You say you want a revolution
Well, you know…
We all want to change the world. – John Lennon, “Revolution”
One year ago today I published “Guy Fawkes Night”, in which I briefly explained the holiday for those outside the UK and suggested that perhaps former British colonies (such as the U.S.) which no longer celebrate it…
…need to renew the holiday…as a time to burn tyrants in effigy. Governments need to be reminded (at least annually if not constantly) that they only hold power by the sufferance of all the people, not merely the majority, and that the overthrow of any government by a disgruntled minority is always a possibility. I would like to see most if not all politicians and their minions paying for their power and privilege by being forced to live in a constant state of nervous anxiety; maybe then fewer would choose that path and more would concern themselves with keeping all the citizenry happy rather than merely pleasing barely enough of the population to keep themselves in office.
The graphic novel and movie V for Vendetta used Guy Fawkes Day as a symbol of rebellion against tyranny; the protagonist, known only as “V”, dressed in a Guy Fawkes costume and mask, and the number 5 (for November 5th) appears repeatedly (even the letter “V” is a Roman 5). The imagery wasn’t lost on some young Americans who saw the movie, because many of the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters wear Guy Fawkes masks. And though their protests have so far been peaceful, I hope the masks constitute an implied threat rather than an inappropriate pop-culture reference; Guy Fawkes’ aborted revolution was not remotely peaceful, nor was that of the fictional “V”. While I don’t advocate mindless violence as a measure of first resort, I believe the threat of it needs to be present for government to heed the demands of protesters. As I wrote last year:
Interrogators have long understood something which both terrorists and pacifists alike fail to understand, which is that human nature tends to respond only to BOTH the promise of reward and the threat of punishment used in tandem. Terrorism fails because it offers only violence, and pacifism fails because it offers only the reward of keeping the non-violent protesters happy, but the classic “good cop, bad cop” scenario works because it offers both. Not even children consistently respond to the promise of the carrot without the threat of the stick; why then should we expect adults to, most especially the self-important adults who set themselves up over their fellows? The civil rights movement worked because Martin Luther King and other peaceful protesters offered an attractive alternative to the race violence which had escalated since soon after the Second World War, but without the looming specter of race war their peaceful protests might never have accomplished anything. In more recent times the peaceful activism of mainstream “gay rights” groups offered an attractive alternative to the disruptive antics of groups like ACT-UP and the quiet violence of “outing”. Perhaps one of the reasons that the prostitutes’ rights movement has languished in futility for four decades is that there is no threatening alternative; maybe the “good girl” activists…need a few “bad girl” groups who run around outing politicians, disrupting fundamentalist religious services and neofeminist meetings, hacking prohibitionist websites and spying on police to publicly expose “stings” so the government will have some compelling reason to consider the reasonable alternative of decriminalization.
The American political system has failed; the two officially-sanctioned parties are merely two wings of the same vulture, and their members are too locked in groupthink to make the radical changes which need to be made to save this country. 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed, and half of the citizens now recognize the federal government “poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens”. Yet the two approved parties merely point fingers at each other and their leaders refuse to listen to those who recognize that BOTH parties are at fault and need to be reformed or abolished. Listen to the mindless attacks on the “Tea Party” from soi-disant “liberals”, and compare them to the equally-mindless attacks on “Occupy Wall Street” from soi-disant “conservatives”; they’re almost indistinguishable. Neither dissident group has proposed a unified program of reform, but both are widespread and popular grass-roots campaigns made up of people who are dissatisfied with the status quo and extremely angry with the entrenched political establishment’s criminal mismanagement of the Ship of State. And as the Guy Fawkes masks of OWS and the Revolutionary War symbology of the Tea Party connote, that establishment ignores or underestimates them at its own peril. I wonder if the various Middle-Eastern dictatorships who have recently been overthrown in the so-called “Arab Spring” thought as little of the citizens who eventually rose up against them?
It is easier to mobilize against a one party system, since the governing party becomes the focal point for all dissent. So, in Egypt we saw very liberal, secular people demonstrating alongside hardline religious types.
A two party system is more stable precisely because most persue the path of least resistance rather than the path of maximum advantage. They flip between blue and red, red and blue. “I am sick of this party, might as well give the other party a chance”. People have such short memories!
Before visiting your site, I was reading this article which feature Fawkes.
When calling OWS peaceful, you must have missed all the non-peaceful things happening.
I’ve seen the non-peaceful stuff, but IMHO it isn’t nearly enough to constitute a real threat to those in power.
Violence and crime is only bad when it is a threat to those in power?
Wait, I think you lost me. Are you talking about collective actions of protest groups, or individual crimes committed by individuals in the group against one another? Because I meant the former.
Dear DoubleU, a wonderful question! Thank you!
It is thought-provoking, isn’t it?
While clearly not what Maggie was getting at or implying, I’d like to ask or hear some plucky reporter ask that question of any politician who signed of on putting down such protests. Be nice watching them squirm a bit.
Violence has been committed against OWS protesters by police. OWS itself has been quite peaceful.
In Oakland some anarchists came in and started busting stuff up. In Oakland, anarchists are always crashing somebody else’s party.
I heard the liberals bitching and moaning about the Tea Party, and I’ve heard conservatives bitching and moaning about Occupy Wall Street. These are two very different brands of bitching and moaning. You could probably pick one from the other without being told who was speaking, and without either moaning bitch identifying himself or his target.
Occupy Wall Street hasn’t been wearing guns to politicians’ speeches and talking about “Second Amendment remedies” if they don’t get their way.
Dear Hinoron, yes, I agree it’s thought-provoking and it SHOULD be. I’m with you on it would be great to ask the politicians this. I also see the question as bringing up the question: isn’t violence done to those not in power just as bad? In other words, shouldn’t favoritism never be a part of the trial and punishment process?
Your research regarding the “why occupypeople wear the mask” is flawed.
I recommend you visit 4chan.org /b/ sometime, and then read up on the origin of project chanology, LOIC, their connection to the DDOSing of visa and mastercard during the initial cablegate rush etc.
The mask is neither a misunderstood popculture reference, nor do these people wear them because they understand Guy Fawkes Ideals.
They wear them, because anons wore them, because they found the idea of bombing and burning gouvernmental institutions amusing.
The mask and its meaning have undergone significant memetic nutation since 2006.
Usually you seem well informed – not knowing where these guys culture originated from however, is not a lack of understanding.
It is a testimony to your moral values.
I’m not quite sure what your last line means, Archont; is it one of those things like honest people being unable to understand how con men come up with their convoluted scams?
I think he means …
Hmmm … how to put this?
I have never walked in your shoes Maggie. Frankly, I’ve never been brave enough to. In reading what you’ve written about yourself here, you’ve been a revolutionary since at least your teenage years. You’ve never been bound by societal conventions … even when it came to your choice of a livelihood.
You chose a livelihood which … I personally perceive to be a dangerous occupation because when you choose an occupation outside the boundaries of the law – you no longer enjoy the protections of those laws. In other words, Cops really don’t give a shit what happens to a hooker. So when you run into a dangerous situation – you’re on your own.
Then, add to that the fact that you were genuinely persecuted by these legal pervos … and saw many of your fellow escorts persecuted in a similar manner.
A lot of us DO NOT have that experience – can’t relate to it (though we try).
So, I think that your experiences cause you to default much quicker to “sinister motives” on the part of legal and elected officials – where someone like myself, I tend to see a bit less “evil” and a lot more institutional incompetence.
I’ve always taken the “acceptable” route in society myself. I’m not smart enough, nor courageous enough to deal with the fallout caused by living in a world where you’re cut off from the approval and protections of society. I joined the military and did well in it. I worked at very high levels in the Navy and didn’t find much “evil” in the backrooms – just a lot of incompetence.
So I think, what Archont is trying to say is that it’s those “moral values” that may sometimes cause you to look in some directions … but miss others?
That’s what I think anyway.
Don’t change what you do though – because if I were writing this blog – it would be boring as hell. You, are not boring and you actually make us think.
I was aware of my “otherness” from a very young age (3 or 4) and I’ve always resented the majority’s insistence that even if I don’t hurt anyone else I constitute a threat merely by being who I am. When ignorant savages with 19th-century weapons attempt to rape or brutalize me I tend to get angry, and when crypto-moralists with 21st-century propaganda methods (and goon squads staffed by the aforementioned ignorant savages) scheme to enslave me it goes way beyond angry. I’m planning to write an essay on that soon; it’s tentatively scheduled for the 19th.
No.
I say: You are a decent person, one that most likely does not enjoy destroying or degrading other people.
The place where the GuyFMasks came from is one of the more (probably even the most) sinister places.
Decent people don’t go there.
I understand. And thank you for saying that. 🙂
Yes, let’s all be like V! Blow up buildings! Who cares if there might be any people in them! They’re trash anyway, right? There’s no good politicians and never have been, right? They’re all out to get us 24 hours a day. They ALL hate us ALL the time. V, what a guy! Kills anyone who gets in his way. Great! If the only people in those buildings were politicians then who cares? They deserved it, didn’t they? Since every politician since day 1 has been ###*** and always will be, right? Violence can be a wonderful solution! Just ask the suriving family/friends of people killed by violence that’s reveled in by “heroes” (eyeroll) like V! They’ll tell you how wonderful it is. Yes, violence is always a “possible solution”! Just ask the people who never practiced it in the civil rights movement in the US and the anti-slavery movement in the US and others countries…wait…they got to their goals without any violence…never mind! Also those disciples of Jesus who were never violent and changed the world hugely for the better like the civil rights/anti-slavery people…never mind!
To be fair, I haven’t read the graphic novel V for Vendetta, nor have I seen the movie.
And Laura, neither have you.
I’m a big fan of non-violent movements. They can be very effective, largely because whatever anybody thinks of their cause, their moral AND PHYSICAL courage is obvious, and you tend to reconsider causes pushed by admirable people.
But oftentimes, there is a more violent group which threatens to cause mayhem, and oftentimes their complaints are similar to those of the non-violent protesters. Sometimes, I think that what the more violent types achieve isn’t scaring their enemies into compliance, but instead they make the non-violent folks seem so very reasonable, and thus win over public support for them.
The police really did OWS a favor when they started brutalizing peaceful protesters. There was hardly any news coverage of them before that.
Dear Sailor B, yes, you’re right that I haven’t seen the movie. That’s on purpose. I told you I read up on the movie and the novel and also watched YouTube videos about both. The videos noted the sources for the information and I looked those up and the information matched. I had the movie on my Netflix list but took it off after watching the videos, etc. I don’t want to read the novel either. ANY “hero” (eyeroll) that blows up buildings (even if there really aren’t any people in them) is disgusting to me. In the novel, V uses violence in more ways than that. I don’t care if these “heroes” (eyeroll) are atheist, Muslim, Satanist or from ANY religion and/or belief system, if they act like that ###*** them and I won’t give my $ to any novel/movie, etc., that makes them out to be “heroes”. Violence should only be used for TRUE self-defense and in a just war (like World War 2). Other than that, ###*** it!
So, you are passing judgement on a second-hand summation of the movie and novel, by consulting YouTube and other sources that could be biased?
Yet, whenever someone here criticizes Christianity based on their first-hand interpretation of the Bible or their first-hand encounters with believers you have a fit. I can find a whole bunch of vague “write ups” and YouTube videos that give plenty of information about the violence promoted by Christianity and interpretations of some of Jesus’ statements that are not non-violence but promotes violence and division.
The next time someone takes the same approach you took to V for Vendetta to whatever you hold near and dear, remember this.
I felt that I knew enough about the movie Land of the Lost to make a judgement about it, without having seen it. I’d seen trailers, I’d read summaries, I was passingly familiar with Will Ferrell’s work, and of course I’m a fan of the original television series, The Land of the Lost.
I’m also familiar with Isaac Asimov’s robot stories. When I learned that the movie I, Robot featured killer robots, I made a decision not to see it. I read some reviews, saw trailers, and I feel that I had enough information to make my decision.
I’ve enough information about this new movie, John Carter, based off of the books which gave Sailor Barsoom half his name, that I’m feeling mighty nervous. I haven’t decided not to see it (and in fact probably will), in part because I don’t know as much about it as I know about Land of the Lost and I, Robot.
You, Laura, me — none of us can see every movie, and sometimes we have to decide before we’ve seen it. And often, we get it right. Sometimes we get it wrong, but none of us see and read and look at and listen to everything.
All that said, it’s probably best to avoid fiercely denouncing things based on YouTube videos and alternative news shows.
Let’s not be silly here. Clearly, we can’t see every movie. But there’s a significant difference between saying, “I haven’t seen it but I don’t think I’d be interested” and “I haven’t seen it and I think it’s wrong because some people over there told me it was.” The second reaction passes judgement based on a lack of first-hand knowledge, which is what I specifically addressed in my comment.
To some degree it can matter who “some people over there” are. If my sister, or Laura, or my mother tells me I’m not likely to enjoy a movie, I generally take their word for it.
I know what some of Laura’s sources of information are and, while they’ve sometimes provided wonderful (and wonderfully accurate) information, for the most part I don’t trust much out of them that I can’t independently verify.
And some of them, on some subjects, I trust about as far as I can throw a cheesecake underwater. Sorry Laura, but you already knew this.
Again, you can decide if something isn’t for you without saying a word about how others should do the same as you. He wasn’t being “silly” either. He was explaining how he decides not to see certain movies, etc. and also time limits that many have. Speaking of his saying being wrong, there’s been at least a few movies that I thought I’d hate before I saw them. But, I gave them a chance anyway and ended up buying them. But, there’s a few things in movies that I don’t want any part of. This decision is also based on my 1st hand experiences and the 1st hand experiences of many others I’ve talked to directly over the years. If someone doesn’t want to see movies about people being tortured even if the torture is only being recreated in the movies is it so drastic that they decide this? Isn’t this a small issue compared to many other 1’s? Thanks for listening.
My not wanting any part of V is also based on 1st hand knowledge and experiences of mine and many others I’ve talked to over the years. I didn’t write this down before because didn’t see there was a need to. I’m saying it now to defend myself. As far as passing judgement goes, I could have been a lot worse and literally ordered others to not watch V. I didn’t do that and don’t plan to. If people are into V that’s their business. If I’m not that’s my right also. Both sides do, though, have the right to speak out about their reasons for feeling the ways they do about it. Thanks for listening.
Laura, you can’t have it both ways. First you said: Dear Sailor B, yes, you’re right that I haven’t seen the movie. That’s on purpose. I told you I read up on the movie and the novel and also watched YouTube videos about both.
And now you’re claiming My not wanting any part of V is also based on 1st hand knowledge and experiences of mine and many others I’ve talked to over the years. You can’t have 1st hand knowledge of it if you have refused to see it and only “read up on the movie” and “watched YouTube videos about both”. And, I’m assuming you know an immortal for the 1st hand knowledge of the events that inspired V for Vendetta.
Furthermore, my remark that Sailor Barsoom was being silly was in reference to the obvious statement that no one can see every movie ever made.
Yet, whenever someone here criticizes Christianity based on their first-hand interpretation of the Bible or their first-hand encounters with believers you have a fit. -not completely true. There’s horrible stuff said with NO mention of either of these. The evil ###*** said about Muslims on here is an example. If you belong to a group and its members are being lied about, stereotyped, etc., don’t you defend them? If someone you love is having the same done to them, don’t you defend them? Even if you don’t belong to a certain group being attacked, don’t you still defend them when it’s needed? Please note I NEVER said no one else has to think the same way as I do about V. I would never say that. Yes, I know YouTube has some stuff on it that can’t be trusted. I’ve been looking at stuff on there for years. The same goes for many other things besides YouTube. Yes, I’ve been burned through my own excitement over learning new things. But, I’ve learned from it also and resolved to be more careful and have done that. Sailor Barsoom can confirm this. As far as “having a fit” goes I could be a ton worse. I could be a lot harsher. Also, there’s not many movies I won’t watch. The movies where someone murders, destroys property (like blowing up buildings to change government), etc. like it’s nothing and revels in it aren’t for me. This includes the 1’s that glorify revenge-taking where the 1 taking revenge is doing no better than the 1’s that hurt them to begin with. An example is stuff like “The Punisher”. Why should there be some kind of “procedure” on what people should look at or run into without seeking it out specifically (like the case was for V for me)? Speaking of near and dear, that’s happened on here to me at least once. 1 example was the family of Ron Goldman being downed unfairly based on information from only 1 article. I defended the family as they needed it plus gave 1st hand information on the issue from my own experiences and many others I’ve talked to, etc., over the years. Again, I never said a word about how others shouldn’t like V or not watch/read it to begin with.
Dear aspasialibertine, you can state to someone they’re saying something obvious without being patronizing. Saying Sailor B was “silly” for saying what he did is patronizing. When I said 1st hand experience what I was SPECIFICALLY talking about is my 1st hand experience with losing family members to violence (2 family members). The others I mentioned who I’ve talked to (and they’re many) have also lost family members and/or friends to violence. I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer on this. To be honest, I’m discreet about these experiences a lot of the time for various reasons. But, this time I should have been less so in order to defend myself. So my own experiences and those of others were part of my decision also. I’ve now listed all the things that went into my decision.
Thanks for sticking up for me, Babe. But I wasn’t offended. I was pointing out the bleedingly obvious, and maybe it was a bit silly.
But, it was silliness for a purpose, and I don’t feel bad for having done that.
I don’t really get Arcont’s last line either…
Not religiously following 4chan for years is a moral value? O.o
I’ve never even visited that site, but that’s not a moral choice, it’s a practical one: I have lots more important stuff to do. 😛
Krulac is employing “Hanlon’s Razor”.
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
– Robert J. Hanlon
I’m very cautious about the OWS movement because, right now – I don’t see a lot of intelligent arguments coming out of it other than “pay my tuition bills” and “Wall Street is the Problem”.
Wall Street certainly IS a part of the problem, but the main problem is the Government / Wall Street alliance … and I see the Government as the biggest problem there. Didn’t we bust up AT&T in the 70’s? And yet – even though we KNOW that the entire reason for having to bail out the banks was because they were “too big to fail” … here we are four years on and they are still too big to fail. Even some Conservative Economists and Bankers admit these banks need to be made small enough to fail.
Obama’s not as smart as Caesar was. Caesar would have maintained an alliance with Wall Street – Obama’s pretty much shot that. Wall Street money is now going to Mitt Romney. Meet the next “Caesar”. He will rebuild the crony capitalism alliance and that’s not good news for us.
I’ve been waiting for a movement in the streets and at first I thought it might be the Tea Party but that movement was too nice and way too old – and really not diverse enough – though they did have semi-articulate principles (smaller government). It’s also pretty much dead now.
OWS … I’m not sure. I’ve seen some Communist and Socialist backing there and I’m not in for trading one tyrannical system for another, possibly worse one. And labor unions? You can have them – my Dad worked his way up from an operator in a chemical plant to a shift foreman. That’s a management position and my Dad was often fired upon (with guns) when he had to cross picket lines. I think most labor unions are communists and they certainly don’t fit in with libertarian principles.
OWS has caused a shutdown of the Port of Oakland – so they’re in violent territory right now – but without a clear message – they are simply going to turn most Americans off.
The American Revolution was originally prefaced by some clear ideas. Thomas Paine articulated them very well in “Common Sense”. We don’t have any kind of movement like that, based on ideas, today.
I believe the beginning of USA ver. 2.0 will occur when the debt has to be monetized and entitlements can’t be paid. This will weaken the Federal Government – but, here in the US – we have “other governments” now don’t we? They’re called STATE governments.
I kind of believe in the modified Igor Panarin theories that the US will break up along regional/state lines – which also happen to closely correspond with political lines. I think the next “Revolution” will actually come from the same place the last one did – and the last one was the Southern Confederacy. It’ll come from the states.
I don’t think “Wall Street” is any part of the problem because it isn’t the duty of any individual, entity or group of entities to limit its own political influence; that’s the job or the government, especially the judicial branch. In other words, it’s our broken system which allowed big companies, unions, and monied special-interest groups to gain as much disproportionate power as they have. We have evolved from constitutional republic to syndocracy to what is arguably fascism, and it won’t be long before we arrive at full fascism.
If those banks were truly “too big to fail” they should have been given LOANS, not handouts, at the maximum rate they’re allowed to charge their customers…29.99%. Let’s see them reap record profits and give big bonuses and political contributions while struggling under that.
I’m not saying that I agree with either OWS or the Tea Party; what I’m saying is that dissent, even violent dissent, is actually GOOD for a system. Domestic peace, or unidirectional violence (government vs. people) such as we’ve had in increasing amounts for several decades now, promotes tyranny. So it ultimately doesn’t matter who’s rabble rousing as long as they aren’t the ones who lead the actual revolution. Remember, the Sons of Liberty didn’t run the Continental Congress; Sam Adams was but one voice among many. But the Sons of Liberty and their ilk helped to raise public consciousness, and that’s a good thing.
We do indeed have idea-based dissenters; they’re called libertarians. And the negative propaganda directed against them by those in favor of Big Government is a sign of how uncomfortable they make such statists. I’d like to agree with you about the states, but in the lat 150 years the feds have done a pretty good job of declawing them, even the point to eliminating their representatives in Congress by changing the senators into nothing more than representatives with longer terms.
I agree that dissent is good – but … some types of protests actually are counterproductive and HELP the forces of government by pushing the “silent majority” into the government’s corner.
In 1968, there were violent protests at the Democratic National Convention. Those images scared Americans – they actually feared those protesters. The protesters looked and dressed in a counterculture maner – there were drugs – there was violence … Mayor Daily got involved and used police forcefully to quell the (what I would call) riots.
1968 … the height of the anti-war movement … and Nixon beat Humphrey in a landslide even though Wallace took 13 percent of the vote. And, I believe Wallace pulled votes more from Nixon than Humphrey. Those protests had the opposite effect than was intended and were a complete waste of kinetic energy. I mean – Richard Nixon was elected, a guy who had been beaten in 1960 by JFK. And it’s all because those protests moved Americans away from “dissent” and toward the political “establishment” where they felt safe.
Now we have OWS folks, who have no real agenda – just a lot of anger, and here they are using children as “human shields” against the cops in DC …
http://mrctv.org/videos/occupydc-protesters-use-kids-blockade-door-during-violent-scuffle
Definitely – these people don’t get the “Krulac Seal of Approval” – and they aren’t going to get it from Mr. and Mrs. Silent Majority either.
It’s said, that at the start of the American Revolution, about 33% of the colonists were in favor of it, 33% opposed, and 33% really didn’t care.
But the “revolutionaries” convinced that agnostic 33% to support the Revolution.
THAT’S the key because, at least one third of Americans are, and always have been … sheep that must be led. This isn’t unique to America – this is pretty much world-wide human nature. The Romans understood this well and the entire political history of Rome is a great lesson in controlling the masses. Now I sound like Stalin – and I hate that, but sadly this is the truth.
“If those banks were truly “too big to fail” they should have been given LOANS, not handouts, at the maximum rate they’re allowed to charge their customers…29.99%. Let’s see them reap record profits and give big bonuses and political contributions while struggling under that.”
Granted, I deal in helping people out from under the bootheel of shady Canadian banks more than shady American banks, but I’ve never heard of any maximum rates that low. I heard of a guy who’s credit rating was abysmal for many years in a row being charged in the high 40s on his credit cards. Heck, department store cards START at about 30% (ooh, but you get to earn POINTS! >.>)
You know, banks are publicly traded companies. They’re required to report their profits every year. It would be interesting to track those reports down and see how the top 5 or 10 banks in the USA were REALLY doing in 2008-9.
in a typical year their profits are 18-25%. I can easily see them talking to reporters about a “10% loss of profits” when what they really mean is that they only made 15% that year.
Put that in perspective: That would be like someone who makes $100,000 a year having an extra $15,000 left in their bank account after paying all their bills and expenses. That would be one hell of a good year for most of us.
Not for a bank though. “Our unethical and misleading business methods have fleeced the financially struggling public for somewhat less obscene amounts of money this year! Call for government bailouts!”
Seriously… even if they DID had a genuine negative profit year once (not that I think that’s ever happened) that’s what they keep cash reserves in case of.
Ah… I’m up on my Financial Adviser’s soapbox again, aren’t I? Pardon. I tend not to notice until my comment box exceeds the height of my monitor. 😛
Michael Greve of the American Enterprise Institute gave a lecture at a local college that I attended.
In regard to state governments, he said that it was unlikely that the state governments were going to be a bulwark of liberty against the encroachments of the Feds.
One of his minor points was that, with very few exceptions, rather than being antagonistic to each other, the States and the Federal Government usually combined to impose controls and thwart liberty. The one case he cited, which he said was one of only two cases where the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had overstepped their Constitutional bounds, in addition to the plaintiff, only one state, (Either Arkansas or Alabama) supported the contention that Congress had acted unconstitutionally; 36 other states had filed a composite amicus brief supporting the Federal government’s position.
Unfortunately, since I was taking notes longhand, I did NOT get the name of the two cases he was referring to.
He then cited Madison in Federalist 45 and made reference to Madison’s idea of a Compound Republic as his model of Federalism. This is also the letter where Madison points out that the Revolution had not been fought for the aggrandizement of governments, be they national or state, but in defense of the rights of the people.
It looks like most states subscribe to the Red/Blue, Right/Left and Economic Liberty/Personal Liberty dichotomies. Ya picks yer poison and ya takes yer medicine. The choices seem to be between being crushed economically or meddled with in your bedroom. No state government seems to be interested in getting the hell out of my bank account and my bedroom.
Communists can blow me. I spent the first half of my life worrying about the Big Red Boogieman, and I’m not going to give any more of my concern to any Marx not named Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and maybe Zeppo (because I like lighter-than-air craft as much as anything else).
This may be covered in that upcoming essay you mentioned earlier, but this seems as good a time as any to ask this.
Maggie, when this supposed revolution happens, what form do you think (or hope) it will take? I only ask since, like Krulac, I most often go the ‘acceptable’ route.
Therefore, I have no illusions about my survivability chances once any bloodletting starts and civilization breaks down.
It’s one of the reasons (among others) that I’ve not pursued a relationship outside my family or considered having children, because why would I want to subject a child to a world that seems ever closer to returning to the days of ‘nasty, brutish and short’?
The form I wish it would take is for a president with like super-duper John Kennedy-plus charisma to get in there and strongarm the congress into enacting all the reforms that are needed, dismantling the top-heavy bureaucracy, outlawing all laws that criminalize consensual behavior, trying all officials who break their oaths of office and betray the public trust for treason, etc. But that is nothing but a fantasy.
The best I can hope for is a slow-motion revolution in which the bloodshed is mostly restricted to politicians, cops and lawyers and enough order remains for the inevitable strongman to roll back most of the abuses of the 20th century, “resetting” government to an earlier level. But I haven’t much hope for that, either.
What I expect is one of three things: 1) an American Empire, with the superpowers carving up the world between themselves and wiping out dissent; 2) a xenophobic fascist state in which all large companies and private fortunes are confiscated and we get a police state that makes the War on Drugs look like anarchy in comparison; or 3) a horrible, bloody revolution with millions dead and a succession of banana-republic governments trying to hold on to an increasingly Balkanized collection of states and petty fiefdoms. And whichever one we get, I’m afraid I’ll be around to see it.
Much more likely than any of these is war. People seem to have forgotten it can happen.
One could say that the current “long peace” is rather stale. Many chinese men, w/o wives and unable even to afford whores, are becoming nationalist fanatics. China is militarizing at an amazing rate.
We are overdue for a war between the major powers. A world war; a total war. That’s the only thing which is going to “change everything.”
Look for “feminism,” in particular, to come to a sudden and screaming end. In any total war between the major powers, at least a limited exchange of nuclear weapons is likely. In the aftermath of such events, we are back to a man’s world for quite a spell.
I was assuming that one can’t really establish an empire without war.
We’re overdue for a war between major powers, I hope, because wars are going out of style. We have the chance to make the 22nd the Century War Ended.
I think it’s a bit premature to make any predictions about the 22nd century, love, considering it won’t be starting for another 89 years and we don’t even have a good idea what the rest of this decade will look like yet.
I’m thinking that I HAD TO mean “21st Century.” I must have.
>The American political system has failed; the two officially-sanctioned parties are merely two wings of the same vulture
Now this is one of the best written lines I’ve seen in ages.
I well remember bonfire night, 5th November. I loved the holiday as a child, running round collecting treats and a “penny for the guy.” I loved the bonfires, with jacket potatoes cooked in them, and the fireworks.
I think it no surprise that the OWS movement hasn’t made clear demands. Where to begin? What one bit of life in these United states isn’t screwed up by out of control capitalism and corrupt government? What are we wanting changed? EVERYTHING!
As to how the revolution can occur? One of the big faults of revolutions isn’t that they fail to topple governments, it’s that they fail to provide anything better after. This is where the original American revolution succeeded.
I think we need to begin to build structures outside the current system to support us. It’s beginning, OWS isn’t organized along the usual ways. Credit unions are getting record levels of new customers. Most of my life, I’ve worked outside the normal system, and been better off for it. Once the new system is running enough, the old system will topple of it’s own greed and waste. But yes, they will be violent in their demise.
Most Americans are still too brains washed. Too well behaved. Too full of the “virtues” that serve the bosses best.
V said: “People shouldn’t fear their governments. Governments should fear their people.” Ours doesn’t, and hasn’t for some time, and thus the abuses.
Now, I’m off to watch V for Vendetta again, for maybe the tenth time, as I do most Nov 5ths.
Stating that the 2 party system in the US is really a 2-headed bird, 2-winged bird, etc., has been done for years. Alternative news hosts have been saying it for years. The newer hosts say it also.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14629
The above link is about the book “Tragedy and Hope” that came out in the 1960’s. It details how the 2 party system is really 1 below the surface talk. Yes, the link is from a socially conservative website (the horror…they must ALL order everyone around 24 hours a day, are prudes, never use logic, etc., etc…eyeroll), but the information on this book can be found on many websites besides this 1. I picked it as it was near the top of the list on the search results I got.
Note:
The OWS movement is not a cover for 4chan, nor is it funded by George Soros. It’s a genuine grassroots movement and is leaderless.
On the other hand, Soros does fund many groups like MoveOn.org and many overseas so-called “color revolutions”. However, this orchestrating of revolutions is an ultimately losing strategy for Soros and his ilk, because they increase the possibility of real revolutions that can’t be controlled.
Thank you! I find it hilarious that someone takes 4chan seriously.
I vote for Occupy A Rooftop (OAR) in which everyone must row, row, row their boat gently up the stream after Maggie’s Rain Dance #justsaying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtBbinpK5XI
😉 & 😛
Maggie
I realized from the start (of reading your blog) that I was in danger of falling in love with you.
Because you are so dam extraordinary in the way your mind works. See; very,very few 3-4 year old girls walk around thinking deep thoughts about how they are so different than the herd. Generally, they are desperate to be part of the herd.
You are not the least bit like most modern American women. At all. This is the good news and the bad news embedded in your work.
Yes, you make perfect sense.
But in normal life you do not exist. Modern American women have more in common with headless chickens than M. McNeill.
Sorry, but that is how I see it.
Well, I don’t know that my thoughts at 4 were very deep; I just knew that I made my mother uncomfortable and most of the neighborhood kids my age had no idea what I was talking about. I guess I gave up even trying to fit in around the age of 9, though I can recall a few incidents in second grade which pushed me sharply in that direction. I think there are more than a few girls who feel different, but they are pressured to conform and eventually cave in; I think what helped me to resist the pressure was my natural stubbornness aided and abetted by Maman and my cousin Jeff.
Archont is a Scientologist. If Wall Street became a symbol of the bad guys, Scientology has the honor of getting there first, when the sea of Guy Fawkes were first released on them. Excuse Arhcont, he must had a very day on 11/5. The Mask is on every newspaper, and every time the mask is discussed, Scientology is mentioned.
There is always the threat in “Occupy”. The threat is that the movement grew too big for those in power to handle as in Gandi. If you haven’t seen any reports on youtube, the Occupy Oakland churned up 100,000 protesters. A major West Coast port was closed down. The violence? Two veteran protesters being put into intensive care unit due to police brutality.
Like you, I’ve been intrigued by OWS even though their agenda is left of where I am. It angers me to see our political and media establishment working to either hijack or marginalize them or, worse, set them against the Tea Party. It’s absurd. Obama has gotten more donations form Wall Street than anyone else; Barney Frank has $2500 a plate fundraisers with bankers; and yet both are trying to claim sympathy with OWS.
The Tea Party and OWS are approaching the same problem from different perspectives. The real fear of our political class is that they will realize this and join forces against the unaccountable oligarchy in Washington.
I do think Wall Street got off easy in the financial crisis. I just read Michael Lewis’s The Big Short, which details their insane behavior. In a capitalist society, they would have gone bankrupt or been broken up (although I like your idea of charging them credit card rates for TARP). Right now, they are just responding to the perverse incentive Washington has created: personalized gain, socialized loss.
I barely passed the 1st,2nd, and 3rd grades in grade school because the authorities all formed the impression that I was really stupid. My 2nd grade teacher told me that she knew that I had got spanked just about every day in 1st grade but there was no evidence that it made any difference…So she would try a different approach — but she broke down, by and by.
By the age of 30 I had millions plus in my bank account and my clients were all calling me Doctor.
Nowadays I am rather famous if you could know my real name. But…. In this unreal life Rum can say all kinds of stuff that moi cannot. Withoutgetting paid.
Here is one big difference between the Tea Party and Occupy: Occupy is a grass roots movement and the Tea Party is astroturf.
Here’s another: Occupy events utterly swamp anything the Americans for Prosperity funded Tea Party ever managed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_prosperity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_party_movement#Koch_Industry_influence
All that “Koch influence” stuff is mostly baloney spread by self-professed “liberals” who don’t like the fact that libertarians are what they used to be before they sold out to the statists. Do a bit more research on the Kochs and you’ll see what I mean; most of the stuff they back isn’t required to reach any specific conclusion, and in fact they have bankrolled studies that produced results which cast negative light on their own businesses. I defy you to find so-called “conservative” or “liberal” political backers who can make the same claim.
I don’t really get what you’re saying here, unless it’s that what the Kochs do is OK because they are on the right side. Do you dispute that Americans for Prosperity does a fair amount of astroturfing? Do you dispute that the Kochs support AfP big-time? In short, do you dispute that the Kochs bank-roll stuff that pushes policies that and politicians who support their financial interests, while making it look like it’s all grass-rootsy little-guy stuff?
Whenever I watch NOVA, I see that David H. Koch gives a butt-load of money to support public television. Good on him.
What I’m saying is that though the Kochs choose their charities like all big moneybags do, there is this myth among members of “Team Blue” that this means they dictate the results of studies they bankroll as most big moneybags do. However, as anyone who’s ever worked for Reason can tell you, that simply isn’t true. The Kochs seem to believe in free thought as they claim to, and their “influence” is based upon who they choose to back rather than “I want you to reach this conclusion” like Swanee Hunt.
Ah, got it now. My complaint wasn’t the funding of studies, but the astroturfing.
Forgot one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing