23 am Link to this comment

Gordy,

The Constitution does not call for a standing militia, it calls for citizens to bear arms against tyranny if need be. A good way to understand the thinking of the founding fathers is to read the Federalist and anti Federalist papers. Once you have read the written record of their arguments it becomes clear that they did not trust the government that they were creating and wanted to give the people a way to change it if need be. There is no standing militia in America and the veterans that are the militia are a mirror image of the general population. There are no scheduled meetings and I cannot speak for the other members of the militia but this member of the militia is dropping an engine in a pickup truck today. No one leads the militia but the Constitution and you join the militia when you take the oath to defend that Constitution in boot camp.

Report this

By Gordy, August 6, 2009 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

Yeah, I wonder whether the constitution really had that sort of thing in mind - politically partisan militia.  Could there be a nonpartisan people’s militia?  I can’t conceive of anything workable.  Letting private citizens bear arms lets them quickly form an effective militia in response to tyranny but a standing militia - what would it be about, what would it do every day during peacetime?  Who would lead it?  What kind of people would join it?

Report this

By stcfarms, August 6, 2009 at 9:40 am Link to this comment

Henri,

  The 1.5 million NRA members are a tiny fraction of the 175 million gun owners in America. Using the NRA as a yardstick to measure gun owners is akin to using Hitler as a yardstick to measure christians. You are right that the US is following the path of 1930’s Germany, the first act that Hitler signed was a ban on Jewish ownership of guns. I am following another proud German tradition of the 1930’s, I am leaving the police state. People that perceive guns as weapons are the real danger, guns are only a tool. The thing about guns is that when you need one, nothing else will do.

Report this

By Gordy, August 6, 2009 at 9:37 am Link to this comment

Henri, thanks for the history lesson - and I kinda had that possibility in mind but I did not know whether the Brownshirts were analogous to a ‘well-regulated militia’.  I’m sure there are those who would debate this with you; and I wonder whether the general populace were allowed to freely form armed groups or did the Brownshirts get special permission.  Did they even have guns?  I suppose I should read this for myself.

I think that militias are neither good nor bad inherently.  They would not be necessary if other more fundamental (psychological and cultural) precursors to tyranny were dissolved.  But we’re muddling along in an imperfect world here, and the climate right now at this point in time is that banks own America, it seems to me.  It’s not some right-wing gun-toting group who are in power but a bunch of suits.  Gun-toting survivalists might be a necessary balance; I dunno - I think the jury’s out when the situation is so messy and it’s easy to see the bad guys working together but hard to spot any real organized good guys.  Half of what the NRA come out with seems pretty ridiculous to me, but I don’t think the US government is so squeaky clean that it can honestly claim to make morally superior usage of its vast arsenal.

Report this

By elisalouisa, August 6, 2009 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

Prior to 1933 there were many parties in Germany. Four of the strongest were the Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party, the Nazi Party and the
German National Party. Each had their own militia. Hindenburg, President of Germany at the time, appointed Hitler to the Chancellorship, After Hitler assumed power in January 1933 the Reistag building was set afire(their 9/ll?). It was probably started by the Nazis, however Hitler used this occasion to outlaw the other parties thus making the Nazi party the only legal political organization in Germany.
The above has been oversimplified, a lot of behind the scenes skulduggery occurred.

Report this

By Folktruther, August 6, 2009 at 9:13 am Link to this comment

Ismeal Reed, the African-American playright, has a featured article today in Counterpunch on the Gates incident.  It is long but worthy of study.  there is no doubt that racism in the US is helping to drive the US into a noeliberal police statte.  Apparently the fear fantasies of Whites for non-Whites make them prefer the emotional security of a police state even though their own liberties are curtailed, and theri economic exploitation increased.

the obvious racism and abuse of police power of the Gates incident is now being characterized by the progressive media and rank and file progressives as an ‘overreaction on both sides.’  Gates lack of servility to arbitrary police power is equated with the policeman’s Crowley’s illegality, abuse of power, and deceit to justify it.

What is mainly depressing about the incident is that this is the view of Dem Progressives, including Black professionals.  No effective resistence to the transforming of America to a police state is possible if the population, and their truth leaders, identify with it to bolster their emotional security.

the Bushite administration used the fear and rage provoked by the 9/11-antrax attacks to change the US traditional form of government. The fear regressed the American people, as it does according to the pxychologist Bryant Welch on ‘gaslighting,’ inducing us to identify with a powerful leader, our father figure.  It induced the population to accept childish absurdities and irrational deceit to justify policies strongly against the interests of the people.

The emotional, childish truth that people WANT to believe as true differs sharply from the simple reality-based truth about people and power, formulated from a world historical perspective.  the US contains 4% of the world’s population, and lives in a world of non-White people. The Elitism engendered by imperialist power, and its continuous decline since WW2, appears to have unconsciously influenced the racism that drives US foreign policy toward torture, rape and homocide. 

The War on Terrorism, the formula used to kill and exploit Muslims to steal their oil reserves, has a domestic component as well, since all Foreign policy is based on domestic considerations.

It is this racism that supports the ethnic cleansing and mass murder of Ziofascist Isrraeli policy, overcoming, diverting and suppressing the 20 centuries of anti-Semitism of Christianity.  As long as the Israelis are being racist against the Muslims, the American White population appears to identify with them, despite their unconscious anti-semitism.  This appears to be a symbiotic political perversion uniting the two countries.

In a world with nuclear weapons, this form of irrationality, expressed often as imperialist megalomania, is extremely dangerous.  But how can one combat it, the product of centuries of indoctrination?  The childish irrationality is so pervasive and strongly ingrained.

Report this

By John Hanks, August 6, 2009 at 9:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hitler came to power largely because it was legal for every political party to form a militia.

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, August 6, 2009 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

Gordy, there was indeed a (perhaps not always so well-regulated) «well-regulated militia» in Germany ; it was known as the SA («Sturmabteilung») and was the paramilitary force used by the Nazis on their road to power. The historical evidence would seem to suggest, therefore, that a well-regulated militia doesn’t necessarily render a democratic state (which the Weimar Republic, for all its failings, was) safe from the designs of an undemocratic movement. That being said, it should be kept in mind that Hitler came to power (as, the conservatives hoped, a bulwark against Communism - sound familiar ?) by legal and constitutional means, after a strong showing in the elections of January 1993. After becoming Reichskanzler, Hitler, with the help of his cronies - applauded by many in such countries as the United States, the UK, and France - rapidly divested the state of its democratic trappings. At this point, the SA, whose leaders saw it as replacing the Wehrmacht with a people’s militia, became an embarassement to Hitler (who had more grandioise plans and needed his professional army), and he dealt with it with characteristic dispatch on the (in)famous Nacht der langen Messer), 30 June 1934….

Summa summarium, the problem remains : how does one ensure that the well-regulated militia continues to be well-regulated - and in whose interests ? To my mind, the present-day United States far more closely resembles Germany in the 1930s than it does Switzerland today ; as far as I know, the latter entertains no imperial pretensions (while, of course, being ever ready to profit from those of others). Full-blown facism, if, indeed, it does come to the United States, is far more likely to come with the support of NRA members than against their opposition….

Henri

Report this

By stcfarms, August 6, 2009 at 7:31 am Link to this comment

Gordy,

Thank you. I do not know if Germany had a militia but Switzerland has had a militia for centuries. All Swiss men must own a weapon and are a member of the militia from the age of 16. The Swiss have enjoyed a low crime rate and freedom from attack for centuries. Guns are a lot like alcohol, those that are raised where alcohol is a natural part of life (served with meals as in europe) do not become drunks. People raised with guns used for hunting similarly do not become ‘gun nuts’. The first warning flag of a budding police state is when they take the guns away from the people.

Report this

By Gordy, August 6, 2009 at 6:49 am Link to this comment

Stcfarms, I appreciated that little treatise on constitutional exactitude.  Tell you what, I used to tend to the view that the American gun-nuts were deliberately ignoring the different, frontier age during which the Constitution was drafted, but lately I’ve come to think that plump, dulled Western people should be a lot readier to take up arms and depose their runaway governments.  Governments lose their moral compass too easily and are not by any innate property a centre of common good.  I think they need to be regulated by the fear of reprisal for crimes, just like the average citizen.  Until such time mayhaps when nation and citizen behave well spontaneously from an innate goodness. 

Was there a well-regulated militia in Germany during the rise of the Nazis?  If there was not, might that have made all the difference? 

Shepharad, I had not heard about Scots dominating UK banking, but Scots and people of Scots descent have dominated the top jobs in the ruling Labour Party in recent years.  English newspapers (and cab-drivers) still make tart little innuendos about this without coming right out as openly racist, and we Scots always listen for the inevitable loss of a Scot’s original accent once he goes to work in Westminster.  I don’t think they put Scotland first; they have bigger fish to fry as London is a world power city, but maybe it helps us a bit, I dunno.  We have our own parliament with some limited self-governing power.  If we had been independent and kept North Sea oil to ourselves we would have been richer than the Saudis… but I don’t get het up about these things.

Report this

By stcfarms, August 6, 2009 at 1:22 am Link to this comment

Sepharad,

I will have 16’ on a side sections hinged together to ride the waves, each section will be supported by 24 60 gallon plastic barrels. Rather than fight the waves it will conform to their shape as they pass underneath. I will go down the Mississippi to the gulf, once I am on the ocean there is a ‘sweet spot’ 250 nautical miles ENE of Belem Brazil that I will head for. At 250 miles out to sea the Amazon is still freshwater.

Someone has to go out on the ocean and create land to reduce the atmospheric carbon. Save the polar bears groups miss the point, you cannot save them unless you return the climate to optimum conditions. Governments are too busy trying to remain in power to give a damn if the biosphere dies. It is possible to return the carbon to 1750 levels as is shown at

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/carbonlevels/

Report this

By Sepharad, August 6, 2009 at 12:42 am Link to this comment

stcfarms, Loved your demonstration of the importance of commas, which I’ve never doubted.

People underestimate the power of precisely articulated language. Still others may err by over-estimating the importance of words because (as semanticist Alfred Korzybski writes) “The map is not the territory.”

What the world needs now is precise language combined with intimate knowledge of the territory underlying any presumed map.

Report this

By Sepharad, August 6, 2009 at 12:18 am Link to this comment

stcfarms, You probably didn’t meet my niece in Haifa—she’s 35, but like your old girlfriend, tough. (Except that she wants to feed, save, or otherwise care for—and hopes to travel—the whole world. Though she is not an American citizen, she managed to get into the Peace Corps after her IDF stint, teaching English in Benin.)

I’m saving your raft posts to show my husband—his kind of thing, if he would ever get off his horse. It must be a pretty big raft, with a garden on the top deck. Self-sufficiency is a huge challenge. Especially on the water. However, if one can do it successfully, I don’t see why your vision of thousands of little points of light on the ocean would be very far out of reach.

Main question is how you have designed your raft to deal with the huge waves and troughs of heavy seas? And which ocean would you set off on?

As a vet with an IQ of 162, you definitely qualify to caution people about a civil war. Or revolution, come to that. If you weren’t dead set on heading off on your raft (the best idea I’ve heard for a long time, considering the options), I’d beg you to stay and add your voice to the great conversation our country has to open or be lost.

I understand your reluctance to help one bunch of whites steal land from a different bunch of whites who stole it from the Indian nations. The whole notion of legitimate private property is bogus, considering the origins. PP has never made sense and never will. The few acres we live on was part of a grant that General Mariano Vallejo (Spanish conqueror of Norte California who simply took it from the Pomo Indians) gave to his daughter and Yankee son-in-law as a wedding present. They subsequently split it up between their progeny and a man with a sawmill who didn’t stop till there wasn’t a tree left. Orchardists moved in and planted. When we moved here husband bought 1,000+ seedlings from Forestry @ 5cents each and now we live in a pine, oak, redwood forest that sticks up for miles. All the remaining wildlife and Pomo spirits live here. I guess in a way our little place is like an unruly raft in a sea of manicured and domesticated modern reality.

Report this

By stcfarms, August 6, 2009 at 12:02 am Link to this comment

[2]  Without the comma, independent clauses may stand by
themselves as complete sentences.  

***Example:  A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.   The first independent clause A
well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state. . . .  is joined by the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed. as the second
independent clause of the same sentence.  (These clauses
would not lose their value if a period separated them.)  Because
we are discussing the Rights of the People, these two clauses
are also essential and unessential.  The Militia part is a
duty
and unessential to the Right, while the arms part is the
essential Right.   

[3]  If a dependent clause alters the meaning of the main clause
a comma should not separate it.  ***Example: The Citizens of
each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of
Citizens in the several States.  

[4]  A comma or coordinating conjunction such as and, or, but, for
or so, may separate independent clauses in the same sentence.
 
***Examples:  No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in
any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war,
but in a manner to be prescribed by law.    

Descriptive information not important to the meaning of the
sentence are separated by commas.  ***Examples:  Eternal
vigilance, by the People, is the price of Freedom.  

So why were two commas added?  I am not sure, for the
commas could have been introduced for carelessness, or an
attempt by the scribe to promote his sense of proper
punctuation, or to confuse the meaning, intent, and the
importance of the essential clause by raising the importance of
the unessential clause.  By fragmenting with commas, the
unessential Militia part gains importance while the
Arms part loses its unique purpose.  Because commas may
separate unessential from essential information, the additional
fragmentation disparages the importance of the “right to bear
arms.”  It is for the three commas, and the four sections that
many interpret the Second Amendment as a collective
prerogative of the Militia and the State and not as an individual
right for the People.  

Some may argue, Then why was People used and not
Persons?  

The use of People for describing individual rights is
consistent with other Amendments written between 1787 and
1791.  

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.  These are individual
Rights, not cumulative or group Rights.  

The Fourth Amendment, The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized. These are
individual Rights, not cumulative or group Rights.  

The Ninth Amendment:  The enumeration in the constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.  These are individual Rights, not
cumulative or group Rights.

If you still think commas are unimportant read this. “The
government said the people may not own guns” or if you prefer
“The government, said the people, may not own guns”. 

Jerr
“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.”—Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

Report this

By stcfarms, August 6, 2009 at 12:01 am Link to this comment

Too often, we make assumptions that are based on information
that is without verification.  Too often, we place our confidence in
those in offices of trust.  Too often, we parrot what they interpret
for us and adopt their bias and their errors for our own truths.  
Should we believe that our scholars, professors and politicians
do not have any political bias or political agenda?  Should we
assume that their interpretations are without error, omission or a
demonstration of their selfish motives?  While it is true that they
may innocently advance such anomalies, we should also
consider they are there by design.  

I believe the addition of two commas to the Second Amendment
was and still is an attempt to refashion the Second
Amendment’s true meaning and intent.  To discover how
commas have affected our perceptions of the Second
Amendment, let us examine some ways commas are used and
what they infer.  

A comma:  [1] is used to link independent clauses of equal
value.  [2] is used to link independent clauses that are, by
themselves, as complete sentences.  (Some clauses  may be
considered as essential or unessential.)  [3] should not
separate a dependent clause if it alters the meaning of the main
clause.  [4] separates two words or parts of the same thought
that without the comma would confuse the intent of the words.  
[5] separates independent clauses in the same sentence or
separate coordinating conjunctions such as and, or, but, for, or
so.  [6] for convenience, or the discretion of the user. *  

*For this monograph, I assume the Constitution is too important
to omit or introduce a comma.  

[1]  A comma may be used to link independent clauses of equal
value.  ***Example: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or
the right of people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.”  

Report this

By stcfarms, August 6, 2009 at 12:00 am Link to this comment

To understand the Second Amendment we should study it as
it was ratified. The ‘corrected’ versions offered by
the Federal Government or other political organizations are at best foolish, at worst criminal.   It is for

textual differences that we must investigate and decide which
version is true and which is not.  

Words have meanings, and for universal understanding, we
create conventions such as language, spelling, grammar and
punctuation.  Nevertheless, there are times we ignore these
conventions that we may emphasize a point, a convenience,
attract attention or to be creative.  Because these variations are
considered poetic license, they too, are conventions.
However, in transcribing Constitutions, inventiveness,
convenience, drama and creativity must end.  I consider any
variation from the Constitution’s original texts as improper, and
anti-constitutional.  

The U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of
Documents, Senate Document 105-11 presents the Second
Amendment as . . .  “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  Notice the three commas and
the four parts.  

According to photocopies of the earliest printings of the Second
Amendment, it should read, “A well regulated Militia being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”  Notice there is only
one comma and two parts.  

My certainty comes from the photocopies of nine different
printings of the Constitution.  Each version printed in distinctly
different type styles and formats.  [Which demonstrates they
were not reprints from the same typeset.]  They were printed for
distribution in different States, on different dates between 1792
and 1799.  Each were cross referenced for textual
inconsistencies.  I found they all had one comma positioned
after the word State.  Nevertheless, most of the contemporary
printings of the Second Amendment are consistent with the three
comma version.  With this historical documentation, I concluded
that the contemporary three comma version is a fraud, and the
one comma version is correct.  

Report this

By Sepharad, August 5, 2009 at 11:18 pm Link to this comment

Gordy, you make a lot of sense. The problem is to make sure that any country’s majority doesn’t scapegoat or persecute its minorities. The great thing about the kind of representative democracy/republic the U.S. has is that it reflects the will of the majority while for the most part protecting its minorities. (EXCEPT, that is, when panic sets in. E.g., Americans put all of their Japanese American citizens into concentration camps on the West coast, and put all Japanese Americans in other parts of the U.S. who refused to take a loyalty oath to the U.S. into other concentration camps. Even those Japanese Americans who did take the loyalty oath found themselves ostracized. One of my dad’s friends, a Japanese American botany professor at Washington U. in St. Louis, spent a lot of the war at our house. (I was too young to remember those days, but he remained closed to my parents until his death.) When I was at university in Chicago, I roomed with my Japanese American girlfriend’s family. Her father had refused to take the loyalty oath and spent the war in a concentration camp near New Orleans. He never learned to speak English, and certainly didn’t approve of my presence in their home (until I finally learned how to eat rice floating in a bowl of tea without spilling it all over the table—after that, he stopped frowning at me all the time). 

To me, the best thing about America is her diverse population and the ideals in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. America is probably where most of the world’s minorities can feel the safest. Yet when problems pile up here, such as financial collapse, ruinous wars, people losing jobs and houses and their dignity on all sides, Anglo Americans have never been shy about blaming more recent arrivals, or culturally distinct immigrants—Chinese, Italian, Jewish, Irish, Mexican, Central American, Asian, East Indians, Arab, Pakistani, Eastern European, West Indians.

But you’re right: many of us ARE here to learn. Debate and rhetoric are not as conducive to learning
as discussion and listening.

Oh—a dear, deceased elderly friend of ours was a proud Scot/Delaware Indian who did not much like the British. He said the Scots finally got their revenge, by taking over most of the British banks. Is that true?

Report this

By Mozzer75, August 5, 2009 at 11:10 pm Link to this comment

STCFarms has a point!  Self-suffiency is the goal, but not of a survivalist mentality; self-suffiency is important first and foremost in an INTELLECTUAL mentality. Not a mentality of fear, but an overcoming of the fear of NOT THINKING, and just accepting the headline without reading the whole article. Self-suffiency and independence is in no way bolstered, by the way, by the number of gun you have. It is hilarious to me that when the Bush Administration was one-by-one stripping civil rights, these people made no peep about it; now that there’s a Democrat in power and it is Bible truth (apparently) that their President wants to take away their guns, they are so vocal. It doesn’t matter to anyone what those first ten amendments REALLY mean.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 5, 2009 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment

Les Ismore,

Les Ismore said:  “This country is still better than anywhere else you can live.”

MarthaA’s answer:  This country is fine.  It is not the country, it’s the government trying to follow the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST Bush administration and RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICANS on both sides of the aisle in Congress. CONSERVATIVES must be cleaned out of the Left, the Democratic Party.  Blue Dogs and New Democrats absolutely must be removed from their high perches.

FYI, There’s FREE Medical Care, baby sitters, nannys, etc. in FRANCE for the Common Population: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6646340600856118396&ei=9wjmSb3OMp2wqAOL_o25Dw&q=sicko

“Pie in the sky by and by is not enough”.  CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICANS fleeced the nation with the help of the mainstream churches that undoubtedly receive considerable money for extolling the perils of SOCIALISM for the many while corporate banks and insurance corporations have absconded with, I’ve seen figures in the past of over 400% profit, that should have been dealt to the many, while getting bailed out by that terrible SOCIALISM that the churches despise, while the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION have to beg for proper health insurance and still be in debt for the rest of their lives should a serious medical condition arise, but the CONSERVATIVE churches took their money and patted the Bush administration on the back.

Being the best country for all of the Nobles and Nearly Nobles is not enough when government is run exclusively for the benefit of the Nobles and Nearly Nobles, and not inclusive of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION as a Class and Culture.

The 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION as a Class and Culture want a seat at the table of government to make and enforce law and order that will make the United States of America the best country in the world for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, along with the Nobles and Nearly Nobles of the American Aristocracy and the Professional Middle Class, a combined 30% minority population of the United States.

What the Nobles and the Nearly Nobles say is “The United States is the best country in the world for us, maybe not YOU”.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 5, 2009 at 9:14 pm Link to this comment

Les Ismore,

Les Ismore said:  “This country is still better than anywhere else you can live.”

MarthaA’s answer:  This country is fine.  It is not the country, it’s the government trying to follow the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST Bush administration and RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICANS on both sides of the aisle in Congress. CONSERVATIVES must be cleaned out of the Left, the Demcratic Party.  Blue Dogs and New Democrats absolutely must be removed from their high perches.

FYI, There’s FREE Medical Care, baby sitters, nannys, etc. in FRANCE for the Common Population: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6646340600856118396&ei=9wjmSb3OMp2wqAOL_o25Dw&q=sicko

“Pie in the sky by and by is not enough”.  CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICANS fleeced the nation with the help of the mainstream churches that undoubtedly receive considerable money for extolling the perils of SOCIALISM for the many while corporate banks and insurance corporations have absconding with, I’ve seen figures in the past of over 400% profit, that should have been dealt to the many, while getting bailed out by that terrible SOCIALISM that the churches despise, while the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION have to beg for proper health insurance and still be in debt for the rest of their lives should a serious medical condition arise, but the CONSERVATIVE churches took their money and patted the Bush administration on the back.

Being the best country for all of the Nobles and Nearly Nobles is not enough when government is run exclusively for the benefit of the Nobles and Nearly Nobles, and not inclusive of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION as a Class and Culture.

The 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION as a Class and Culture want a seat at the table of government to make and enforce law and order that will make the United States of America the best country in the world for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, along with the Nobles and Nearly Nobles of the American Aristocracy and the Professional Middle Class, a combined 30% minority population of the United States.

What the Nobles and the Nearly Nobles say is “The United States is the best country in the world for us, maybe not YOU”.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, August 5, 2009 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

“If it is not, why are you still here, when you can move to Chavez’s paradise and then be subject to being muzzled when you fall out of favor with the whim of the day? Gore, your elitism and self-hate is showing!”Les Ismore

From your own elitist mouth. Who on earth supported Stalin, Mao, etc? Who here, not those voices in your head mind you. Can you at least have your own thoughts and not this regurgitated reich wing swill that passes for information? Stuff out of the 1950’s.

We would like to correct the mistakes made here on us by the fascist tendencies of the wealthy elites. You know, socialism for the corporation and the rich who own them. The owners paradise of parasitical capitalism. The ones who want a dictatorship of themselves. Rather like Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy and Franco’sSpain were. You don’t want to fall out of their favor either.

Report this

By John Hanks, August 5, 2009 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For the lucky combat veterans at sr. levels they may develop leadership skills which transfer easily to corporate life.  Otherwise, combat is extremely destructive in every aspect of life.

Report this

By stcfarms, August 5, 2009 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment

The Constitution calls for a well trained militia. The military veterans ARE that well trained militia as we have taken an oath to defend the Constitution and are very well trained. Most of us old vets are armed in case we are required to stop an out of control government. We prefer that the civilians remove the police state on their own by peaceful means as you really do not want a civil war. Stop giving the state your wealth, they just use it against you.

Report this

By stcfarms, August 5, 2009 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment

Les,

Perhaps in a million years or so your progeny will begin to walk upright and use simple tools, they will be light years ahead of you.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 5, 2009 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment

John Hanks,

John Hanks said:  “How does combat in a war qualify anyone to know anything?”

MarthaA’s answer:  Probably wouldn’t for you, you probably have no idea what war is, but war on this country at that time was a grave concern for our family, war info was kept up with really well. Anyone with a loved family member that has fought in a war knows this.  CIVIL DEFENSE protection was something of grave concern, but military establishments terrorizing the people was not what it was all about.  It was about, NO FEAR, but the Bush administration pushed FEAR, big time. 

It is my opinion that men and women who have fought in a war are not as inclined to foist the military off on civilians.  Homeland Security is a military establishment, like what Hitler did,  instead of the CIVIL DEFENSE, a civilian establishment, as it should have been.

Depth and breadth of understanding that is objective based upon objective reality of the battlefield is your answer.  CHICKEN HAWKS can spout sophist propaganda that is intentionally a subjective falsehood with a clear conscience because objectively they have not experienced the objective cause and effect relationship of war on the battlefield; ardee posts like a 12 yr. old that has no objective experience other that that of a 12 yr. old.  Combat in war will definitely ground a person in the objective reality of the cause and effect of war on the battlefield that can be applied later in political life; again, ardee acts like a 12 yr. old, not like someone who is grounded in the objective reality of battlefield experience.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, August 5, 2009 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment

Uh, MarthaA…I think you put your foot in your mouth…again (as usual). 

If I remember correctly, Ardee is a Viet Nam War vet with combat experience.

Report this

By ardee, August 5, 2009 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA, August 5 at 5:42 pm #

I think you so easily provoked to show how really,truly insane you are..Thank you so much for helping me to show this forum exactly how useless are your lies, distortions and lunatic vision of reality to honest discourse.

Report this

By John Hanks, August 5, 2009 at 5:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How does combat in a war qualify anyone to know anything?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 5, 2009 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment

ardee the sophist,

Did you get your information from your 12-13 grandchildren? 

As usual, you missed the whole point and continue to make yourself look stupid by trying to show I am saying something untrue, like sophist do.  What I say on this blog is truth, I have no reason to lie, like you.

My brothers fought in World War II.  Did you fight in any kind of war, ardee?  Did you even join the military?

The World War II situation was an EXTREMELY serious situation, but it was handled through existing channels without setting up a tyrannical organization to oppress and tyrannize the population of the United States, as was done by the Bush administration.  I doubt seriously any of the selected Bush administration ever had any war experience.  I think they were all CHICKEN HAWKS, according to U.S. Senator, Al Franken in his book. “LIES And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right” Page 230 through Page 251.  You should read it.

My brothers fought in World War II.  Did you fight in any kind of war, ardee?  Did you even join the military? 

Whether you like it or not, the people as a whole guarded the country through CIVIL DEFENSE that was set up for that purpose, instead of worthless Homeland Security. 

“The CIVIL DEFENSE is a program of nonmilitary plans and actions for saving lives and property if an enemy attacks a country.”

“CIVIL DEFENSE may also deal with such emergencies as fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters.  Trained civilian auxiliary groups helped the regular emergency services - policemen, firemen, health officials, and others—in providing CIVIL DEFENSE.”

“CIVIL-DEFENSE preparations range from building huge underground public shelters to training families in first aid.  Canada, Denmark, Great Britain, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States, and other countries have nationwide CIVIL DEFENSE programs.”

“CIVIL DEFENSE in the United States began in a small way in pioneer days.  While Colonial Soldiers fought the enemy, civilians repaired and restored community life at home.”

“The problems of CIVIL DEFENSE are far greater than ever before in this present - day age of modern warfare.  Any country may be attacked with atomic, biological, and chemical weapons from land, sea, or air.  A missile carrying an atomic warhead can speed 6,000 miles in 25 minutes, giving little opportunity for advanced warning.  A country must have all its CIVILIAN and military strength prepared in advance, if it is to survive and recover from an attack.”

“People can do one of two things when an enemy strikes or a natural disaster occurs.  If they have enough time, they may evacuate or leave the endangered area and go to a safe place.  Or they must seek shelter or get under cover if there is not enough time for evacuation.  Every person should be prepared by knowing 1) the CIVIL-DEFENSE WARNING SIGNALS and what they mean, 2) his communities plan for emergency action, 3) the methods for protecting himself from fallout, 4) first aid and home emergency preparedness, and 5) the proper means of obtaining official CIVIL-DEFENSE INSTRUCTION.”—- WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1962.

http://www.lansdownecivic.com/Pages/hometown_stories/4_defense.html

Regarding 9-11-01 and the destruction of the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon; this disaster should have ACTIVATED the CIVIL DEFENSE NETWORK of the United States and CIVIL DEFENSE should have been deployed and upgraded, instead of RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST REPUBLICANS and their Democratic Party toadies making a grab for POWER, equivalent to the German’s burning the Reichstag and using that as a pretext to install Adolph Hitler as a dictator, to create the Department of Homeland Security and create a network of concentration camps to inter the very people that should have been a part of a CIVIL DEFENSE NETWORK.

BTW, How is it possible for a 12 yr. old to have 13 grandchildren?

Report this

By stcfarms, August 5, 2009 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

Gordy,

  That is the beauty of the rafts, they are unsinkable and cheap, the bad news is that they are extremely ugly. The relationship of height to length and width is important to prevent their capsizing, they must be low and wide. If you hinge the raft segments together they will ride the waves and not offer purchase to the wind. The police state ends at 12 nautical miles but to be safe a 200 nautical mile distance from shore is best. Richard Sowa builds the least expensive rafts from plastic bottles rescued from the trash at about 12 cents a square foot but they are very labor intensive to build. The barrel rafts are about $2 a square foot but you can build 20 square feet an hour. I guess it depends if you have more money or time available as to which style you choose

Report this

Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.