The Misapprehension About Occupy

Occupy Poster by Rich Black

Interesting, interesting.

I've been following some of the do's and festivities outside the conventions via that exciting new feature of something known as "the Intertubes" that someone has dubbed "the Livestreams," and it's been both surprising and satisfying (in some ways) that the "Occupy" presence is relatively minor. It's not absent; Occupy is the base of operations, encampment, and Protest Services in a sense, and the Occupy interest in shaming the banking sector is always appropriate and on display -- especially in a place like Charlotte which is nothing but a Banking Sector.

I'm surprised at the relatively low number of participants in the demonstrations, however. Most of the demonstrations and marches I've seen so far in both Tampa and Charlotte attract numbers in the low hundreds, some far fewer. There have been a few that attract a thousand or even two thousand. But it is nothing at all like the numbers of protesters we became used to at previous political conventions. This seems to be a deliberate strategy, by the way, by having a protest presence at (or rather, relatively near) the conventions, but not making a big deal of protesting at the conventions.

Whether that strategy was developed at/by Occupy Tampa or Charlotte or anywhere else, I can't say; the strategic discussions I'm aware of tend to either be about Big Picture or about minutiae, and the only events being discussed among the groups I'm still involved in were/are the Occupy National Gathering and the upcoming S17 Anniversary.

The conventions don't figure in those discussions at all.

After the really outrageous behavior of the police and authority in general at the 2008 conventions in Denver and Minneapolis/St. Paul, it's no wonder. There were thousands of protesters and there were also mass arrests, pre-crime arrests, raids on participants, police attacks on peaceful protesters, massive police presence, and a general atmosphere of repression. Much of it was sickening. It was emblematic of how sick our political system had become by then, but for those in the midst of the repression, it wasn't emblematic of anything but the fact that they were being beat down, gassed, pummeled, arrested, and locked in cages for days.

The relatively low number of participating protesters in Tampa and Charlotte means that the massive police presence and their fancy Po-Po Troopers get ups looks -- and is -- silly. Oops. This was manifest in Tampa where formations of Po-Po Troopers marched hither and thither for some reason that nobody could figure out, and became an object of mockery and derision that went far beyond the usual choruses of the "Imperial Storm Troopers March" one hears whenever the RoboCop contingent appears.

When Po-Po Troopers by the hundreds protected the Westboro Baptist Church marchers (all eight of them) from the dozen or so Dirty Fucking Hippies (and the many dozen more camera people) in Tampa, the point of all this martial display was suddenly lost, and so far as I know, the the protective services at the Tampa convention never again dressed as if they were Going Off To War, and there were very few hostile confrontations with police afterwards. The most effective demonstration I saw via the live stream in Tampa was the Silent March Against Police Brutality during which there was a silent standoff with police at a blocked intersection, a confrontation that was resolved when the police backed down.

What? They backed down?

That's sure what it looked like. First time in a long time I've seen that at a major demonstration.

Most of the participants in the demonstrations at the conventions -- at least the participants in the demonstrations that have been covered by Nate and Tim, the two live streamers I've been following -- have appeared to be anarchists or their supporters. I'm sure there are many others involved in protests I haven't seen or have only seen bits and pieces of. Code Pink is there, Veterans for Peace is there, Planned Parenthood is there, immigrant rights groups and many, many other organizations are represented in the streets. Anarchists are featured in part because they have been crucial participants in Occupy from the outset, and partly because they seem to be the ones who are the most actively and consistently demonstrating.

But there are not -- and never have been -- a lot of them.

What they lack in numbers they make up for in energy, determination and enthusiasm. And don't forget the endless argument and dispute over which route to take now.

But so far as I can tell, the Occupy presence is generally quite small, and it appears to form something of a logistics hub. In its own way, this is consistent with the evolution of Occupy since the violent police raids and repression last year. This caused the dispersal of the "Occupy" idea and Movement far and wide, to the point where it is now pervasive, essentially everywhere. The creativity and innovation that characterized some of the encampments has now become an inspiration for alternative development, demonstration and idea generation in numberless low-key activist camps, squats, hostels, farms, and urban settings. It's everywhere. And no one can be unaware of the effect the Occupy Movement has had on our perceptions of the economic peril we all live under thanks to the renegade banks and the government that serves them. Names and faces have been put to that peril. Powerlessness is no longer an option, nor even an excuse any more.

The Peace Movement, the Immigrant Rights Movement, the Environmental Movement and the Worker Rights/Union Movement have all benefited from the efforts of Occupy to highlight their importance to the future of the country and of mankind. Occupy has been at the center of their resurgence.

 But strangely there are still those who expect Occupy to form some kind of political bloc and to press their case (for what?) in the political arena, and they won't do it. The whole point of Occupy from the beginning has been to defy that system, to work outside it, and to develop alternatives to it.

The idea of Occupy becoming a political bloc, then, is absurd.

But those inside the political system cannot imagine Occupy not doing it, and so they are still puzzled at what Occupy "wants".

It's not about "wants" -- it's about doing.

As for the Mikwaukee Shooter

This may have nothing to do with anything, but yesterday I made an off-hand comment that in my area of California, Sikhs control a significant percentage of the trucking business -- among other businesses and industries -- and I got to thinking....

The Sikh Temple shooter was described as a truck driver in several reports. I don't know whether Sikhs have significant control of trucking in Wisconsin, North Carolina, or Colorado, but it wouldn't surprise me if they do. They work their damn butts off in the trucking business.

Could be Mr. White Supremacist Shooter got his panties in a wad because he found that "even in Wisconsin" -- so white it shines -- Sikhs were running the trucking business and he felt slighted and shut out.

From what I've seen about him -- and he apparently had quite a public presence through his bands and interviews and so on -- dude was no slack-jawed dummy. He would not have mistaken Sikhs for Muslims and gone to a gurdwara to shoot the people he did because he thought they were Muslims.  I wouldn't be surprised if he knew exactly who he was shooting and why.

It may be conventional wisdom to think he was too stupid to know the difference, but there's no sign at all that he was that dumb. There are signs that he was smart, talented, and a risk-taker -- as well as a white-supremacist fascist/nazi -- who had fallen on hard times (his house in NC was foreclosed, among other things, [adding: after he was fired by the Iowa trucking company he was working for in NC, because he got a ticket for driving while impaired in his own vehicle on his own time]) and decided he knew who to blame and punish for his misfortune.

I could be wrong, of course. But it's just something else to consider.

Post Mortem Nostrums

Ancient election graffiti, Pompeii, c. 79AD

So Walker actually did better in the recall election than he did in the 2010 election. The latest statistic I saw last night before toddling off to slumber was 52/47 Walker -- same as 2010; checking the news this morning it's now at 54/45 Walker.

Oh. Dear.

This despite the fact that Walker is not popular except among the Billionaires as their hired goon, and his policies (well, their policies) are widely  deplored -- even by many of those who voted for him.

The post mortems have largely been piles of horseshit and excuses as is the way in the midst of political carnage. It was all that ad money from the Kochs! It was all the dirty tricks! Everyone's tired of recalls! God, if only Russ had run! etc, ad infinitum.

Let's not forget that one of Walker's promises was that he would get rid of the recall process if he was confirmed in office.

Think about that. One of the principal Progressive reforms from long ago, which I believe was first introduced in Wisconsin (or nearby, I'm too lazy to look it up right now) will be on the block now that Walker has been confirmed in office with a bigger majority than when he was first elected. This is insane. But there you are. That's our politics in a nutshell.

The insight I had was that if the People of Wisconsin were really voting based on their disgust with recalls, then ultimately it's an issue of a deeply flawed electoral and political process; they may or may not be thinking of it in terms of rejecting Progressive reforms, but clearly they recognize a systemic problem with the way our politics and elections are conducted. The way it is is not the way it should be.

If, that is, animosity at the recalls themselves was the driving force behind the failure of the voters to recall Walker and his LG. This idea has mostly been the product of Charles Pierce's insights for Esquire.  Pierce has long been one of the better writers on topics of this sort, and though he may be wrong in this case, he may be right. If he is, then the broader issue of a deeply flawed political and electoral system must be addressed.

If keeping Walker in office turns out to be a comment on the system itself -- not in any way an approval of him and his policies on behalf of the Billionaires who own him -- then there is a good deal of potential for positive change, though not as long as he and his crew are in office. If Democrats were in office, though, it might be more difficult to address the issues of systemic flaws.

At this point, there's no sign that those flaws will be addressed any time soon, but you never know.  People can be spurred to action by all kinds of things, and if the criminal investigation of Walker and his cronies continues and results in indictments, it's quite possible that something unexpected will happen.

Nevertheless, whether the People of Wisconsin decide to do anything about it or not, the problem is systemic. We have a political system that is almost completely unresponsive to the People, and we have an electoral system in which candidates are quite openly bought and sold by a relative handful of plutocrats and oligarchs -- that is when those plutocrats and oligarchs choose not to rule directly themselves.

This is the kind of ersatz "democracy" of the late Roman Empire Republic*, not quite what our Progressive reformers had in mind a century ago. (Actually, perhaps it is, since the Progressives were servants of wealth and power -- and mostly Republicans, too.)

People in office are proud of themselves for defying the People's interests and the People's will in order to serve their real constituents: the plutocrats and oligarchs who choose them and get them elected. We, the People, have not had any significant say in the actual political process for many years (some would say since the foundation of the nation), and our access to the governing process -- and even physical access to those who rule us -- is diminishing all the time.

(As a local side note, a "citizens commission" was set up last year to work with city planning consultants on schemes to "improve" the neighborhood's main street, Broadway. The People of the neighborhoods involved had no say in any of this; many had no idea there even was such a thing as a commission until an announcement appeared in the paper, as it hadn't been discussed with or approved by any of the neighborhood associations. The people on the commission were mostly unknown in the neighborhoods, no one was aware of any request to the city that Broadway be "improved," and no one had any idea who these consultants were, and they became alarmed when they researched some of the projects this outfit had done. It was all just imposed from on high, with the appearance of public participation and input. Complaints were made and noted. The commission continues to work with the consultants on plans for improvements nobody seems to want. That's how government works these days.)

When serving the oligarchs is the primary function of elected representatives, their secondary task is to market their unwanted product to the public. We see it all the time at every level of government from the White House on down. One of the points I made about the election of Barack Obama in 2008 was that he was auditioned (for two years) and vetted on his ability to manage the masses -- which he demonstrated he was more than capable of in some of the enormous rallies he presided over at home and abroad.)

Their skill at marketing unwanted product is actually one of the chief means of evaluating the success or failure of various politicians. Viz: the entirety of the Bush/Cheney reign of error and terror.

At no point are the real interests of the People even considered.

This situation can only be addressed if it is acknowledged, and we haven't reached that point in the wider political scheme of things. It is acknowledged among the rebels and those who have consciously withdrawn from the process, but with the political/electoral firmament the real public interests are avoided like the plague; this holds true for both major parties, most especially for the Republicans, but for the Democrats, too. Elections have no effect political recognition of the People and their interests and will in large part because they are marketing campaigns, not policy considerations.

The only way We, the People have found to affect the course of events is through various forms of rebellion outside the system.

But we need to go well beyond rebellion and create living alternatives.

[ * The illustration above is of election graffiti in Pompeii, c. 79AD, when Rome was still sort of something of a Republic -- at least superficially; elections continued under the Empire, of course, until long after they were completely meaningless.]

Have We Reached The Tipping Point?

Last night, my local PBS station ran an episode of BBC's Newsnight from Thursday's broadcast in Britain in which Francis Fukuyama, among others, argued that the uprisings in the Arab World are a "1989 Moment" for Arabs and the world in general.

Comes now the tipping point that the Busheviks were forever yapping about forcing on the Middle East through wars and deception, brutality and connivance. This is it. We're in it. Now. Not through Bushevik force, but through the natural aspirations of miserable Peoples.

"A nation can be reborn as a citizenry." As Simon Schama puts it.

And who would have thought it would happen in the Middle East? Who would have thought the uprisings in the Middle East would trigger/inspire others to rise up as far away as Madison, WI?

"You have people whose dignity, like that vegetable seller who set the whole thing off in Tunisia, whose dignity is simply trashed by a state that's simply arrogant and unresponsive." says Francis Fukuyama.

Well. Yes. That's kind of how it goes. Ultimately, this tipping point and these uprisings are about Dignity, as I've said over and over again. And the absence of Dignity for the Common Man is not limited by any means to the authoritarian regimes long propped up by the United States in the Middle East. Not at all.

The Uprisings have been going on all over Europe due to the mindless imposition of Austerity measures demanded of governments by the various financiers who obviously rule governments world-wide in contravention of the People's Will. These Austerity measures the financiers are demanding -- putting the entire economic burden of the global financial collapse on the backs of the poor and marginal and the working class, while absolving and holding harmless the High and the Mighty -- have inspired revolts everywhere, most recently, again, in Greece, where the streets have frequently turned violent. By putting the economic burden entirely on those least able to absorb and pay it, the Powers That Be -- governments in collusion with the Financier/Rentier Class -- are playing with fire. By denying Dignity to the poor, the marginal, and the working class, they are mindlessly triggering the next phase of Revolution against them.

Lacking functioning crystal balls, we can't know at this point how these uprisings and the fall out from them will turn out. We don't even understand where these uprisings, revolutions and revolts are grounded. The universally expressed conceptions of Dignity and Justice simply don't register among the Powers That Be. They are not just nonsensical to those in the Palace, they are non-existent nonsense.

A Koch (or a Koch handmaiden like Scott Walker) has no idea what Dignity and Justice mean to a prole any more than the Sultan of Araby can possibly imagine what it means to a common Street Arab.

The notion is incomprehensible to the powerful -- whoever and wherever they are.

Of course, even with some of the insights we see on "Newsnight" or wherever -- and there are other segments of this show worth watching at the link provided above -- our media is essentially useless as the course of revolt and revolution unfolds around the world today. Not only can the media not keep up with the flow of events, its principal interest is in shaping and controlling those events for the benefit of themselves and their sponsors, be they government or corporate. They are finding they can't do it in these many cases.

Al Jazeera shows the way on reporting what's going on. They are still playing catch up, not leading at all. As for much of the rest of the media, they don't seem to have a clue, any more than than the propagansist state media of the Arab Autocracies has had any idea what is really going on.

Another view: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/26/949976/-The-Tipping-Point:-Ten-Wake-up-calls-for-Americans-from-Coffee-Party-USA

On Living In The (Im)Material World

Blog swarms are a fact of online life. They tend to be nasty things, sometimes with a coherent point, but just as often they are wildly chaotic attacks designed to cause as much harm as possible to the weakest online targets.

There have been many blog swarms in my experience. I don't try to hold on to memories of them, but one that comes to mind was the swarming attack in January of 2006 on Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell, triggered by her clearly uninformed claim that Jack Abramoff had made campaign contributions to both major parties, a factoid you might say that was simply -- and demonstrably -- false.

The blogospheric OUTRAGE!!!!™ was immediate and immense, innundating the Post with hundreds and hundreds of comments and emails, almost all of which denounced The Howell Woman (as I came to call her) in the most virulent and vituperative terms.

The point was made within a few minutes of her first posting on the matter (this was when "blogs" at major newspapers were still pretty new, and comment sections were not necessarily monitored) that she was in error. But she did not respond to her critics the way a blogger would, more or less in real time. She didn't respond to emails. She could not be reached at the Post by phone. The level of OUTRAGE!!!!™ grew exponentially. Other contacts were made at the Post, demanding an immediate response, retraction, correction, apology, whatever. Nothing. The Post was simply ignoring this INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT MATTER THAT HAD TO BE ADDRESSED RIGHT NOW OR ELSE!!!!

As the days dragged on with no response from the Post, the level of vituperation and venom from the Blogswarm continued to increase. Days into The Howell Woman Affair, she emerged from seclusion to make a brief statement in which she claimed she should have said Abramoff 'directed' donations to both parties, which re-triggered the OUTRAGE!!!!™, which in turn led to the shutting off of comments to her column, which led to more OUTRAGE!!!!™. Finally, a week or more into the Controversy, Howell issued her now infamous "Thank you and fuck you" statement in which she repeated her claims that Abramoff was an equal opportunity corrupter and she told her critics to pound sand, she had a "contract" and there was no way she was going to get fired over a simple mistake.

Classic.

At first, this Blogswarm might have been useful or appropriate, but it became very ugly very fast, essentially becoming the online equivalent of a lynch mob, especially as The Howell Woman did not immediately respond, and when she did respond, it was with an arrogant and contemptuous attitude toward her critics.

I have a propensity to intervene when I sense that incidents like this are turning into mob actions, and so I made some statements in some of the venues where Howell Woman Hate was being stirred up. Of course, that sometimes subjected me to the same sort of vituperation, but you know, I've rarely been goaded by personal attacks. But I found the whole thing very distasteful and said so.

That was then. There have been other more recent Blogswarms, and one of them was engineered (or appeared to be engineered) by Glenn Greenwald the other day in response to what he claimed was a "smear" of John Tyner, the "Don't Touch My Junk" guy from the TSA Uprising Battles.

Mark Ames and Yasha Levine of the eXile wrote an investigative article for The Nation in which they presented some information about Tyner they had gleaned from a profile in his hometown paper, his many television appearances, his blog, and an interview with him. They were, they said, suspicious of the timing and media focus on the TSA Porno-Scan and Sex Assault "uprising" because it looked to them too much like the other faux uprisings that had proliferated since the installation of the Obamas in the White House. They'd previously investigated the "uprising" phenom and had discovered-- and reported on -- an intimate interplay between certain named billionaires, some Libertarian and rightist activists, a concentrated media focus, and various "grassroots-populist movements," particularly the TeaBaggers. They saw the same pattern unfolding again, and they wrote about it.

Because they mentioned Tyner and what they had found out about him -- without accusing him of anything and specifically citing his denial of any funny business -- Glenn launched one of his typical broadside attacks on Ames and Levine, accusing them of "smearing" Tyner, and in the process smearing Ames and Levine.

It was nonsense, but it's what happens with Glenn when he senses an ally needing his "protection." He did the same thing when John Burns wrote about some of the accusations against Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

After reading the article, it was obvious to me that there was no "smear" -- except by Glenn -- and that the purpose of the article was to focus on the Koch financing and ties to so many of the "uprisings" since Obama's advent, and to question the timing and media focus on the TSA "uprising."

I said as much at Glenn's place, but by that time, the Blogswarm was in full swing and the OUTRAGE!!!!™ was unstoppable. The Nation and the authors were hit from all sides running, and in fact have since been taken to task not solely by Glenn and his cheering squad, but by a range of ostensibly professional voices in the field. Jeremy Scahill of The Nation among others.

Of course, after Ames and Levine offered a detailed response in which they stated their inclusion of Tyner in the article should have been clarified and some of the information about him that they included was inappropriate, the Blogswarm, if anything intensified.

They were now "admitting" that they had "smeared" Tyner, an innocent man who meant and did no harm, a Civil Liberties Hero, yaddayadda, and for that there was no forgiveness.

What was striking to me is that most of those among Glenn's commentariat who were attacking Ames and Levine for "smearing" Tyner had not read the article and had no idea what it was about. When it was repeatedly pointed out by me -- and many others, including Cuchulain2007, Publican, 23Skidoo, Milton Wiltmellow and more -- what the article was about, the information was met with a blank stare, or -- in the case of Glenn and other attackers -- with a yawning dismissal or mockery. It was of no concern or interest to those who were so intent on ATTACK!!! It was most intriguingly of no interest to -- and indeed it was subject to ridicule and mockery by Glenn Greenwald himself.

Well. That was interesting. Why would he have no (apparent) interest in what Ames and Levine were focused on and writing about? Why would his entire interest be on defending John Tyner from this Horrible Smear?

I wound up repeating over and over what was in the article itself and suggesting that people actually read it and other works by Ames and Levine that touched on the same topic and others. Some people seemed to do that, but like Glenn, they were entirely focused on defending Tyner the individual, and anything else Ames and Levine had to say was simply irrelevant. Besides, who cared?

This was very interesting. After I read Yasha Levine's investigation into the connections between the Koch fortune and Josef Stalin and the Soviet Union, it hit me. The Kochs, who have essentially created the Libertarian "movement" and continue to finance it handsomely, along with many rightist and libertarian political activities and think tanks and so on, want these two trouble makers to be exiled, if you will, from the mainstream. They want them shut up and shut down, much as they were -- at least partially -- in Russia.

And the Blogswarm attack has been very effective in accomplishing that goal, at least from appearances. It appears to be a case of the "left" eating its own, always a pleasing sight to bloodsoaked rightists and libertarians.

But simply by asking "who benefits?" we realize what is likely going on. The Kochs, who are the moneybags for the Libertarian "movement" and all sorts of other anti-(this)-government "movements" are the ones who benefit. The public is the loser.

As far as I know, this is the first time Ames and Levine have been published in The Nation -- as staid an old line Liberal mainstream magazine as the United States has -- and this incident will probably make it impossible for Ames and Levine to be published there again. Likely they will be denied a mainstream venue in perpetuity. Who benefits? The Kochs do.

This isn't over. But to date, it has been very interesting. To say the least. And it's not a little chilling.

Some sites for more information:

http://ameslevinelist.com/

http://www.thenation.com/article/156647/tsastroturf-washington-lobbyists-and-koch-funded-libertarians-behind-tsa-scandal


http://exiledonline.com/

http://exiledonline.com/a-peoples-history-of-koch-industries-how-stalin-funded-the-tea-party-movement/

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/24/tyner/index.html


http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/

http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2010/08/koch-brothers-from-stalin-to-beck-and.html

There is much, much more. But this is a start.

Redoing the Constitution on Principles of Dignity and Justice

Dignity and Justice

Recently, our friends on the right have taken direct aim at provision of the Constitution that they don’t like, mostly amendments like the 14th, but opening the notion that the Constitution itself is outdated and should probably be “revisited.”

This has meant that many of those on the so-called Left, by default, must defend the Constitutional status quo, even though, many, like me, believe that the Constitution is an anachronism, faulty, and has long been an impediment to progress.

So what will happen -- regardless of whether there are any substantive revisions to the Constitution -- is that discussion of revision will take place from the right, primarily on the premise of 1) strengthening the executive, 2) curtailing or eliminating individual rights, 3) institutionalizing economic rule by the wealthy.

We might see a revision of the concept of “Law” to provide a Constitutional foundation for the long time practice of one Law for the rich, another -- and much harsher -- Law for everyone else. We might see a reversion to “States’ Rights” by which the several states may override Federal Law.

Whatever the case, our friends on the Right are not shy at all about re-doing the Constitution (or substituting the Confederate Constitution) to suit themselves.

Those on the Left bleat pathetically that “Things Are Fine As They Are. Leave the Constitution alone!!!”

But they’re not fine.

They haven’t been for a long time, if they ever were. And rather than a defensive posture, why not take an aggressive stance and demand changes to the Constitution that actually serve the interests of the People rather than letting the Rabid Right prattle about changes that would only serve the Oligarchy?

Peoples Dignity and Justice should be the principles on which a New Constitution is formulated, and we should not be the least bit shy about it and what’s needed.

We can start with the premise that the way things are isn’t working, and they aren’t working because of institutional rot on the one hand and Constitutional imperfection on the other. The way things are -- basically a very corrupted Imperial-Security State run by and for the profit of a very few individuals and interests -- is a direct product of the nature of the Constitution adopted in 1789.

So how would I change it?

First, abolish the Senate.

Second, abolish lifetime judicial appointments.

Third, expand the House of Representatives, by at least double, triple would be better.

Fourth, abolish the states.

Fifth, develop and implement autonomous regions in place of states.

Sixth, develop and implement economic as well as political rights.

Seventh, restrict and limit war-making powers ; institutionalize a defensive military subject to civilian control.

Eighth, restrict and limit the national executive authority .

Ninth, abolish all courts, departments, agencies and bureaus of the current Federal government and replace them only as necessary and as authorized by the representatives of the People.

That’s a start.

Just a start.

If these Constitutional revisions (actually, re-writing the whole thing) were considered on the basis of common human rights, dignity and justice, we'd see a transformed American experiment in self-determination and self-government.

The time has come...

(Note, I'm traveling at least until next week. Posting here may therefore be limited.)

On Redoing the Constitution

You may have noticed that the Rabid Right Wing Noise Machine is banging the drum for a "revisit" of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the ostensible reason being that these foreigners, they come here only to "drop a baby," and thus secure an anchor for citizenship.

But this isn't the only amendment they have issues with; by no means. They have objections to the first, fourth, fifth and sixth; they believe the tenth has long been violated in spirit and substance. Given their druthers, they'd do away with the 17th Amendment, and if you drill down far enough, you'd probably find plenty of TeaBagging ravers who want to overturn the 13th, 15th and 16th Amendments as well as the 19th. But why stop there?

They have issues. You see. And if they had the opportunity, I don't doubt they'd love to start over from scratch, and a whole lot of them would simply prefer to substitute the Confederate Constitution -- with slight modifications.

It's the 14th Amendment's provision of automatic citizenship to those born in the United States or under its jurisdiction that they've chosen as the wedge leading to redoing the whole damn thing.

It's a pretty brilliant ploy. There is a lot of anti-immigrant feeling in the United States due in part to malingering racism (the immigrants are mostly from South of the Border, don't you know) and to the dreadful economic conditions for most Americans.

Pitting one group against another is the time honored ploy of the Ruling Class to ensure their own top-doggedness through all the vicissitudes of popular sentiment.

But in this case, given the general contempt for the Constitution that pervades the Ruling Class (cf: recent Palace regimes) and the contempt for particular provisions of the Constitution that offend the sensibilities of the vocal TeaBagging Brownshirts, it looks very much like this "Movement to Revisit" -- starting with the 14th Amendment -- which is actually the key to the whole Constitutional notion of extending the protections of the Constitution to all Americans, and defining who Americans are -- is the opening salvo in a campaign to openly overthrow the Constitution itself.

And start over?

Well, that's yet to be seen. The point is that the Government has essentially already divorced itself from The People, and over time, it has become the increasingly common practice of The Government to ignore the Constitution when it chooses to. This is a difficult concept to fathom, but it is more and more apparent that the Constitution is little more than a decoration when it comes to actual operations by the Government in all its branches and majesty. The Executive routinely pays it no mind -- with no consequences. The Congress is too corrupted to consider the Constitution, more concerned always with its own rules and perks. The Courts have a very spotty record of following the Constitution and the law, rather than creating out of whole cloth "law" and "Constitutional support" for their generally mindless political positions.

In practice, the military and the bureaucracy do what they're told -- by corrupt and anti-constitutional officials.

So why not start over?

I've advocated no less myself. But isn't it interesting that those who would take up the challenge are fierce anti-constitutionalists operating on the Right Wing, whereas I would look to revise our Constitutional underpinnings from the Left? And isn't it further interesting that so-called Leftists are now in the position of having to defend the status quo Constitution from the depredations of the Right Wing barbarians, whereas many on the Left would be more inclined toward revision themselves if given their druthers?

What's happening with the 14th Amendment may not go anywhere, but it is an example -- yet again -- of how the Right Wing in this country consistently takes the lead for real change toward a far more authoritarian, oppressive and exploitative future, while the Left sits passive or at best parenthetically defends the status quo.

This is how the nation keeps moving rightward.

To the point where it wouldn't be surprising to see the whole "equal protection" framework of the 14th Amendment and thus the Constitution itself overthrown -- in order to satisfy some deep need to protect and defend the nation from Brown Babies.

The Takeaway -- Sherrod vs Breitbart, Julian Assange vs the Man

The contrast between the way the Government/Mediaplex behaved toward the Sherrod story as injected into the public square by Andrew Breitbart and the WikiLeaks "War Log" story as carefully handled by the Consortium of Media Partners Which Included WikiLeaks (aka Julian), the New York Times, Der Spiegel, and the Guardian UK, could not be more striking.

Yet there are many similarities.

In both cases, "incendiary" individuals were given a platform -- indeed, multiple platforms -- from which to "incite." Exactly what is being incited is never really clear. I guess it depends on what emotions are stirred up. Breitbart was given a platform to stir up racial animosities, and -- even on FOX -- he was pretty quickly shot down. Certainly CNN squashed him and his little false story line like a bug. The issue became one of the inappropriate influence "bloggers" have on the mainstream "news," and the outrageousness of Government reacting to this sort of incitement.

"Bloggers" are circling the wagons, though the lefties want to leave Breitbart outside the protective circle. It seems clear though that there is a deep underlying admiration for Breitbart throughout the blogosphere: he can git 'er done. He absolutely ruled the media and the government for a whole week. That is Blog Power!

Julian is not considered a "blogger" but instead is seen more as a muckraker or investigative journalist. To me, that's an extraordinary stretch, but whatever. The point is that Julian causes a ruckus among the Powers That Be -- much like Breitbart -- by "exposing their secrets," except that what Julian exposes is not really all that secret, and the ruckus is typically between factions within the Government (for example between the Pro-War and the Slow-War factions) rather than engaging the public.

There's the difference right there: Breitbart does engage the public in his phony little crusades; to a surprising extent, Julian does not.

Breitbart is a useful tool to some very powerful interests, but they don't seem to be interests within the Government. They appear to be essentially Southern racist elements outside the Government that insist on trying anything in their power to get the Government/Mediaplex to react embarrassingly. And they are very successful. It's not just about provoking a reaction though. It is -- at least from all appearances -- about provoking a reaction that 1) harms the Government as an institution; 2) harms specific black people who have run afoul of the provocateurs.

Julian, on the other hand, seems to serve the interests of factions within the Government, factions that are almost entirely out of public view, and the reaction more strongly resembles a contest between two equally bloodthirsty elements in the Government, with the Mediaplex serving almost as referee/mediator.

The "Collateral Murder" video last April went into very heavy rotation and Julian was on all the shows declaring his dedication to the Truth, yadda yadda, and then it went away. Another investigation was done and the soldiers involved were cleared. But some of the soldiers involved in the incident have gone public with their own reservations about what took place in that incident, but even more importantly they have reminded Americans that what happened in the video is policy that goes on every day. It's not an aberration.



Many Americans, unfortunately, think that's just grand.

The WarLog Document Dump was initially seen as relatively benign because it was vetted by three well-regarded members of the Global Mediaplex and assurances were made that nothing that would jeopardize "security" -- whatever that means -- or put individuals at risk would be revealed. Instead, there would be a coordinated, high profile, media release timed with the WikiLeaks release to clarify and amplify what the documents show.

At least that was the plan.

Now it seems to have gone off the rails because (according to some reports) individuals are named and the documents weren't scrubbed thoroughly or even very well, and this is causing no end of heartburn in all the Powerful circle where it was at first believed that this would not be a problem. Indeed, until the last couple of days, Julian had all but been adopted by his "media partners" (and one would assume the Government) as a "responsible" member. Well, that may not come to pass in the end.

The irony is that they seem to want Julian as part of the Team whereas they seem to be saddled with the likes of Breitbart instead.

Meanwhile, Shirley and Charles Sherrod have emerged as quintessential Americans and the military and the Government have once again been put on the spot. How it will shake out after Labor Day is anybody's guess. But if the Sherrods (Shirley says now she will sue) can maintain the profile they've cultivated through this mess, I have real hope for the future.

There will always be a question in my mind about Julian's real role in all this though. More and more people are growing suspicious of him and his motives and just what he's setting out to accomplish and on whose behalf. It seems clear that he is working for somebody. The fact that we don't know who may be the tip off.

At the same time that more and more people are growing suspicious of him, more and more are hailing him The Hero and putting their Faith and Hope and Trust in him and his ability to provide leaks of Secrets. I know people need that hope and want to have faith, so it's hard for me to criticize it too much. On the other hand, after the immense disappointment so many self-described progressives have with the Obama team, it might be better in the short and the long run not to put faith and hope and trust into any media-driven Heroic Figure.

It's a thought...

Nobel

My God. The almost universal reaction in this country to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to His Serenity Barack Obama was more than over the top. It was darned near insane. The ruling class and the Permanent Palace Functionaries (those that His Serenity didn't bring with him) of course decried the whole thing, practically spitting their contempt for Obama and the Prize Committee, yowling their disgust, fuming in their fury. They were apoplectic, niggardly, and everywhere.

Quite obviously Cokie Did Not Approve. And there will be Hell to pay.

As for His Serenity himself, he popped out of the Oval Office for a brief statement in the Rose Garden, one he fumbled and mumbled and bumbled his way through, expressing how honored he was, how humbled, how unworthy. For all the awkwardness of his presentation, he actually seemed quite honestly stunned by the news of the award.

Practically as one, the blogosphere in its entirety exploded in OUTRAGE™!!!!! that this Undeserving Little Man was awarded one of the World's Highest Honors for Doing Nothing!!!!! except give a few speeches. NOTHING!!!!1!!! I tells ya, NOTHING!!!!! He's not WORTHY!!!!!! The extraordinary level of Puritanism and judgementalism throughout the blogosphere over this Incomprehensible Action by the Nobel Prize Committee -- reactions that were practically identical regardless of political ideology -- was something to behold.

The consensus was that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because he Wasn't George Bush. And, pretty much, that's about what the Prize Committee had to say about it, too.

I think it is impossible for the Busheviks who still infest so much of the Permanent Palace and of course the Media to imagine just how ruinous the Bush Regime was for the United States. They all sort of want to take after John Bolton, arch Bushevik, whose whole personna and value system is based on denouncing the whole wide world and everyone in it, in perpetuity, even if they go along with the addle-brained pipe dreams and schemes of Imperial Grandeur -- and Power -- that informed the Bush crew.

The whole point is to hate and despise everyone who isn't one of us. And to define "us" in as narrow a manner as possible.

What we see is that that attitude of contempt for everyone who isn't One Of Us has had a pervasive and corrosive effect much wider than we might have otherwise thought, if we didn't see this explosion of domestic OUTRAGE™!!!! for ourselves. And quite clearly, Obama is Not One Of Us.

I think that's the key insight here, the notion that there is an "us" that can be so narrowly defined that practically everyone is excluded. "Everyone is an enemy except for me and thee, and I'm not so sure about thee." And for the entire chattering class, top to bottom, in all media and venues, regardless of ideology, to denounce the award and condemn the committee and to demonstrate the belief that Obama is truly not one of us, as they define it, is shocking but not surprising.

One of the comments I heard on the radio yesterday was the question of whether, "with his polls dropping," this award would help or hinder him. "With his polls dropping...?" Obama is at roughly 60% approval, been bouncing around in that general vicinity for some time. It's lower than his start, and the trend has been declining, but it's still a very high approval rating for Presidents. It seems to me that Bush's approvals were in the 30's before the chatteratti noticed that his "polls were dropping," and they defended him no matter how low his polls went. But chip a few points off of Obama's poll numbers, and despite the strong majority approval he still has, he's losing support and practically reaching his nadir, and this Stupid Award can't possibly help him now. He's Going Down.

It's so bizarre.

The effect of the award in truth has been to shape and change the narrative. Those who opine -- myself included -- are now the outliers, whereas there may be a much stronger sense of forward motion for Something Else Again in both domestic and international arenas, working its way through a global body politic that Americans know little and care less of.

Whether that can be sustained against the onslaught of the Puritans and their chattering ilk remains to be seen.