The Only Christie News That Really Matters

Are you, like me, bored senseless with the horserace "news" about the portly governor and former Federal Attorney of New Jersey? He's up! He's down! We got a horserace now! Hillary is wiping the floor with him; the woman mayor of Hoboken is wiping the floor with him! Cat-fight! Cat-fight! Yaaaaaay!

Bullshit.

All through this nonsense runs the devastation from Hurricane Sandy, devastation that lingers years after the event, just as the devastation on the Gulf Coast from Hurricane Katrina (and others) still lingers -- and probably will never be fully repaired, nor will displaced populations ever fully return.

This is how these storm situations are being handled these days. Send money to the best off so that they can get their beach mansions up above the storm surge levels in time for the next event, and deny money to the least well-off and most needy -- so that they will Go Away.

From time to time I get updates from Occupy Sandy and from various Occupy efforts and their offshoots going on around the country and the world, and today's email brought news of the Occupy Christie efforts to shame and ostracize the Governor and all his minions for their deliberate and ongoing refusal to address the real problems of the people of New Jersey left in the wake of the storm. While the events have been going on since last Sunday, and I only got the update this morning (having been drop-kicked from one of the email lists I was on and only just got it restored) I thought it might be useful to post the contents of the email so as to give some idea of the extent of the problems for recovery in New Jersey:

Dear friends and supporters, 

 In light of the recent disturbing disclosures concerning Governor Chris>

 Christie's flagrant misuse of federal Sandy aid money, the collective of
> storm survivors and their allies who organize under the Occupy Sandy New
> Jersey banner are hereby calling on residents of New Jersey to join us in
> Trenton in Occupying outside the Capitol starting this Saturday, January
> 18th, at noon. We intend to maintain our camp through Chris Christie's
> re-inauguration festivities on Tuesday, January 21st.
>
> In particular we invite and encourage Sandy survivors to make the trip to
> Trenton (we'll help you get here if you reach out: call 609-318-4271 or
> email OccupySandyNJ@interoccupy. net) to tell your stories to the state
> and national media already camped out nearby. We know that the people of
> New Jersey have stories to tell, to Chris Christie and to anyone willing to
> listen, and we plan to provide a safe space from which to do so.
>
> Since our Sandy recovery work continues on a daily basis?indeed, some of
> our volunteers and organizers may not even be able to make it to Trenton
> due to responsibilities in the field?this will only be a four day
> Occupation. However, should the administration fail to quickly fix its
> broken response to the storm and shift its attention to the state's
> residents who are most in need, we will not rule out returning to Trenton
> again soon. Governor Christie must understand that the last people he
> should be bullying right now are Sandy survivors.

> #OccupyChristie starts at high noon TOMORROW at the State Capitol. Bring
> sleeping bags.

> To Governor Chris Christie, here is our one demand: do your damn job!

> In solidarity,
> Occupy Sandy New Jersey
> ________________________________
>
> WHEN: Saturday, January 18th, NOON to Wednesday, January 22, 9am.
> WHERE: 140 W. State Street, Trenton, NJ
> WHAT: Camp #Sandygate (see partial schedule below)
> RSVP:?https://www.facebook.com/events/490811191030334/
> ________________________________
>
> ?
> Why "Camp Sandygate"?
> ?
> Sandygate is the real big scandal of Chris Christie's administration. While
> the state and national media are fixated on "Bridgegate" -which indeed does
> make for a good story -the real story should be the thousands of New Jersey
> residents who have been failed by Christie and the state. This is not
> simply an issue of storm recovery being a long and difficult process, as
> officials are often heard saying, but this is an issue of discrimination,
> misappropriation, and lies. Sandygate is about callous state officials
> deciding that one group of people will get help, while another will be
> ignored.

> 

> Frankly, Sandygate is a scandal about mistreating the most vulnerable
> among us.
> 

> Below are just a few of the grievances we hear most often through working
> with both survivors and service providers. As the links below demonstrate,
> the NJ media has actually done quite a good job of telling the real story.
> 

> Unfortunately, the national media has so far failed to put the pieces
> together:
> 

> Racial discrimination: Blacks and Latino applicants have been
> disproportionately rejected for resettlement and construction grants. 14.5%
> and 13.5% of White applicants were rejected by the Resettlement and RREM
> programs, respectively. Contrast these rates of rejection to 20.4% / 18.1%
> of Latino applicants, and a shocking 38.1% / 35.1% for African-Americans.
>
> Regional disparities: South Jersey's battered Delaware Bayshore has been
> almost completely left out of the recovery process. Residents of Cumberland
> County, one of the poorest counties in the state, are ineligible to receive
> state-administered federal funds. This means that while a beachfront
> homeowner on Long Beach Island is eligible to receive up to $150,000 to
> repair their home (or even to jack it up on stilts so their flood insurance
> remains affordable), bay-front or marsh-front homeowners in Downe Township
> could have lost everything and yet be eligible to receive nothing from the
> state.
>
> Discrimination against mobile-home owners: Despite assurances from the
> state that the grant application process did not exclude mobile-home
> owners, the process was riddled with confusion. In October, 2013, only 10
> of 3,500 statewide applicants for rebuilding grants were given to
> mobile-home owners. In the devastated Vanguard and Metropolitan parks, in
> affluent Bergen County's working class borough of Moonachie, only 4 of 400
> residences were approved. The state website still contains language
> excluding "RVs and trailers," which is believed to be the main cause of the
> confusion.
>
> Mishandled recovery for renters: Rental property recovery was underfunded,
> and relief went to landlords based on demand, rather than need, leaving
> renters out in the cold. As a result, $2 million of the $4.5 million
> awarded through the state's Incentives for Landlords program ended up in
> Essex County, which did not experience nearly the magnitude of
> storm-related damage as did other Atlantic counties. Devastated Ocean
> County, by contrast, received a mere $47,484 from the same program.
> Furthermore, while the state has been focused on landlords, renters
> themselves have too often been ignored.

>
> Leaving people out in the cold: As a result of the systemic mishandling
> and inequities in the Christie administration's recovery effort, many of
> the most vulnerable among Sandy's survivors have fallen through the cracks.
> The state has yet to commission a comprehensive survey of survivors, nor
> assessed the needs of those who currently live crammed into motel rooms
> with their whole family, or by sleeping in the condemned ruins of their
> home, or in between the reeds hidden in sand dunes. These and countless
> other survivors are still in urgent need of assistance with basic
> necessities such as food, clothing, medical services and stable housing. We
> do what we can for them every day, but there is so much more work to
> do.
>
> With so many resources going to well-off people and businesses, even one
> vulnerable person left behind should be a scandal. Tragically?and due to
> the decisions of Chris Christie and the state of New Jersey?thousands have
> been left behind.
>
> This is Sandygate. Please join us in Trenton tomorrow if you share our
> outrage.
>
> ________________________________
>
> PARTIAL SCHEDULE OF EVENTS:
> Day 1 - Saturday
>
> Noon - Occupy
>
> 6pm - Community Dinner & Assembly
>
> 8pm - Memorial Candlelight Vigil for Sandy's victims
>
>
>
> Day 2 - Sunday
>
> 9am - Breakfast
>
> 1 pm - Community Lunch & Assembly
>
> 7pm - Sunday Dinner
>
>
>
> Day 3 - Monday
>
> 9am - Breakfast
>
> 11am - Press conference
>
> 1 pm - Community Lunch & Assembly
>
> 7pm - Dinner
>
>
>
> Day 4 - Tuesday
>
> 8am - Breakfast
>
> 11am - Sandy Survivor Speakout
>
> 1pm - Lunch
>
> 7pm - Dinner
>
>
>
> Day 5 - Wednesday
>
> 9am - Breakfast and break down encampment

This is the real story of the Hurricane Sandy relief debacle. 

It's not about the mayors and the governor and Hillary and the polls

and the Rockefellers and all the rest, it's about the People and their struggle 

in the face of this ridiculous mess and media 

sideshow. 

This issue is the real story all over the world. 

One day, we might come to know about these things in real time. 

Haiti, anyone? 

Speaking of Which -- The LAPD Thing

Newspaper delivery truck shot to pieces. Oops.

Yes. Well.

When I saw a brief mention on the news yesterday that a former LAPD officer had shot a bunch of people, had issued a "manifesto", and disappeared and then saw something about Torrance police shooting two women in a blue pick up (Oops! Sorry! Wrong one!) it was all I could do to keep my blood from boiling. This is the kind of impunity by those with guns -- and that includes the police and in this case ex-police -- that gets people into a froth and frenzy. Why are people with guns going around shooting like this seemingly more and more often? Why do they think they have a right to do it with impunity?

During the day, I didn't really follow the events of the manhunt, and I had no idea whether other people had been shot by police or by the fugitive ex LAPD officer, but if any had been, I wouldn't have been surprised. Later in the evening, I found a site that posted the uncensored version of Christopher Dorner's "manifesto," and I read part of it, and...

Oh dear.

I saw why LAPD was in such a total meltdown. It's not just police departments, it's practically the entire government at every level dreading the day when one of their "own" as it were goes on a rampage like this and tells the world exactly -- and truthfully -- why. It's similar to the days when "going postal" became a meme and a metaphor for abused workers taking their anger and frustrations out on their bosses and fellow workers.

The LAPD has been a witches brew of intrigue and corruption, lies and brutality, murder and worse, going back generations. All the efforts at reform dating especially from the Rodney King Thing in 1991 have largely been eyewash, and everybody knows it. The system carries an incurable disease within it. The only real answer is to abolish the Department (and all kinds of ancillary and dependent agencies) and start over. This is true of many urban police departments and not a few non-urban ones. When operated with such impunity, it's hard not to become corrupt.

Dorner's specific complaint, that he was unjustly accused and fired because he broke internal omerta regarding an instance of police brutality rings very, very true. No doubt this has happened to many well-meaning and idealistic officers over the years, and not solely in LA. Witnessing misbehavior and brutality and worse on the part of fellow officers is pretty much a daily occurrence, and what to do about it is a dilemma for officers who want to do what's right but who don't want to lose their jobs for exposing what they witness.

That's a real threat: say something and you're out. Object and you're out. And you will be smeared and denounced, you may be threatened or actually endure great bodily harm, and on occasion you may be murdered.

So what to do? What to do when internal controls and "reform" doesn't work? What to do when you are targeted?

Most people will try not to get into that situation to begin with, which means going along to get along. That's basically how most government and large corporate employees at very level typically endure. They have, they think, little choice if they want to stay with the Company.

Whistleblowers are not welcome, and their supposed protections are a joke.

So now we have a situation in Southern California where one of the LAPD's (former) "own" has had enough of the abuse and is taking matters (and guns) into his own hands to exact revenge.

Police forces in Southern California appear to be in full panic mode because they know or believe Dorner can do it -- get plenty of revenge at the place and time of his choosing. Almost nothing is more terrifying to authority.

In their zeal to capture or kill their enemy, they shoot at anyone and anything they think might pose a threat. Thus two newspaper delivery women are shot in Torrance -- because they I might be someone who threatens them, Dorner or someone, anyone, and they're in a scary blue truck which looks something like the one Dorner is said to be driving. C'est la vie. Oh well. Too bad, so sad. The women, they say, will recover.

In the nearly endless series of mass murders in this country, police and government, the rich and powerful, the High and the Mighty, Authority, are almost never the targets or the victims. There are exceptions to be sure, and when there are -- as in say Tucson, or Oklahoma City -- the response is almost always the same: panic.

Nearly every level of government in this country now operates behind high barricades, protected by phalanxes of armed guards and elaborate protocols for responding to threats. Protest or refusal to comply is equated with terrorism, and terrorism is the excuse for suspending the Bill of Rights (well, except for the Sacred Second, so it isn't "tyranny" yet!) and plenty of other provisions of law and custom which once protected the People from rampant abuse.

No more.

The culture of oppression, corruption, and impunity has become institutionalized among those in power to the point where they barely recognize the fact.

All they know is their right to power and their fear. When someone with a gun goes after them, they panic, as the police in Southern California have panicked. It is their worst nightmare.

I sincerely hope that no more innocents are targeted and victimized -- by anyone -- in this current state of fear and panic, but it's a wan hope.

From the AntiFa Trenches, c. 1938 (contd)

Spanish Antifascist Poster, c. 1938

The Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939, was one of the very few times when the People rose up against the fascist tide prior to World War II, and as we know, the fascist forces of Generalissimo Francisco Franco were victorious (not without the help of his good friends, Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler let it be said.)

The interesting thing to me has always been that Franco's fascist Spain endured through WWII and for many decades thereafter, in some respects it endures today. Latin American dictatorships during and after the War were largely modeled on European fascism. And most of the anti-communist dictatorships supported by the United States, wherever they were found, were more or less fundamentally fascist throughout the Cold War era.

In other words, World War II did not actually defeat fascism. Depending on your perspective, it wasn't a war against fascism at all. (Soviets saw it a little differently of course.) Apart from the Soviets, it was a war of one faction of corporatist-imperialists against another for global hegemony. As the Nazi-fascist faction was defeated, the Enemy then became, almost instantaneously, the Global Communist Conspiracy centered in the Soviet Union, the chief enemy of the fascists, and the one the United States had focused on prior to WWII.

All of this long ago convinced me that a faction of the fascists actually won World War II, despite the hoop-lah and propaganda of Allied Victory. I grew up in an era of intense anti-communism and propaganda, a near absence of civil liberties (such as freedom of speech, assembly and association), and an ongoing civil crusade against "subversion." In the background was the constant drumbeat of immanent nuclear war of annihilation between the stalwart USofA and the perfidious Soviet Russians. It was many years before I understood that had it been up to the Soviets, none of this would have happened. There would have been no Cold War, no arms race, threat of instant incineration. It was all a fever dream and fantasy in a way.

So as I read "The Peril of Fascism" by A. B. Magil and Henry Stevens, the parallels between their view of what was going on in the USA c. 1938 and what we know today is more and more striking. The book is mostly contemporaneous reporting and an interweaving of various threads of knowledge. We see much the same kind of thing in the many news aggregators of today, each of which operates with a certain point of view and political bias, but each of which, if you apply critical thinking to them, can provide excellent insight into what's really going on.

The chapter called "Terror, Incorporated" seems to me to be particularly germane given recent events:

On May 22, 1936, the lifeless body of Charles Poole, an employee of the Works Progress Administration, was found lying in a ditch on the outskirts of Detroit. It seemed like another murder story. But before many days had passed, there grew out of that tale of death the ominous outlines of a far-reaching conspiracy whose victim was to be not that pitiful bullet-ridden body found in a ditch, but the rights and liberties of thousands of Americans. The Black Legion, flinging its shadow across the American scene, jolted the unwary and incredulous into a realization that it could happen here.

The Black Legion may appear in retrospect a bit fantastic and unreal, but no more so than Hitler's rowdies in the Munich beer hall days. The full truth about this brotherhood of hate and murder will perhaps never been known. Too many higher-ups of the industrial and political world were involved for complete candor. But enough has been revealed to indicate that while this terrorist organization may have been born in more or less spontaneous fashion, it was suckled and reared by the great automobile corporations of Detroit and Michigan. Of course, even the so-called spontaneous birth of such movements is possible only in a society which breeds fascism as filth breeds germs.

The two chief weapons of fascism are demagogy and terror. And in both, amateurdom gives way to science, the sporadic and haphazard are supplanted by system and organization. The lynch mobs of the South which spring up suddenly, live briefly and as suddenly melt away, the vigilante bands which function only during specific labor disputes, are the Black Legion in embryo -- but only in embryo. In the period of mounting disintegration and decay, when capitalism is beset by chronic ills it never knew before, these primitive forms of mob violence no longer suffice. Organizations of a more permanent kind, with a more stable membership and a more elaborate program are required. Hence, the modern Ku Klux Klan, the Black Legion, the Silver Shirts -- groups for whom terror is a profession and murder an art.

It is an omen of what can happen here that this country gave birth to one of the earliest semi-fascist terrorist organizations in the world, the modern Ku Klux Klan. Launched in November, 1915, it antedated the Fascisti of Mussolini and the Storm Troops of Hitler. It is significant, however, that not until after the World War, in the wake of the social dislocations that followed the conclusion of imperialist bloodshed, did the Ku Klux Klan, like the Fascisti in Italy and the various terror groups in Germany really come into its own. The Klan was, however, in its first stage less pronouncedly fascist than were the Italian and German murder gangs.

....

It will be noted that the period of the Klan's greatest strength coincided with the post-war crisis of capitalism and the first emergence of fascist tendencies throughout the capitalist world including the United States. Furthermore, the Klan, after its eclipse during the years of temporary capitalist stabilization, has been revived in another period of economic and social stress. It is significant, too, that while the Klan's main emphasis in the days of its great efflorescence was on anti-Catholicism, it soft-pedaled the anti-Catholic issue when it re-emerged during the economic crisis and directed its main energies against labor under the guise of combating Communism.

Thus the New York Sun of May 5, 1933, wrote:

The Ku Klux Klan, almost killed off seven years ago by the exposure of a series of flogging cases and other criminal activities attributed to it, has been revived in the South for the announced purpose of "educating" the Negro against Communism and other radical doctrines.

...

The shift in prejudices to which the Klan is appealing is a measure of the growth and deepening of those fascist tendencies which first manifested themselves after the war. The Black Legion, too, while its creed included attacks on Catholics, Jews, Negroes, and the foreign-born, made these subordinate to the fight against labor.

Yet it would be foolhardy to conclude that Catholics, Jews, Negroes, and the foreign-born would find any security should the forces which the Klan and the Black Legion represent gain power. In Germany the Nazi drive on labor merely constituted the hub of the wheel of repression that moved relentlessly against Jews, Catholics, Protestants, liberals and all who by any stretch of the imagination could be regarded as critical of the Nazi regime. The breadth of the orbit of hatred within which the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Legion moved offers no reason to suppose that fascist dictatorship in this country would be any less ruthless and sweeping.

...

Together with the growth of the Klan grew the trail of blood and terror that it left behind it in state after state. And the KKK learned to combine organized hooliganism with political action. Before long the three great Southwestern states, Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma, were completely under the thumb of the Klan. Elsewhere, too, the Klan became a power in city and state politics and entrenched itself in the police forces in many parts of the country. This expansion took place despite considerable opposition which the organization met not only from Catholics, Jews, Negroes and the foreign-born, but from many native white Protestants for whom the Klan represented everything reprehensible, stupid and reactionary in American life.

...

On its revival in 1931-32, the Klan left no doubt as to its militant anti-labor character. "The Klan Rides Again -- Communism Must Be Destroyed!" read handbills distributed throughout the South. In an Atlanta dispatch to the New York Post of September 14, 1934, David G. Wittels wrote:

The Ku Klux Klan has entered the strike picture in the South

Primed into new life by money from Anti-New Dealers, it is gathering strength for a battle against organized labor -- and eventually against President Roosevelt.

Rejuvenated three months ago, it has 30,000 members in Georgia, and 100,000 throughout the South.

In a few places in the South the Klan went so far as to adopt the Nazi trick of appearing to be pro-labor. At Columbus, Georgia, where 11,500 mill workers were striking, the KKK participated in a Labor Day parade. And at Griffin, Georgia, it was even instrumental in calling a strike. This will recall the Nazi "support" of the Berlin tramway workers' strike in the fall of 1932 on the eve of Hitler's accession to power.

In the mining town of Uniontown, Pennsylvania, the Klan in 1936 distributed printed cards -- with a union label -- listing the following program:

1. Deport illegal aliens
2. Drive out Communism
3. Restore Constitutional government
4. Keep church and state separate
5. Buy American-made products
6. White supremacy

It will be noted that anti-Catholicism has here been relegated to fourth place and euphemized into the inoffensive "Keep church and state separate." Number five shows that the Klan has taken over Hearst's "Buy American" campaign. In fact, the entire program, with the exception of points four and six, is identical with the public pronouncements of Hearst and the other big business reactionaries.

...

The revived Klan has been particularly active in Florida. Under the leadership of Kleagle Fred McLendon Bass, who was also a member of the executive committee of the Orlando, Florida, American Legion post, the Klan kidnapped and murdered Frank Norman, International Labor Defense organizer, in April, 1934. The most flagrant of the revived Klan's acts of violence was the kidnapping and flogging at Tampa, Florida, in November, 1935, of Joseph Shoemaker, Dr. Sam Rogers, and Eugene Poulnot, leaders of a liberal group known as the Modern Democrats. This outrage, which proved fatal to Shoemaker, was perpetrated with the connivance of the Tampa police whose chief, R. G. Tittsworth, was a member of the Klan.

While this excerpt has focused mostly on the violence of the Ku Klux Klan (and there is a great deal more documented than I have excerpted here), there were many other similar and affiliated fascist terrorist groups active in the United States during the period, many with the active complicity of the local authorities. It was not an easy time to be a labor organizer, a Negro, a Catholic, a Jew, or of foreign birth anywhere in the country. All were considered "suspect" by America's good-upstanding-white-christian folk, and many were considered a priori Communists. Terror tactics were commonly employed, much more widely and against a much broader cross-section of Americans than is generally believed. If you were a member of one of the designated and targeted out groups, there was essentially no way to avoid it. But this was one of the great benefits of "small government" back in the day. There was no way to protect people from this sort of constant terror by various groups, especially when the police were part of the terror-forces.

This is something Americans seem to have little collective memory of. Because there is very little collective memory of this domestic terror apparatus that operated as a public-private partnership in service to the financiers and capitalists, it's easy enough to revive it when conditions warrant. We've seen it already in some of the border control and other militias, in aspects of the Tea Party, and in the vast expansion of private mercenary forces at home and abroad. It's not an altogether new phenomenon. And as always, these domestic terror forces are in service to their sponsors and owners, the vaunted 1%.

Always.

Winning Plutocracy -- the Juggernaut

One of the more remarkable aspects of the "Nonviolence" Wars -- or rather, the argument, it never came to blows after all -- was the apparent urge many of those in the "nonviolence" community had to make common cause with the Oppressor, in the immediate case with the Po-leece, but down the road, with the Plutocrats and Oligarchs that rule us.

Somehow, we were supposed to believe, being "nonviolent" would lead to the Police changing sides, and it would lead to the Overclass doing the right thing for once in their worthless and exploitative lives.

On the other side of that fabulist coin is the notion that if things only get bad enough, the people will spontaneously rise up and destroy the Ruling Class once and for all.

But that's not quite how it is working out. Nor do I think it has ever quite worked out that way.

Instead, what we have is the relentless march of Power and Money on a Juggernaut crushing all in its path, which has no consciousness of "doing the right thing" or making common cause with the masses, or even with some self-appointed "nonviolent" elite among the masses. It simply isn't happening.

(Not being an X-Men fan, I had no idea there was a character called "Juggernaut" that behaves pretty much like Our Rulers...Oh. My. :-0. Live and Learn.)

How do you make common cause with that?

The fact is that the Plutocrats and Oligarchs are interested in rule over the rest of us and they use their militarized police as shock troops and enforcers. It is striking how very little "changing sides" there has been. It has nothing whatever to do with how the forces of resistance resemble or fail to resemble GhandiKing. Nothing. It has to do with the simplest facts of Power: Power concedes nothing without the demand, and right now  and for some time past, there has been no demand Power has chosen to listen to or fear.

In Olden Days, it seems like you could always count on someone in the Ruling Classes or among their enforcers to break ranks and side with the People, and they simply aren't doing it now. If anything, the ranks are closing tighter and tighter, much more so than ever before.

And those who have from time to time appeared to be on the People's side aren't.

It's as solid a phalanx of Power and Money arrayed against the People as there has ever been, and they concede... nothing.

A lot of those engaged in the struggle and resistance against them -- and there are many millions world wide -- seem to think that persistence can win concessions, and it isn't happening. Persistence leads to ever greater levels of frustration and despair, not concession at all.

The other day I posted the video of Bella Eiko at the Public Safety Committee hearing of the Oakland City Council. She expresses her extreme frustration with the City administration and particularly with the Committee chair in no uncertain terms, at length. Her point of view, her anger and her frustration are shared by many in Oakland, and if people are honest with themselves, many more people would share her outrage at the blind indifference of officials to the ruin they spread in their wake. Bella Eiko was not polite in her outrage, and many would say she was engaged in "violent confrontation," but that would be a complete misreading of what was happening. She isn't violent, any more than Chris Moreland was violent when he was arrested in retaliation for sassing the Oakland police chief. She's furious -- as so many of us are -- at Power's complete indifference to the suffering they cause and perpetuate in service to... itself.

The lack of any concession by Power at all after months and years of growing need, protest and demand is one of the most striking aspects of the post-Soviet world we live in. Not only is there no concession, there are constant, growing, and often totally outrageous demands of the People by Power.

The Plutocracy is winning; the Plutocracy has won.

Recognizing that the Plutocrats and Oligarchs have won is not to concede to them, however.

I saw a comment the other day over at Digby's from someone who posts as CupOJoe, someone who I believe is the same online advocate for workers rights and a better life for all who has been posting on these topics for many years (the problem with Digby's comment section is that there is no way to be sure whoever is using this or that screen name is the same individual who has historically used the name). He said with regard to the Wisconsin Debacle in part:

Politics is a long, slow slog through the mud and we have not yet begun to fight in earnest.

and I was just kind of gobsmacked by it. Well, when to we start this fight "in earnest?" Digby has been writing about this struggle "in earnest" for over a decade now, and so has Joe, if CupOJoe is the same Joe I'm thinking of (I forget his last name right now, memory synapses are going haywire and all, but for a time, he had quite a prominent place on the advocacy side of the left-o-sphere.) I've had this blog since 2007, but I've been an activist online and in the field much longer than that going back to the ancient days of the 1960's. When therefore does the fight start in earnest? I'd really like to know.


And what constitutes fighting in earnest?

I've said, and I still believe, that Occupy represents "The Revolution," insofar as an actual Revolution is possible under the circumstances. It is by nature a nonviolent resistance campaign -- whether or not a random or purposeful window is broken or a raging citizen angrily confronts and denounces Power. This is the only way a Revolutionary action (especially on a global scale, as the Occupy Movement is) can proceed in the world as it is. The fight is very much "in earnest" and with an enormous number of moving parts.   It may not be as well-coordinated as one might wish, but no vast Movement of this sort ever is. Even the most adept of military campaigns are far less well-coordinated than legend might suggest. 


And the progress of the Juggernaut is not as well-managed and inevitable as it may appear. 

In fact, the Juggernaut can be stopped in its tracks much more simply than we may sometimes think. The Juggernaut doesn't think. It can't; it's inexorable. Thinking is not part of its nature. Nor actually is doing. In fact, all of its "doing" has to be done by those crowds eagerly surrounding it and pushing and pulling the cart forward. The Juggernaut cannot move on its own. The Juggernaut is mindless and relies entirely on worshipers for motive power.....


Bob Avakian of the Revolutionary Communist Party offered this insight a decade ago:

Stopping the Juggernaut and Making Revolution

A fundamental and essential question poses itself: Is it actually possible to stop this whole juggernaut without carrying out proletarian revolution? Well, we'll learn that in the event, as things actually develop, but certainly we can't say at this point that it would be impossible to stop this juggernaut without achieving the actual overthrow of the whole system--that only through revolution, to put it simply, could this juggernaut be derailed. Now, that may turn out to be the case, but that's not something we can determine at this point. So when we put forward the objective of actually stopping this juggernaut, it's not a gimmick; it's not a way to get people on a train, an express train with no local stops that goes only to revolution. It's an orientation toward actually uniting with people with a real objective in mind. We're not promising people that this is going to happen one way or the other, or pretending that we know the whole outcome of this. What we are saying is that we must have this as an objective--to stop this juggernaut--and we're serious in seeking to stop it, even if it means that it gets derailed short of revolution, because that will contribute greatly to revolution in any case, besides the fact that in terms of the two 90/10s*, and particularly in terms of the interests of the people of the world and their revolutionary struggles, it's important to stop this juggernaut.

But, at the same time, if we're not bringing forward, through the course of all this, the need for proletarian revolution, if we're not showing in a living way how this juggernaut is rooted in the very nature of this system--that it's one particular, concentrated expression of the nature of the beast and why we need to do in this beast--then we're not meeting what we need to be meeting in terms of the needs of the people and in terms of our revolutionary objectives. So this is another contradiction we're going to have to handle, once again, not in a linear or mechanical way but in a dialectical way, in accordance with the complexity of how these contradictions play out.

 _________________
Footnotes:
* The "two 90/10s" refers to a formulation in the Draft Programme of the RCP, in the section on building a united front under the leadership of the proletariat (UFuLP), where it speaks to the importance of seeking to win over the great majority of people within the U.S. itself (the "90 percent") "while doing this in unity with the `90 percent' internationally , the great majority of the people of the world who suffer exploitation and oppression under the domination of imperialism and its allies and puppets."

Interestingly, Avakian's statement (from this essay) strikingly prefigures some of the conceptualization that characterizes the mostly anarchic Occupy Movement, yet the RCP play essentially no role in the actions of Occupy.


What's necessary to stop the Juggernaut in its track is something Gandhi and King understood very well: noncooperation.


Noncooperation is a concept many people still have trouble grasping -- let alone doing. It's always difficult to say "no" in the face of implacable Power. Much as I admire the grit and fortitude of people like Bella Eiko and Chris Moreland when they confront Power directly with their rage and outrage, I also caution: "You're feeding Power when you do that." Ultimately, denunciation won't work because Power loves the attention -- positive or negative, it doesn't matter, the attention itself is what Power desires and demands. So. Ultimately, to stop the Juggernaut, you have to stop pulling and pushing it. Step away.


And it STOPS. Just. Like. That.

On the Gulf Oil Gusher

This is one of those classic fear-driven Doomsday Events, proto-Apocalyptic End-Times Revelations and so on that frequently just turn me off.

The media -- to the extent I've been aware of the coverage (recall, there is no cable "news" in my home, but I do look at the papers, read the Intertube reports and occasionally watch NewsHour and listen to NPR) -- seems to largely serve as a mask for what is really going on, has been that from the beginning when their Narrative was all about the Grand Romantic Heroes (of BP) that were Manfully Throwing Themselves into the breech.

Inaccurate reporting abounded, still does, and BP (and the Oil Industry) is always given the lead voice in any on-air discussion of the disaster. BP has been spinning like mad, simply not giving complete information, correct information, or useful information about the Gusher in the Gulf and what anyone is doing to staunch the flow of oil.

Because the fact of the matter is that nobody is doing a doG-damned thing to stop the oil flow, and they never have.

From all appearances, neither BP nor the Government have any interest in stopping it. The only efforts to date have focused on capturing the oil for later sale and distribution.

Over the next few months, another well may (or may not) be drilled to enable the shut-down of this one, but that's far in the future if it happens at all. They want the oil, pure and simple, and they are working tirelessly to figure out a way to capture it -- for sale and distribution.

So far as we can tell from the paucity of information available, the Predicted Environmental Catastrophe due to the Gusher in the Gulf hasn't materialized, and possibly it won't. At least not the way the breast beaters and garment renders have speculated it would. On the other hand, it may ultimately be worse than anyone imagined. We don't know. This appears to be due to the nature of the oil itself: it is not the heavy crude that fouled the Santa Barbara beaches in 1969 and that leaked out of the Exxon Valdez in 1989. Instead, it is much lighter and apparently contains lots of volatiles that evaporate quickly at the surface. So far as we know, little of the oil has reached shore, and what has was relatively easily and efficiently cleaned up. There has been little -- known -- impact on larger animals and birds, though fisheries are shut down.

It seems, from reports, that the Catastrophe is Not So Bad, and that the Powers That Be are doing the necessary work to contain, if not actually control, the Gusher and any damage it might cause.

But we don't know.

Which, quite naturally, I think, leads to some comparisons with Chernobyl. The Soviets seemed to be relatively forthcoming -- certainly compared to past performances in Calamities -- about the Chernobyl disaster and what was being done about it. But in fact we now know that the Chernobyl reactor disaster was far worse than reports or even speculation would have it at the time, and that as "forthcoming" as the Soviets appeared to be, they weren't, certainly not with regard to the consequences for the Ukraine or Russia or Europe. Radiation exposure levels were far higher than was acknowledged, many more lives were lost in trying to deal with the Catastrophe or as a consequence of environmental degradation, many, many more people were displaced than was indicated at first and so on. We saw at the time that the Authorities didn't know what to do, and what they came up with, The Sarcophagus to enclose the ruined reactor, was almost impossible to accomplish, and didn't work initially. It had to be built over, and what I understand is that it has deteriorated so much, it's going to have to be rebuilt again.

In other words, as bad as the Chernobyl Disaster was reported to be, it was actually far worse. And more than 20 years later the area has not recovered. Nor is it in some ways ever expected to recover.

The Chernobyl Disaster happened at the penultimate moment for the Soviet Union and to my mind it sealed the fate of the Soviet Authority and Empire. It was the Death Knell, something that some people understood at the time. It would take a few more years, but shortly, the Soviet Union would dispose of its Imperial possessions and internally collapse -- from weariness, among other things. Weariness that so much promise had been abused and frittered away. That so many grand plans had never been realized, and that so much that had been built by the Workers' State was so shoddy and ultimately dangerous to life and limb and the Future.

The Soviet Union was on life support by the time the Chernobyl reactor went critical. And the Soviet Union finally expired. With nary a peep and hardly any bloodshed. The End of the Soviet Union was, like its beginning, one of the most remarkable political and social transformations in world history, but the beginning of it has had far more attention paid by historians than its end. It's almost as if the collapse of the Soviet Union hasn't really settled in to conscious understanding yet. Not only does what happened remain veiled (even though much, much information is in the Public Record) the actual reasons for it and lessons learned remain a Mystery.

As if no one really wants to deal with it.

It was, after all, an earth-shaking event the consequences of which have been global and not necessarily positive -- if you're not in the Upper One Percent.

Certainly the consequences for Russia and its former Imperial possession have been economically and socially catastrophic for the millions -- but wonderfully rewarding for the few. It's not all that different in much of the rest of the world, including the United States, which is trending more in the direction of Soviet-style Imperialism and Authoritarianism (but not Totalitarianism) every day, while exploiting the masses with glee and abandon.

I don't know whether the Gulf Oil Gusher is the penultimate event of Our Own Imperial Selves. It's too soon to tell, but it certainly has the potential to be a worse physical, economic and social disaster than Chernobyl was for the Soviet Union.

Oh my yes.

Black Letter of the Law

And the problem of False Equivalence.

Today I posted some things over at Glenn's Place that touched on some interesting parallel actions in Supreme Court rulings.

On May 10, 1886, for example, the Court handed down the Yick Wo v Hopkins (that Glenn referred to in his post today) which extended 14th Amendment protection to non-citizens, such as Yick Wo himself. That same day, they also handed down the infamous Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad ruling that extended 14th Amendment protection to corporations such as the Southern Pacific Railroad in its headnote, though that was not what the Court actually ruled in its decision on the case under review. That ruling essentially upheld lower court rulings that SPRR property in Santa Clara and Fresno Counties had been improperly assessed.

On December 18, 1944, the Court ruled in Korematsu v United States that Executive Order 9066 which ordered the removal of persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast was Constitutional. On the same day, the Court ruled in Ex Parte Endo that the Government could not continue to hold American citizens (such as the rounded up Japanese Americans in the camps established as a result of the execution of Executive Order 9066) once the Government itself conceded their "loyalty" -- which the Government had done. Consequently, beginning January 2, 1945, the internees were allowed to go home if they could, and the camps prepared to shut down. This occurred while World War II still raged in Europe and the Pacific, and FDR was very much still alive.

I also posted the entire text of the 14th Amendment and the holdings in Yick Wo v Hopkins and Santa Clara v Southern Pacific as they related to the 14th Amendment.

The point Glenn was making in his post is that the Constitution applies to citizens as well as non-citizens -- ie: all "persons" under the jurisdiction and/or authority of the United States of America, as declared by the Court in Yick Wo. The point I was making was that the Court was in an expansive mood that day and was extending 14th Amendment protection, perhaps inadvertently, to corporations (ie: fictional "persons") as well as aliens.

In like manner, the Court, feeling expansive, ruled in favor of the Government in Korematsu and against continued holding of "loyal" American citizens in Endo, in effect releasing the internees.

These expansive acts are forms of balance that the Court once engaged in fairly regularly, but which it appears to have avoided for quite a while. My argument is not that there are equivalences here but is instead that these important rulings should not be considered in isolation. They have a context, and that context is often missing in the discussion of them. Part of that context is an effort by the Court to find some kind of balance between competing interests. Ie: at least the perception of Justice.

In that light, it is of some interest that at the time Yick Wo was decided, Chinese immigrants were barred from citizenship. Yet the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, by the clear black letter of the law, applied to "any person within its jurisdiction," without the caveat that that "person" had to be a "citizen." Discrimination by race under the law or in the application of the law (in this case a San Francisco ordinance) was therefore clearly unconstitutional, and so the Court ruled.

Of course they would rule ten years later in Plessey v Ferguson that "separate but equal" accommodations were Constitutional... so you never know.

However, extending 14th Amendment protections to corporations, as they did in Santa Clara, seems quite a stretch, for it presumes that the status of corporate "persons" is identical at law to that of "natural persons." But that status had never previously been established, and in fact it had been previously denied, deliberately and with substantial consideration.

Corporations are not "persons" in the sense that the term is used in the Constitution. "Persons," "People," and "Citizens" are used in the Constitution to refer to "natual persons," ie: human beings.

Corporations are artificial creatures chartered by the State ostensibly on behalf of the People. Rights and privileges of corporations are purely a function of their charters and the People's governments which approve their charters, not of the Constitution.

Rights and privileges of natural persons ultimately derive from their status as human beings; the Constitution protects those rights and privileges against excess Government intrusion. Corporations are creatures of their charters as approved by the Government; they have no existence whatsoever outside that which has been provided them by charter and Government.

It's a false equivalence to assert that corporations are entitled by the Constitution to the same protections of the 14th Amendment as "natural persons."

Corporations have no Constitutional protection at all. A plain reading of the black letter of the law would lead one to believe that the Court erred in extending 14th Amendment protection to corporations. Correcting such an error will not be easy, but it's not impossible.

One approach, which I favor, is to avoid the false "either/or" alternatives. It is false to assert that corporations either have full protection of the 14th Amendment as a function of their "personhood" or they have "no rights at all."

As creatures of their charters and the approval of the Government, they have such rights and privileges as the People shall determine, not the rights and protections guaranteed to the People by the Constitution.

This is not a hard concept except to those who would make it hard.

Corporate "personhood" is now deeply ingrained in law, and it is said to be difficult at this point to dis-"person" corporations without overturning a huge body of law concerning corporations. Yes, it is inconvenient and potentially costly, but it is not impossible.

The point is to restore corporate rights and privileges to those which can be determined by the People, through their elected bodies and statute law, not the Constitution.

In fact, "personhood" may (or may not) be sustained by the People, but it should be up to them, not an offhanded comment by a justice who then rules on something else entirely.

Another false equivalence that enters the discussion is that between Government on the one hand and corporations on the other. sysprog asked, for example, whether I thought it was desirable to "leash and regulate" governments as well as corporations. Simply put, they are not the same, and there should be no confusion and no equivalence between them. The premise of the question is wrong. Government is instituted by the People to protect the Constitution and the rights therein. Corporations are created by charter (of their shareholders/members) and approved by Government to produce a profit for their shareholders or a public good in the case of nonprofit corporations.

sysprog followed with more questions based on false premises: should corporations be subject to criminal and civil liability like natural persons or should only natural persons be subject to them? Should corporations be subject to due process? Am I arguing that corporations have no rights at all?

No, I'm arguing that corporations should have such rights and privileges as are determined by the People to be in the People's interests.

Corporations are created by their charters under the authority and regulation of the Government as the People see fit. There is no inherent or Constitutional protection for them. But that does not mean corporations necessarily have no rights.

It's simple. And this was not at all difficult to fathom prior to 1886 and the headnoted provision of 14th Amendment protections to corporations.

Black letter of the law, people.

Black letter of the law.

It's the End of the World As We Know It -- los dos

Look upon my work... ye mighty, and despair...



The keening and rending of garments over the Supreme Court's rendering the entire electoral system over to the Corporatist owners of the Government is almost more stunning than the ruling itself.

This Court has gone clear over the edge. Into realms not seen for at least a hundred years, and maybe not since the pre-Civil War court. It's shameful, deeply reactionary, and utterly contrary to the main thrust of American and Human History.

It's easy to reject it.

It's not so easy to know what to do about it.

A modest proposal: start by legislating free political advertising on major mass media. No purchased ads allowed. Then declare unlimited free and equal access to some sort of public access political station in every media market.

The key to to forbid the purchase of political advertising.

And then, impeach these rotten sons-of-financiers and stockbrokers.

As Democrats Implode

The Triple Whammy of Senators Dorgan and Dodd and Colorado Governor Ritter announcing their retirements from the fray is followed by devastating poll numbers for Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln (no friend to Movement Progressives; down by double digits against any unknown Republican), Barbara Boxer potentially facing an uphill struggle, and on and on. A real shakeout among the Dems.

Of course they're fatalists. Que sera, sera and all that, and they really prefer to graciously accept any crackpot scheme the Rs want to come up with anyway. It's their role and their job in Corporatist governance. The Question is whether their Owners really want the Psychos back in power, and whether anyone is ready for another round of Neo-Conservatist Radicalism.

My bet right now is no. And so what we'll get when the Rs take back the Senate (which looks inevitable) and possibly take over the House as well, is a stall through the rest of the Obama Regime, with nothing actually getting done -- except for certain desired Neo-Liberal Incrementalist tweaks and adjustments to deregulation of finance.

My Prognosticator™ is even giving me a reading that suggests the Health Care Reform bill will never come out of Ping-Pong Limbo, will not be signed, will not become Law.

Anything that doesn't fit the Neo-Liberal program of consolidation of takings and stabilization of governance will be vetoed by the White House or will never emerge from the Sausage Factory. With the Psychos back in charge of the legislative branch, the very idea of "Democracy" will be further discredited in the minds of many. If "Democracy" gets you such a swift return to gridlock and worse, what's the point? Why not go with Autocracy? It works better. It looks better. What's to worry?

It was interesting to see how the Democrats behaved when they achieved their goal of control of both houses of Congress and the White House -- and then a 60 vote majority in the Senate on top of it. They essentially split into two parties, one of which was a simulacrum of the Republicans c. 1959. In other words, Democrats formed the Opposition Party to their own selves. I'd never seen anything like it in politics. The Republican Party itself essentially withdrew into sulking and clowning and sniping from the sidelines, while Democrats did political battle with themselves constantly.

This has been going on for a year, and it's been extraordinarily debilitating. That the Democrats could actually split this way and have such an open struggle within their own caucus for the entire time they have been in power, act as if they were their own Opposition Party, and further, have essentially continued to behave as they did when they were the "Opposition" to Republicans, by graciously agreeing to whatever crackpot scheme the Conserva-Dems/quasi-Republicans wanted -- is really stunning when you think about it.

Which I haven't even wanted to do until recently.

This is merely one of the many indications that our politics is really and truly broken.

I have no love for the Senate. I think it should be abolished or turned into a parking-place for honored and garrulous old farts with nothing else to do like the House of Lords, but we've seen, over and over again, that the Senate becomes unstable when Dems are in charge of it. The House seems to be institutionally more stable, but even there, the Dems, at odds with themselves, can barely achieve a voting majority for significant legislation.

Given the astonishing levels of corruption in both houses, on full and sickening view throughout the HCR "debate", a case can and should be made than neither house represents the People in any case, and the whole sorry show should just be shut down.

We're left with Autocracy, again. Since the People really have no functioning Representative Government, only the appearance of one, it becomes the Job of the Autocrat to be both the embodiment of the State and the People's (Sole) Representative. That was a role that Bush often asserted for himself, especially with regard to Civil Liberties ("I will protect you and defend your liberties!..."), and Obama seems to be able to adopt the same theory of Autocracy himself, though he seems to be reluctant to employ it openly, preferring to let the let the Legislative bodies grind themselves to dust and ensure their perpetual irrelevance.

What happened to cause the functional end of the Roman Republic comes to mind.

One wonders: Can Social Democracy even begin to address this mess?

Re: Corporate "Personhood"

Eugene over at dKOS has a good piece up regarding the true nature of the struggle today vis a vis a mindset among so-called "progressives" that is largely stuck in the 1990s.

It's refreshing to see some commentator refer to some other "stuck on" era than the 1960's! You mean there is something after 1968? Who'd a thunk it?

At any rate, Eugene's point is one I agree with: we're in a Neo-Liberal phase, and for some reason -- based on 1990s precedents, perhaps -- liberals and so-called "progressives" believe they have to compromise their principles (whatever they may be) to accommodate "what can be done" under a Neo-Liberal umbrella.

We did it in the 1990s, we can do it now, and it will all work out in the end.

NAFTA.

The Neo-Liberal umbrella under which liberals and so-called "progressives" shelter is of course the umbrella of Corporatism. AKA Fascism back in the misty and poorly understood past.

Neo-Conservatism is the psychotic phase of Corporatism; Neo-Liberalism is the consolidation phase of Corporatism. While one is kinder-gentler (perhaps) than the other, they are both political/economic organizing systems intended to extract the maximum loot from the maximum number in the shortest feasible time. They are both offspring of Corporate Dominionism.

So what do you do about it?

Over on David Atkins' "We Must ORGANIZE! (Again!)" thread, I posted this:

The "ORGANIZE!" mantra has been repeated every few months or so for the last ten year or more. There's now a plethora of "progressive" causes, websites, fundraising appeals, organizations, alternative media outlets, calls to action and on and on and on. Millions of people belong, donate, participate, organize and do on behalf of these many, many causes and organizations.

And still we see the call to start anew. Stop your bickering and start anew.

More Organizations!

Something's out of whack here. The constant call to ORGANIZE heightens the sense of futility and the apparent impotence of the many, many organizations we have. The constant call to ORGANIZE has the effect of further atomizing the so-called Left, to the point where in time nearly everyone on the "Left" will be their own individual organization.

What we need, it seems to me, after more than a decade of ORGANIZING -- and atomizing -- is consolidation and agreement.

And that's where things get really tough. Right now, "progressive" is pretty much a politically meaningless term that serves primarily as a tribal identification. It doesn't mean you're a liberal, it doesn't even mean you're for social justice. "Progressive" means you're a member of a tribe that is in perpetual conflict -- with someone, some institution, some status quo.

It is the conflict that gives your tribe meaning, not agreement on positive political programs or policies. I would submit that's why there is so little progress. Why the call is always to start anew. Organize differently, with different objectives, different struggles, organize around different issues, different conflicts.

But that's not a recipe for the enduring success of a Movement.

It's time for the organizations we've got to agree with one another on a binding set of principles, a manifesto if you will, a stated and comprehensive ideology (oh, shudder!), and learn to consolidate resources and actions, coordinate messages, and stand up united and unyielding for a simple set of principles.

Instead of all this maneuvering for advantage and attention and trying to work the mechanics of the corrupt and decadent political system that wants nothing to do with us. And will happily sucker-punch us and take our lunch money to boot.

Consolidate. Agree. Then fight back.

For whatever reason, the Internet "progressive" learning curve is a Mobius Strip that always gets you back approximately where you started from, and that is, ORGANIZE! -- again. And again and again and again. Declare Victory! over losses (Holy Joe is still in the Senate, and now he's wielding the Imperial Scepter as if it were his very own; but the Internet "progressives" are still crowing their Victory! because he was re-elected by Republicans. Huh?)

Internet "Progressive" Guide to Political Action: ORGANIZE!>Act>Compromise Principle>Lose>Victory!>ORGANIZE!>Act>Compromise Principle>Lose>Victory!

Well. Yes, of course. It's Victory! for the Corporatists who are Our Rulers. I'm sure they have a big ol' party every time the I-Progressives crash and burn. It is a sweet savour unto them.

So what do you do?

Well, recently, the Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that essentially allows the President-Emperor to create a category of Un-Persons who have no rights which Americans are bound to respect. Anyone, anywhere, can be so declared, and once designated an Un-Person, these individuals have no recourse at law and anything at all can be done to them at will.

This was one of Cheney's more subtle reorganizations of law and custom to fit his paranoid Imperial designs, one that civil libertarians were certain would be struck down. But come to find out, no. The High Court let it stand.

Well. Now. Think of the possibilities. It's always surprised me that the rabid right wing has never feared Hillary or Obama using this Ultimate Power. It must be tempting to anyone in high office to implement Un-Personhood on anyone who expresses hostility or resistance to the Imperial Will. But Rightists are unconcerned about that. This tells me that their Corporatist Rulers are convinced they have perfectly captured the Government and no one can threaten their vise-like grip.

Back in the Old Days, a clerical error led to the establishment of the Corporate Personhood rule, by which, today, Corporations and Corporatists rule us through their agents in Government. It's quite a cosy relationship, and of course, it is marketed as being "for our own good." It's.... better than nothing.

But if the President-Emperor can legally Un-Person anyone at all, at his sole discretion and pleasure (which is what the lower court ruling essentially said and the Supremes let it pass), then he can do it to Corporations, too.

Which... should make them tremble.

Undoing Corporate Personhood is necessary to relieving the stranglehold of Corporatism on us all.

It's just barely conceivable that the threat of designating Corporate Un-Persons could be enough to at first limit and then end Corporate Dominionism.

Well, it's a thought.

Just the threat of it...

The Chicago Thing

I didn't really follow it, but apparently His Serenity came up empty in his efforts to land the 2016 Olympics for his adopted home town Chicago the other day, and all of Wingnuttia is in ecstasy at his loss. Rio has also exploded in glee.

Which reminds me of a song, YouTube video of Hugh Jackman rehearsing it appended herewith:



Now there's nothing Wingnut about Rio, and their President Lula da Silva seems to have his head screwed on OK, but the Olympics are something of an odd duck in the corporate firmament, strangely Puritanical and blithely corrupt at the same time. Anachronistic besides.

A major reason for the IOC's rejection of Chicago appears to be the difficulties encountered by travellers at the borders of the USA, something few Americans ever actually have to endure or even witness. The stories are legion of assholitry by various customs and immigration and security officials, attitudinally suspicious and hostile, often arbitrary, and overly officious to no apparent purpose. Whether or not His Serenity addressed that issue, the fact is that for foreigners coming into the USA, the experience can be anything but pleasant.

So the World says why bother? Rio has the samba and the Copacabana -- among so many other inducements -- so why the fuck bother with the constant crabbiness of La Migra?

Of course there are many other problems, too. Apparently Chicago's reputation for corruption shocked (!) even the IOC. Oh. My. God. It must be really bad then. But maybe there is something else...

First, the Olympics have been held in the United States an abundance of times; second, some of the experiences in the USA (like bombings and such) haven't exactly been in the Olympic Spirit; third, South America has never hosted an Olympics, and Rio is one of the most unique locales anywhere, so why not have the Games there?

Besides which, one wonders whether the Olympics would be a net boon or a loss to a city like Chicago. Often the Games cost way more than they return to their host cities and countries. Given the rickety status of the American economy (job loss numbers just out are appalling), and the sheer level of growth potential in places like Brazil as opposed to the predicted continued decline in the USA, the overall cost of presenting the Games in Chicago might have proved ruinous.

All rationalizations of course.

What's striking, though, is that practically the whole right-wingnut-o-world is having a simultaneous orgasm over Obama's Big Loss. This is his Waterloo! His reign is So Over! On and on.

Indeed.

They're not like us

This is how they live:



It's a relatively new house in McLean, Virginia (suburban DC) now on the market listed at $17,000,000. This is the kind of price you expect in entertainment and finance communities, but in Washington?



We don't live like this because we can't afford to on the one hand, and many of us wonder why anyone would want to live like this on the other. And no, this is not one of Saddam's palaces. It's a suburban palace in McLean.



Too opulent? Well, try this one, only $15,000,000:








Still too luxe? Well, try this one, only $5,000,000:









All these properties are in the Washington DC/Northern Virginia/Maryland area. They're just a sample of the newer manors and mansions and palaces that have been built in the area the last few years to house the hoity and the toity. There are many, many more older manses and demesnes all over DC and the areas surrounding it that have long housed Old Money People who, in America, believe it is their right to rule. Their wealth and their position convey automatic Power.

And Our Government is their servant. Specifically their servant, not yours or mine.

The entire population could rise as one tomorrow (but of course they won't) and still "Our Government" would be "Their Government," because 1) they demand it; and 2) they believe they bought and paid for it.

We've seen the crippling corruption of the Congress and the White House practically every day that Health Care Reform has been addressed or discussed. It is mindboggling to see Our Government -- which is really Theirs -- consistently dismiss the interests of the People in pursuit of abundant campaign cash from people who live like the would be seigneurs for whom these estates were built.

And yet, that's America today.

Time for tumbrils and guillotines?