Stay Tuned for More Thrilling Plutocratic Political Theater

Although I found it an odious task, I stooped to watch the News Hour on PBS last Friday in order to get my fill of one of the NYT's shameless Neo-Fascist lap-dogs, David Brooks.

It's actually difficult to watch Brooks in action without feeling sorry for the man. He tries so hard to prove to the world that "compassionate conservatism" is a reality as opposed to a marketing scheme--which was dropped like a hot potato once the "compassionate conservatives" assumed power and went on their homicidal rampage through the Middle East.

I have never been able to decide whether Brooks is deluded or deeply dishonest. I suspect that he is some combination of the two.

In any event, instead of his usual gushing about how he, a mere journalist, has inside access to the centers of Neo-Fascistic power in Washington, he spoke of his admiration for one Hillary Clinton. In fact, he seemed to go out of his way to mention Mrs. Clinton repeatedly during his brief segment. I took it as a signal.

The plutocrats who run this country know that the Neo-Fascists in the "Republican" wing of the Republicrat-Democan Mono-party have worn out their welcome with the voting public and are not likely to be able to place such an open tool as George W. Bush in the White House come the next election cycle. So they have turned to their next best option: Nixon in a skirt.

The coming months will be filled with thrilling political theater, but I fear that the outcome is already quite certain. The plutocracy is cutting deals and Hillary, with her overweening ambition, is putty in their hands.

Back Kucinich, back Obama, but watch Hillary emerge triumphant as the staged "drama" unfolds.

The Importance of Cindy Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan is, quite simply, the single most important individual in American politics today. Her importance lies in the fact that she is NOT a politician; rather, she is the voice of one crying in the political wilderness. She represents the pangs of conscience.

No one who will eventually become a viable Republicrat-Democan Presidential candidate in 2008 will ever match Sheehan's moral credibility for the simple reason that, unlike them, she did not enter the public forum looking for votes--i.e., political power. She stepped out of the shadows of grieving motherhood and into the public eye to ask a moral question that no viable Republicrat-Democan presidential front-runner will ever dare to ask (much less answer candidly) without the pre-approval of his or her pollsters: "Tell me, Mr. President, what did my son die for?"

Imagine, if you will, Hillary Clinton, publicly admitting that the war she voted for and supported until her number crunchers told her to do otherwise was, from the very get-go, unjust, immoral, and in violation of international law--and that she knew (or had reason to believe), from the get-go, that such was the case. That is the unvarnished truth that will never pass Sen. Clinton's lips.

Some of those who love Cindy have urged her to remain "outside" politics--as if the moral high ground can never be reconciled with running a country. I understand this cautionary argument, but I do not agree with it. I was happy to hear that Cindy intends to enter California politics for two reasons:

(1) I think it will be great experience for her, and

(2) The contrast between Cindy's style and that of a seasoned Republicrat-Democan will suggest to the voting public an image of what a real democracy might look like.

I do not expect Cindy Sheehan to be elected to public office anytime soon. The Republicrat-Democan monopoly that torpedoed George McGovern's upstart candidacy in '72 and Ted Kennedy's insurgent run against the Carter Machine in '80 will prevail until the day comes when people of conscience in this country rise up and take the governance of "their" country out of the hands of the militarized plutocrats and re-write the Constitution--ending once and for all mono-party rule.

That would be an American Revolution worthy of the name. But a revolution worthy of the name (i.e., not one about taxes or states' rights) requires that there exist in the United States a critical mass of people of conscience--a significant percentage in the ruling class itself. Generations will pass before such a situation exists in these Benighted States.

In the meantime, we have Cindy Sheehan lighting the first candle for an America where conscience doesn't mean saying in public that Jesus is your favorite philosopher or even your "Lord and Savior"; conscience is being appalled by the people who lie and kill and steal in the name of Jesus or any other deity or ideology.

It's the Constitution, Stupid!

I hate to borrow a line from old Bill Clinton, but in this case I'll make an exception. After all, let's give big Bill his due: the first 6 years of his 8 year presidency were years of relative peace and prosperity and a hopefulness that seems almost fantastic next to the subsequent dark years of W and unmitigated disaster. That said, Mrs. Clinton is NOT A CHOICE. Bill's saving grace was that he was something of a Romantic, an idealist deep inside. Hillary is, as I have said for many years now, Nixon in a skirt. She cannot tell the difference between a political VISION for the country and her personal, political AMBITION. She wants the presidency so bad she can hardly stand it. Not only that, but she actually believes that she is entitled to it. Don't just listen to her words, listen to the "music" behind her words. Hillary Clinton would bomb the bejesus out of Iran or any country that she felt gave her the flimsiest excuse, the slightest opportunity to prove to the joint chiefs that a woman can send troops into battle just as well as a man. The key word here is OPPORTUNITY. Hillary Clinton is an opportunist extraordinaire. Why the hell do you think she married Bill? She knew he couldn't keep his hands to himself; but she also saw Bill as her big OPPORTUNITY. And the sacrifices that she has made these many years as Bill's spouse entitle her--in her own mind--to succeed him to the Oval Office. It's twisted, my friends.

But what is even more twisted is that the Democratic Party Machine also believes her to be entitled to the Presidency. And this is yet another reason why the Democratic Party is part of the problem and not part of the solution. I don't propose that the party be dissolved, but that it be forced to make its way honestly in the political system by being one party among many in a TRUE MULTI-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY.

Many Americans suffer from the delusion that we have such a system in the United States. After all, isn't that what they teach us in high school civics? Friends, friends, friends: high school civics sold you a dream, not the political reality of the Plutocratic American pseudemocracy. What we have in the U.S. is a "two-party" system. No provision is made in the Constitution for this system: it is an ad hoc development that the Founding Fathers (white, propertied, 18th century males) tried to AVOID. Read George Washington's "farewell address"--the Founders sought to avoid party politics for the simple reason that they did not wish our fledgling DEMOCRACY to get "out of hand." Why do you think that they made provision in the Constitution for an "electoral college"? These guys (whom we we all treat as saints and were anything but...) did not trust the PEOPLE.

Tom Jefferson threw a wrench into the plutocracy's plans when he wasn't getting his way with the old-boy network and decided that the best way to royally piss them off was to form a political party--the Democratic Party. When Jefferson did that, it was the ONLY political party in the United States. There was the ruling class, and then there was this party of opposition--also part of the ruling class but now endorsing positions that the common run of (white, male) Americans could also support. It was a bitter pill for the plutocrats to swallow, but swallow it they did and eventually formed their own counter-party. And that was it. In time, the two parties established for themselves a monopoly over the American political system and, over the years, have grown chummier and chummier. And why not? They all represent the same constituency: the American plutocracy.

Those who are paying attention can see what a huge mess the plutocrats are making not only of the United States but of the world today. Hillary M. Nixon will not alter our course significantly. And, I am afraid, though I love him, neither will Dennis Kucinich--the one tried and true proponent of a truly decent America running for President today (Obama may be a true proponent, but he is far from tried). The solution to our problems is not plugging this or that individual into the Oval Office. The origin of our problems lies in the undemocratic system that we would be plugging that individual into. It's the Constitution, stupid! We must change it and soon.

If you wish to see what a modern Constitution looks like (as opposed to our jury-rigged, 18th century one), google "Constitution of Finland." It is just one of many in use around the world today that creates a multi-party, parliamentary democracy. In the history of human governance to date, it's the best we (as a species) have done.

And don't Americans deserve the best? That's what we always tell ourselves. Then why in god's good name are we settling for something that only serves up the same old plutocratic bull-shit election cycle after election cycle?

I'll say it again: IT'S THE CONSTITUTION! We must change it or resign ourselves to living out the rest of our days in McUSA,Inc.--not the home of liberty but the militarized agent of global capitalism run amok.

History Quiz

What famous individual said the following:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Was it:

(a) Osama bin Ladin

(b) Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater

(c) Thomas Paine


Answer: If you answered (b) you are well on your way to recognizing that the rhetoric of who is an "extremist"--or what constitutes "extremism" in the first place and how it is to be evaluated--is an "extremely" squirrely business.

One man's extremist is another's patriot or freedom fighter.

Resist the Orwellian Newspeak of the Republicrat-Democans and the treasonous, government-dependent media.

THINK!

News Quiz

If a foreign nation invades and occupies your own, setting up a puppet-government like the Nazis did in France during WWII, and you and some like-minded citizens decide to resist the foreign invaders and occupiers, you are properly identified as:

(a) a terrorist

(b) a freedom-fighter

(c) an extremist

(d) an insurgent

(e) a patriot

(f) la Resistance


Answer Key: If you answered (a), (c), or (d), you have clearly bought into the Orwellian Newspeak with which the Bush administration has poisoned the waters of our national conversation about its illegal, unjust, and immoral invasion and occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq. Of course, the neo-con criminals are working from precedent: the Johnson and Nixon Administrations used the same terminology for the heroic defenders of the Vietnamese homeland.

In a way, I can hardly blame the Bush regime for its attempt to cover its crimes with favorable spin. I do blame and do not--and cannot--forgive this country's 4th Estate for betraying the American people into the hands of the Republicrat-Democan criminals by adopting and endorsing their Newspeak through its continuing use.

Unless and until we become capable, as a nation, of engaging in honest discourse about our military presence in Iraq, we will never come to terms with the murderous fraud--dare I say, the holocaust--we are perpetrating there.

Summer of Disillusionment on the Ship of Fools

SHIP OF FOOLS...




NAUTICAL DISTRESS SIGNAL FLAG: This orange flag has a black square over a black circle. It is the duty of any boat operator observing such a flag to stop and render aid. This signal shall not be displayed unless assistance is needed...

Some days, it is truly difficult to believe that this country is not headed, in the words of an old tune, "90 miles an hour down a dead end street."

The American people, betrayed repeatedly by their "leaders," haven't a clue what to do about it. Let's see...What are the options? Shit? Go blind? What are you going to do, ask Harry Reid? He's as helpless as the next guy. We entrusted our future and the futures of many others around the world (who really didn't have a say in the matter) to a lethal combination of imbeciles and criminals. We did this because we were afraid that uppity brown men were coming from overseas to murder us in our plushly appointed offices. That these uppity brown men were at one time employed by this lethal combo in whom we placed our trust never gave us a moment's pause--and it still doesn't.

And, yet, I feel that the pendulum is soon to change direction. Unfortunately, I have little confidence in the justice of what may happen when it does.

The Myth of American Exceptionalism is not the only opiate that befuddles our moral compasses (how's that for a mixture of metaphors?). There is also the Myth that our political institutions are capable of promoting radical change. "In a suitable temperature," said Mao Tsetung, "an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis."

With our current Constitution, all we can accomplish is the cooking of stones.

"What we need," said Mao, "is an enthusiastic but calm state of mind and intense but orderly work."

The road ahead is long and admits no turning. Such is the itinerary on this American Ship of Fools.

Whither the United States?

Please read today's entry at the American Leftist.

The Anti-Democratic Moral Midgetry of the American Plutocracy

In 1972, George McGovern somehow managed to slip through the cracks in the carefully orchestrated "2-party (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) system" and got himself elected the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the Whole Shebang. This threw a scare into Nixon's oh-so-wonderfully acronymed Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP).

McGovern accomplished this feat, amazingly enough, with popular support. Nothing scares the plutocratic ruling class of this country like, um, democracy.

So, the Nixon mafia went into action: the goal was to make certain that the McGovern candidacy take a nose-dive. Watergate was one result. But the CREEPers did not act alone; they had help. Unwittingly, the McGovernites supplied some of that help--bungling the choice for V.P. among other moves that only paraded for all the world their unfortunate naivete (they actually believed that the plutocracy would have to allow them to succeed if they had the votes).

Help came from other places as well. The Humphrey-Meany-Daley axis of evil--the Democratic Party's "old guard"--painted McGovern as a Communist sympathizer. Meany used his position as President of the AFL-CIO to ensure that McGovern was robbed of the support of organized labor--recall that Archie Bunker was a union man. Archie was an archetypal figure.

And there was help from another place as well: that by now familiar figure in American politics, the "lone gunman." In this case, the "lone gunman" was one Arthur Bremer, an unemployed dishwasher from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Bremer appears to have stalked both Richard Nixon and George Wallace before settling on Wallace. Out of work and from a working class family, he somehow managed to follow the two candidates to various places in the U.S. and Canada, occasionally staying in posh hotels (like New York's Waldorf) though, by the time he shot Wallace, he was living in his car.

As a 3rd party candidate, Wallace had no chance of winning the Presidency--it is a "2-party system" after all. What he could do, however, was siphon off some of the white racist southern votes that Nixon was counting on to build a comfortable electoral margin over McGovern. Consequently, Wallace had to go.

On May 15, 1972, Arthur Bremer, at point-blank range, emptied his pistol into Wallace's mid-section. Four bullets entered Wallace. Three other individuals in the crowd were also shot.

Assuming six bullets, the math is somewhat curious.

Be that as it may, Wallace was safely out of the race. Nixon is on tape discussing the possibility of having one of his henchmen plant McGovern campaign literature in Bremer's apartment. But it wasn't necessary.

The American "2-party (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) system" works like a casino. You may win a few rounds, but when the real deal is on the line, you will never beat the house.

We need a non-violent people's revolution to force a Constitutional convention that would create a genuine democracy in these Benighted States. But before that happens, there must be a moral revolution because, frankly, the American people today wouldn't know what to do with a real democracy. And why should we? We've never actually had one.

War is Inevitable...

...so long as there continue to be those among us who stand to profit handsomely from it. And it is a large percentage of the economy that does so in these Benighted States in this Year of our Follies, 2007. From the tank manufacturer to the tank operator; from the shareholder in the tank manufactory to that shareholder's barber and chauffeur. We must therefore convert our entire economy from a warfare basis to a peacefare basis. The old economist's dialectic of "guns and butter" needs to be replaced. How about "bread, butter, and universal health care"? If these were the decisions we had to agonize over, what a wonderful world it would be.

One Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

A Model Constitution

God did not write the U.S. Constitution but, for some reason, most Americans are under the mistaken impression that She did.

No, no, no. Human beings--white propertied males to be specific--wrote the U.S. Constitution. They did the best they could at the time, but times have changed. The Bush Administration is demonstrating to us daily how the Constitution can be treated with contempt by those who publicly swore to uphold it. What's more, those who are holding the Constitution in contempt are able to do so with impunity.

Because the Republicrat-Democan Mono-party/Politburo has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be the fox watching the chicken coop, we cannot trust it to impeach (much less turn over for criminal prosecution) those who daily ignore the law of the land. We, the people, must remove them from power--Constitutionally.

Here's how: since it is obvious that neither the Executive Branch or Congress gives a fig about the Constitution, it shouldn't upset them if the people exercise their right under the 9th Amendment to re-write a Constitution for our time:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

We are fortunate in the fact that the people, yes, the people won't have to re-invent the wheel in this matter. There are plenty of good models in use throughout the world at the present time.

Here is one example. Given our past history, the people, yes, the people of the United States will need to craft language that will make it a crime to profit from "public service." The "revolving door" that Richard Cheney and the Bush family (among many, many others) have used to their personal financial advantage will have to be nailed shut. But this is law, not rocket science. I would be happy to contribute my services to the country, free of charge.

The America that we hold in our hearts, the America that, as the late, great Richard Rorty put it, is dedicated to reducing the tendency of its citizens to selfishness and sadism, of grasping and striking, of Haliburton and Gitmo, of K-Street and Abu Ghraib, is only a Constitutional Convention away...

Annals of Criminality

The Federal Government's, that is. When Jose Padilla was arrested in May 2002, it was obvious that his only crime was that he had the temerity to convert to Islam. He was also easy pickings because he was a poor brown man--the specialty of state and federal prosecutors all across this broad and racist land. Poor brown men are favored by prosecutors because they rarely possess the means, mobility, or education to properly defend themselves against a criminal charge. Now with Due Process essentially suspended in the case of anyone charged with a crime where the Christo-Fascist mantra "Islamic Terrorism" may be invoked, getting convictions should be like shooting fish in a barrel. Well, it should be. The only problem is that juries today--despite being composed largely of white suburban housewives and retired business executives (the compliant bourgeoisie)--still expect to see something thrown at the wall and called "evidence." After all, they are sure to have watched, on average, a minimum of 50 hours per juror of "Law and Order." So they have a vague notion of what a trial might, in theory, involve.

Notice in Alex Lantier's perceptive article that the Feds are back to using the "secret code language" ploy that was used by the prosecution in the trial of the fall-guys for the World Trade Center bombings in the mid-90's. I remember reading about that in an article in Newsweek at the time--incredulous that anyone would attempt to make such an argument in a court of law and aghast to discover that it seemed to work. Before he passed away, I had an opportunity to talk to the late, great William Kunstler about the case. He said he had never seen so scurrilous a prosecution in his life--and he had seen a lot of them.

This 4th of July, I'll be wearing my yellow crescent t-shirt in solidarity with the victims of Christo-Fascism the world over.