Posts filed under 'FICTIONAL FREEDOM'
August 10th, 2007
BY Joel S. Hirschhorn author of Delusional Democracy and Friends of the Article V Convention
All over the Internet are sincere efforts to reform and improve America’s political-government system. The downside is fragmentation of the subpopulation that has escaped brainwashing, cultural distraction, and self-delusion. Strategy solidarity is missing, but is possible.
Millions of discontent, dissident and truly patriotic Americans see our federal government as corrupt and untrustworthy, disrespectful of our Constitution, under the grip of moneyed interests, subservient to corporate and globalization elites, unresponsive to the needs of ordinary people, and very much on the wrong track. But they are not united.
This subpopulation no longer believes that electing different Democrats or Republicans will turn around the nation. Many have stopped voting. Some believe violent revolution is necessary. Some think that only national economic disaster will produce necessary change. Most find hope in a particular reform strategy that has attracted their attention and respect. However, so many reform efforts reduce prospects for success.
I am talking about political-government reforms, not party reforms. Many successful websites often described as “progressive” seek changes in the Democratic Party. On the political right others hope to reform the Republican Party. Party reform is not the same as reversing the many declines in American democratic institutions. Devotees of popular sites like dailykos.com, moveon.org and huffingtonpost.com, for example, still believe that electing different Democrats is the solution, while true dissidents have given up on that. Being passionately anti-Bush/Cheney does not change their loyalty to the two-party system.
For the dissident subpopulation, fragmentation impedes building a critical mass that can precipitate a tipping point for revolutionary change that solves systemic national problems. Fragmentation results in large measure because of the ease of creating new groups with their own websites. Dissidents align with some web group (and sometimes several), hoping and perhaps praying for success, even if they admit the probability is low.
Admittedly, our monumentally negative and complex national situation will not receive some quick magic-bullet solution. And many will argue that we need multiple strategies and that many of them are complementary. Yet the fragmentation-critical mass issue must not be ignored any longer. Especially when we acknowledge the myriad, powerful forces supporting our ugly, oppressive status quo system and their demonstrated capability over many decades to beat back serious reform attempts. Success requires solidarity. If we do not take the fragmentation problem seriously, untold numbers of micro-reform groups will remain marginalized. Just what status quo forces want.
Realistically, reaching consensus will be resisted by many reform-groups that would not be selected as the priority, solidarity option. One cannot ignore the considerable egos of activists that have energetically created a web group, and that have attained supporters - though rarely in significant numbers. They sincerely believe that their strategy is the best one and having relatively few supporters does not deter them. Many are as opposed to alternative reform strategies as those in the status quo establishment, but not all. Most celebrate their long shot status with a religious zeal bordering on obsession. We need passion for a solidarity strategy.
This requires maturity and open-mindedness from entrepreneurial activists to acknowledge that some other strategy offers more promise of wide scale success. Joining together in common cause is necessary to save our nation.
Umbrella Strategy: What we can strive for is that many reform advocates can support another strategy that does not contradict or oppose their own one. In seeking a solidarity strategy, we want the capacity to serve as an umbrella movement that ultimately can assist others to succeed or at least fairly compete against each other for public support.
Unlikely Mass Action: The solidarity strategy should not be dependent on changing the behavior of enormous numbers of people. Many sincere groups believe that millions of converts will change more than their thinking or values - they will change their behavior. They trust that their information stimulus will produce their desired response. One group aims at convincing people to have only one child per couple as the planet-wide solution. Another preaches voting out incumbents. Another wants supporters for replacing our representative democracy with direct democracy - despite being antithetical to our constitutional republic framework. Such micro-movements hope that true believers will voluntarily choose to behave in the desired fashion. But how can one person confidently believe that millions of others will behave likewise? Such groups typically exist for years despite no objective evidence that their message is causing millions of people to behave similarly.
Unlikely Lawmaking: Many other groups, such as those pursuing specific electoral reforms, base success on Congress eventually passing the desired law. But if we are talking about profound reforms, passage is unlikely. Powerful moneyed interests spend whatever is necessary to preserve the status quo through lobbying and campaign funding. Getting dissidents to send letters to members of Congress, sign petitions and participate in street protests are tactics that rarely succeed against the corrupt power of money. Moreover, many of these groups pursue beneficial but narrow reforms that will not profoundly change our system. Note that I am not talking about worthy issue-specific actions that often mobilize large numbers, such as the recent success to kill the attempt to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and as yet unsuccessful attempts to impeach Bush and Cheney, stop the Iraq war, and stop globalization.
It comes to this: Is there a solidarity strategy for achieving deep reforms? Yes. Some time ago I anguished over the decision to dedicate my time, energy and money to a movement that I had researched and concluded had the capacity to produce many major reforms. An Article V convention could be the successful solidarity strategy. The Framers of our Constitution created this option exactly because they anticipated the loss of public confidence in the federal government. That day has arrived.
This strategy is a clear constitutional right. An Article V convention, moreover, would provide a legal venue for consideration of many possible amendments. Indeed, when I examined countless reform groups, the clearer it became that many goals could be instituted through constitutional amendments - our ultimate lawmaking opportunity.
Why so many failed attempts to get an Article V convention? Powerful groups on the political left and right had opposed the convention. They wanted to retain their ability to greatly influence public policy and feared a convention that circumvented all three branches of the federal government. The great hypocrisy was that those professing to honor and love our Constitution opposed using exactly what our Constitution offers us.
I first wondered why Congress had not proposed an amendment to remove the convention option. But then I realized that Congress has chosen to conceal its opposition to a convention. But two of our greatest presidents backed it: Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
I linked up with other conventionists and now we have a major web presence for Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org. We are nonpartisan and will not endorse specific amendments. We have shown the potential for wide scale success by achieving remarkable rapid growth in membership in just a few months and have begun building state chapters.
If you are a true dissident looking for major political-government reforms come with an open mind to our website. Access a wealth of information and analysis that refute any fears you may have about a convention (because of propaganda from anti-conventionists). If you have a reform group or are committed to one and can envision a constitutional amendment to reach your goal, consider affiliate membership for your group.
In solidarity there is strength. Much strength is needed to meet our common reform goal of restoring American democracy and rebuilding a trustworthy government.
August 9th, 2007
BY Joel S. Hirschhorn author of Delusional Democracy and Friends of the Article V Convention
We no longer can trust Congress to impeach and remove a terrible president. The Washington Post has published an op-ed piece by Robert Dallek that proposes a constitutional amendment to allow “ouster by the people” for removing a president other than by impeachment or because of incapacity. Considering the dismal performance of George W. Bush and his administration and the difficulty in obtaining impeachment, this is a fine idea.
Here are the main features of the amendment: The recall procedure would begin by obtaining a 60 percent vote in the Senate and House. Public pressure on Congress could help it shift decisionmaking to the electorate. Congressional support would initiate a national referendum that would be open to all eligible voters in state elections. Clearly, it should be done fairly quickly. The ballot would simply offer the choice of voting “yes” or “no” to the option of removing the president and vice president from office immediately. If the majority votes in favor of removal, then the Speaker of the House would become president and choose a vice president who would have to be confirmed by majorities in the House and Senate.
These are solid ideas that would add a much needed dose of direct democracy that would hold presidencies more accountable to Congress and the general public than any constitutional mechanism now available.
There must be limits in a functional and fair representative democracy to what a president can do. Bush has more than demonstrated that the presidency has become much too powerful, able to undermine our Constitution and the rule of law, sell out our national sovereignty, put us in incredible debt, waste American lives, and walk all over Congress.
There are 18 states that have a recall process for sitting governors. So this notion is not absurd. Interestingly, in only two cases have governors been removed through citizen action: In North Dakota in 1921, and more recently in California in 2003. Recall works, but has not been used frivolously.
As Dallek correctly concluded: “The nation should be able to remove by an orderly constitutional process any president with an unyielding commitment to failed policies and an inability to renew the country’s hope.” Amen.
The removal process has the distinct advantage of not immobilizing Congress when it pursues impeachment. More important, removing a president through a national referendum that involves many millions of citizens, rather than simply through members of Congress, makes incredible sense. If we the people really are sovereign, then we should have the constitutional right to remove a president.
Sadly, Dallek did not also support using a mechanism already in our Constitution to propose amendments that are unlikely to come from Congress. Our Founders placed in Article V the option of having a national convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. Only one specific requirement is given and that has been met, but Congress has refused to call an Article V convention, though more than two-thirds of state legislatures have asked for one and even though Article V says that it “shall” do so.
If Congress has refused to honor Article V and give we the people what we have a constitutional right to - an amendment convention operating outside the control of Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, then it seems unlikely to propose a new amendment that would give the nation a national referendum to remove a president and vice-president. Each of the two major parties will fear that someone of their party could be removed from office and that a Speaker from the other party might become president.
Pressure could be mounted now on Congress to obtain the new amendment for removing a president or it could be mounted on Congress to obey the current Constitution and give us an Article V convention. Choosing the second option has the huge advantage that by obtaining the nation’s first Article V convention we would also have the opportunity to consider other sensible amendments. Fears of an Article V convention have been nurtured over the decades by groups now wielding power over Congress through lobbying and campaign contributions. Such fears are nonsense. Whatever an Article V convention proposes must be ratified in exactly the same way that all proposals from Congress are ratified.
The second point, therefore, in favor of working in favor of an Article V convention is that Congress has also largely failed we the people. Making it obey Article V and give the nation an alternative means of national discussion of possible constitutional amendments that a corrupt Congress will never propose makes all the sense in the world. For example, there is serious attention being given to the idea of electing Supreme Court Justices, rather than continue allowing political considerations to choose them. But neither major party would want to lose its power to shape the court, so that amendment will not be proposed by Congress.
Learn more about the Article V convention at www.foavc.org. Friends of the Article V Convention has the sole mission of obtaining the nation’s first convention and will not support any specific amendment. But every group that now advocates some type of political or government reform that could be obtained through a constitutional amendment should join and support this umbrella group.
August 5th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
Iran and Nicaragua in barter deal.
Yes, the above article is written in 2007. Yes, Daniel Ortega is the president of Nicaragua. Yes, this is the same Ortega who was the head of the Sandinistas. So, it is not too surprising that U.S. policy has (not) shifted so much that Ortega might have “strained” relations with the United States - particularly when you throw in warming relations with Iran.
Perhaps you remember the “little embarrassment” known as the Iran-Contra Affair? Reagan wanted to fund the rebel Contras in Nicaragua and the Congress told him “No.” Not being satisfied with Constitutional constraints, he authorized a little covert deal whereby the U.S. sold weapons to Iran and used the proceeds to fund the Contra rebels.
[There was also the business of drug deals and shipping cocaine into the United States for sale in poor and predominantly African American neighborhoods in Los Angeles, but that is another story for another day (see Gary Webb’s Dark Alliance: The Story Behind the Crack Explosion).]
So here we are in 2007 with Iran and Nicaragua formally establishing relations with each other. After all, in 1987 they didn’t know that they were in business with each other. Of course, Saddam Hussein likely didn’t know that while he was receiving support from the U.S. for keeping Iran in “check,” that the U.S. was also arming his (and supposedly the United States’) sworn enemy.
One has to wonder whose U.S. “interests” will prevail in 2007. Dèjá vu with a bit of a twist?
Other Pertinent Resources
Nicaragua U.S. State Department
Nicaragua. Barry & Honey. FPIF. Vol 2:32, 1997.
A Country Study: Nicaragua. Library of Congress. Library of Congress Call Number F1523 .N569 1994
July 31st, 2007
BY Joel S. Hirschhorn author of Delusional Democracy and Friends of the Article V Convention
The latest bipartisan George Washington University Battleground Poll rightfully received media attention because of its depressing data. There is historic political pessimism and cynicism. But something is more troubling than the data on the dire views of Americans about their elected representatives and government. It is that 72 percent of voters still believe that “voting gives people like me some say about how the government runs things.” Unbelievable! Such confidence in a system that has failed them.
Despite untrustworthy elected officials and a dysfunctional government that takes care of the Upper Class more than everyone else, Americans retain still believe in their democracy. This logical absurdity – or delusional state – is best explained by avoidance of the pain of cognitive dissonance. Americans resist the reality that they are living in a sham representative democracy where the rule of law is a growing fiction.
It should be noted (but was not in the media coverage) that 75 percent of the likely voters were 45 or older, with a third retired. That makes the results even more unsettling. They should know better than to keep believing they can vote the nation into a better condition. Self-identified Republicans were 41 percent, Democrats 42 percent, and Independents 15 percent.
Consider these reasons for giving up on voting and elections under the grip of the two major parties: Some 53 percent have an unfavorable view of politicians, with 55 percent believing that most elected officials are untrustworthy. A majority of 52 percent disapproves of the performance of the Democrats in Congress and 61 percent disapprove of Republicans there. An incredible 93 percent feels that lawmakers in Washington put partisan politics first compared with citizens. But the biggest shift in voter opinion is that 71percent think their own Member of Congress puts partisan politics first compared with them, with 63 percent feeling strongly that way.
For the big picture: Seventy-percent are now convinced that the country is off on the wrong track – and 58 percent feel strongly that way. This is the worst score recorded in the history of the Battleground survey. Democrats are universally agreed about this point, but so are 71 percent of Independents and 49 percent of Republicans.
A plurality of 38 percent believes their children will be worse off in the future and only a third said they “think their own children will be better off than they are right now — a drop of 7 points since January.” Pessimism is worst among white Americans: Only 29 percent believe that their children will be better off; 38 percent believe their children will be worse off.
Dan Balz of the Washington Post summed up: “the American people have entered this campaign with a wholly cynical view of the political process.”
One trick of the political status quo establishment to keep many Americans (but still less than about half of all eligible voters) believing in voting is advertising. Consider the current crowded presidential primary season. The mass media constantly work to play up the races among Democratic and Republican contenders. Why not? They make a ton of money from all the money spent on campaign advertising. Televised debates and endless state and national poll data are entertainment that fuel fake competition. It is sheer manipulation of the electorate – to keep them interested in the election and, worse, to keep them believing that it really matters who wins in each party.
In the end, greedy and arrogant power elites will ensure that only a “safe” candidate will be chosen so that the two-party duopoly loses no power and no presidency rocks the political boat or harms corporate America. Having so many contenders in the primary season is a farce. The eventual Democratic ticket will be Clinton and Obama. Period. End of story. It is the lowest risk, smartest political strategy. On the Republican side there is more uncertainty, but the likely ticket will be Giuliani and Thompson.
The true wildcard is whether Michael Bloomberg enters the race as a third party candidate. I am rooting for this. Objective statistical analysis of the American electorate shows that the level of public discontent with Democrats and Republicans is so high that a lavishly funded campaign by Bloomberg can make history. Take independents, turned-off Democrats and Republicans, and the huge numbers of eligible voters that do not usually vote. Bang! You have more than enough votes to make Bloomberg president. By choosing a well known but political maverick that the public trusts as a running mate, he can win. It is exactly the kind of shake-up our political system desperately needs.
Americans must awake from their political stupor and stop letting themselves be victimized and manipulated by the media/political/financial elites running and ruining our nation.
July 29th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
Our old friend Mikhail Gorbachev is accusing BushCo of creating chaos to extend an empire. The question is whose empire and to what end? The empire that BushCo and the neo-cons are pushing is an empire of corporate and economic hegemony - only protected and advanced by the military power of the United States.
More…
The headlines today trumpet a $20 billion arms package to Saudi Arabia (and NY Times, 7/28/07). There are even more billions in deals for other Gulf States and Israel. The weapons packages include the so-called “smart bombs” and other high tech weaponry. It should come as no surprise that some see the U.S. as a provocateur to an arms race from which it (or at least the arms industry) benefits hugely. Of course, it also legitimates increasing spending and escalation of the U.S. “defense” budget as well.
Business as usual.
The arms deal runs side by side with the accusation that Saudi Arabia is economically contributing to the Sunni fighters in Iraq, and doing nothing to stop Saudi fighters from joining the Iraq fray. Nor is the corporate media so “rude” as to note that the majority of the 9/11/01 suicide group were from Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has a long term vested interest in supporting the House of Saud, and no interest runs deeper than that with the House of Bush.
While it has faded from the news, there was the incentive money that Britain paid to Prince Bandar Bin Sultan for the BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Yes, Prince Bandar, also sometimes referred to as “Bandar Bush,” whose facilitation fee of $2 billion was traced back to the U.S. banks. Of course there are no hard feelings over such dealings - nor limitations on the financial activities of Bandar Bush.
Other Articles on the BAE Deal
US to probe BAE over corruption. BBC, 6/26/07.
The Bandar cover-up: who knew what, and when?. David Leigh & Rob Evans. Guardian, 6/09/07.
BAE accused of secretly paying £1bn to Saudi prince. David Leigh & Rob Evans. Guardian, 6/07/07.
July 28th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
In Refusal to Testify - Hubris or Cover-up?, I felt that the refusal of the White House to release documents on the firing of U.S. attorneys, and the no-show of Bolten and Miers, was probably equally hubris and cover up. After watch “Now” last night, I am shifting much more heavily towards cover up.
Image from Politico.com via Common Cause
The program discussed voter caging as well as an interview with David Iglesias who was one of the dismissed attorneys. Iglesias stated that he had been pressured to investigate possible “voting fraud” each election cycle. Ultimately when neither he nor the FBI found any, there was displeasure that he was not being aggressive enough and he was dismissed. He felt that the activities of the administration in caging and attempting to manipulate voting outcomes was criminally illegal, and this was like part of the memoranda and documentation that the White House was refusing to release. It should be noted that Iglesias is not some “flaming liberal,” but a long time Republican.
Greg Palast was also interviewed. Palast has been on the vote manipulation issue since the 2000 election (). He was also on the story when Karl Rove’s assistant, Timothy Griffin, was selected to replace the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin had been in charge of the Republican caging operation. This points the issue of illegal caging and the firing of U.S. attorneys directly into the heart of the White House. In other words, there is not just smoke but a raging fire behind all the bluff, denial, refusal, and spin.
Given this situation, it seems even more remarkable that Bolten and Miers would refuse a subpoena. They could certainly play the game that has become so standard from Bush loyalists - lousy memory - or failing that - executive privilege or national security. That would seem to be less of an egregious offense than simply not showing up. So perhaps there is a fair portion of hubris thrown into the mix. Perhaps it is a blatant statement of “we broke the law, are breaking the law, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.”
July 26th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
There are those who are trying to minimize the issue of the firing of the U.S. attorneys as political comedy, and no big deal. It is a very big deal when the Department of Justice becomes an arm of politics rather than an arm of justice. Gonzales has testified repeatedly that he “doesn’t know” or “can’t remember.” Certainly a stonewalling technique. Bush then extended executive privilege to White House staff so they would not testify. Now the two highest ranked staffers subpoenaed have refused to even show up to testify before Congress. Is this just a flaunting of executive power, or is there a cover up?
Stacking the Department of Justice with political loyalists damages us all. That appears to be the purpose of the dismissal of U.S. prosecutors by Gonzales (who “doesn’t remember” most of his tenure thus far). The fact that an administration that has huffed and puffed about politics from the court is doing everything within its power to politicize those very courts is beyond hypocritical. Of course, the side benefits of the strategic replacements are also self-serving.
While arguing that the President has every right to hire and fire U.S. Attorneys, the administration has acted as if their hand was caught in the cookie jar. After all, if they have done nothing wrong, then why not be completely open about the process? Isn’t that what they tell us the citizenry about the loss of our privacy protections?
Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, and former Bush legal counsel and Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, were covered under an extension of executive privilege early in July. That executive privilege does not exempt them from a subpoena from the Judiciary Committee of Congress. They must show up, even if they decline to answer certain questions under the cover of executive privilege. To not show up at all signals contempt, even if the full Congress does not vote for contempt charges.
From the beginning of his tenure in 2000, George W. Bush and his administration have attempted to sculpt the office of the President under the principle of the “Unitary Executive.” Essentially, this principle follows that the Executive Branch has all power without oversight or check. Clearly this is not what is laid out in the U.S. Constitution. However, it is the theory under which the Bush administration has operated even before the events of September 11, 2001. The current extension of executive privilege to an area where there is no legitimate reason for such protection is spitting in the face of Congress, the Constitution, and the people once again.
So is there something to hide here - as there is with “Scooter” Libby - or is this just a matter of “principle?” The “principle” being the complete disregard of Constitutional limits on the Executive Branch of government?
It is difficult to say whether the involvement of the White House in the politicizing of the Justice Department would look unseemly (if not illegal), or whether the refusal of the administration to openness and oversight is driving the current move. However, the “offers” made by the White House are typical. Bush has offered that the staff may be interviewed in private, off the record, and not under oath. You might remember that was the same path taken when Bush and Cheney agreed to meet with the 9/11 Commission instead of testifying publicly under oath.
Why are they so adverse to testifying under oath? Why do they keep offering these little “chats” to clear things up? Do they think that “we the people” are so stupid that we do not recognize the difference between legal testimony and a conversation behind closed doors? Do they think that we are so somnolent, that we don’t realize the implications of political hacks in charge of enforcing the nation’s laws? Even more to the point, do our elected representatives think that we are fooled by the political shenanigans being pulled?
This obfuscation needs to be stopped and stopped now. The Executive Branch needs to be brought back within Constitutional bounds now.
For those who are on the “conservative” side of the fence, this is not simply a partisan issue. Do you really want “liberals” operating under the powers and scope that George Bush has carved out for the Executive Branch of government? I don’t. There must be a system of checks and balances or we are no longer the nation that we think we are. Instead, we are a dictatorship with a toothless Congress and Judiciary.
July 26th, 2007
By: Phil Rockstroh
In this summer of angst and grim foreboding about what further assaults against common sense and common decency the Bush Administration might inflict upon the people of the world, how many times during the day do those of us — still possessed of mind, heart and conscience — take pause, hoping we’ve seen the worst of it, then, fearing we haven’t yet, attempt to push down the dread rising within us, so that we might simply make it through the day and be able to rest at night? Accordingly, those who have been paying attention are aware that the outward mechanisms of martial law are in place. We shudder knowing that Bush has issued an executive decree that grants him dictatorial power in the event of some nebulously defined national emergency. In addition, the knowledge nettles us that a vast network of internment camps bristle across the length of the U.S., standing at wait for those who might raise objections to the fascistic fury unloosed by the American empire’s version of the Reichstag fire.
Moreover, a closer look would reveal that the inner processes by which an individual begins the act of acceptance of authoritarian excess — the mixture of chronic passivity, boredom, low grade anxiety and unfocused rage inherent in the citizens/consumers of the corporate state that primes an individual for fascism — have been in place for quite some time within the psyches of the American populace, both elites and hoi polloi alike. Although, don’t look for torch-lit processions thronging the nation’s streets and boulevards; rather, look for a Nuremberg Rally of couch-bound brownshirts. Instead of ogling the serried ranks of jut-jawed, SS soldiers, a contemporary Leni Riefenstahl would be forced to film chubby clusters of double-chinned consumers, saluting the new order with their TV remotes. In the contemporary United States, the elation induced by the immersion of one’s individual will to the mindless intoxication of the mob might only be possible, if Bush seized dictatorial control of the state while simultaneously sending out to all citizens gift certificates to Ikea.
After the catastrophes spawned by the rise of European fascism in the 1930s, a number of brilliant, original thinkers (including Hannah Arendt, Roberto Freire, Wilhelm Reich, and R. D. Laing) set out to study the phenomenon in order to learn how future calamities might be prevented. Although the methodologies and conclusions of these thinkers varied, each noted that alienation and dehumanization festered at the core of the death urge of fascism.
Nowadays, in contrast, the elites of the corporate media have proven themselves useless in this regard, believing, as they do, they constitute the thin line between the rabble at large (me and you) and the chaos begot by freedom. At present, mega-churches attract alienated suburbanites. Right wing talk show hosts misdirect their listeners alienation towards so-called illegal “aliens” and exploit their audience’s sense of powerlessness (created by the rigged system of corporate capitalism) against elitist liberals (who themselves, ironically, benefit from the present system and who only want to change it to the degree that their own privilege will not be affected. In other words, not at all).
Combine the above with the American character trait of being hostile towards introspection and it becomes evident that the present disaster has been building for quite a while now. And it can (and most likely will) get worse — far worse.
Most Americans alive today have been trained since birth to adapt to and serve the corrupt corporate structure by means of the shunning of critical thinking and have been conditioned to be in constant (empty) motion or in the thrall of mass media distraction. We have been taught that passivity is for losers, yet we find ourselves nearly powerless before the corporate/consumer/military/police/entertainment state. In this way, we serve our corporate masters; it serves the corpocracy that the lower orders refuse meaningful self-awareness. If one were to glimpse one’s own illusions, then it follows one might begin to question collective delusions — and this would upset the social order.
Those who have studied the dangers of authoritarian rule have advised us to be wary of people who carry an inner emptiness. Of course, these unfortunates yearn for the void to be filled. But with their hearts and minds mortared closed — what makes it through the self-constructed prison is loud, stupid, and fascistic. At present, what penetrates is: Fundamentalist Sermons on Armageddon; violent video games; the empty spectacle of steroid-induced professional sports hype; the lethal fantasies of American exceptionalism; the exercise in Rock and Roll imperialism that U.S. foreign policy has become. In short, all the banal Sturm and Drang necessary to pierce those protective walls and penetrate the pervasive inner emptiness.
When the people of a culture have been conditioned to worship power — but feel powerless — there’s trouble ahead. The elites must displace the public’s rage by a demagogic sleight-of-hand such as the demonization of marginalized groups. In the US, we’ve been inundated by years of state and commercial propaganda that has degraded and demonized the country’s permanent underclass by the labeling of them as welfare parasites and career criminals.
It has been noted that the mindset, methods, and procedures of America’s punitive, profit-driven prison-industrial complex was a prototype for the systemic cruelty of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib; furthermore, it is a given that those institutional affronts to human decency will have served as prototypes for the methods and procedures that will be practiced upon those who are swept-up in the purges and detainment mania following the declaration of martial law in the United States.
We push this knowledge away from us, fearing we will be paralyzed by its crushing implications. Worse, what is nearly impossible to admit is, most likely, the system crushed us long ago. Apropos, R. D. Laing averred that being able to adapt and function within an insane, authoritarian system renders one for all practical purposes insane — only insane in a manner acceptable to a power mad ruling elite.
This is the knowledge we push down, every hour of everyday. Otherwise, we would be driven to admit outright that the system has crushed our individual hopes, aspirations and yearnings. We must, at all costs, keep these feelings concealed; otherwise, we might be compelled to contemplate what we have forsaken, what passions and truths we have traded away for the false sense of security that the corporate order offered us when we tacitly agreed to surrender what was most sacred, vital and alive within us. One psychological manifestation of this phenomenon is the incessant chanting of that mantra of the American corporate workforce: “I’m not my job. I’m not what I do all day long.”
For a moment, meditate on the calamity implicit in such a sentiment. Because If we cannot locate and engage our true selves during our waking hours — then who the hell are we anyway? This is a profoundly troubling circumstance. Moreover, if we’ve condemned our daylight selves to a void of non-being, what then remains of us?
We experience this dislocation of the life force as a sense of nebulous dread. Everything, these days, the architecture and accouterment of our lives seems so fragile and unreal; it feels as if everything could just fly apart, at any given moment. The world and our place in it seems so flimsy: an empire built of eggshells; it could all shatter in an instant.
Living on credit, the house of cards of the real estate market, jobs evaporating, most of us languishing only a couple of paychecks away from ruin: The empire is coming undone. As it is, it seems the nation is only being held together with hydrogenated fat, wheat gluten, over-extended credit and particle board. Ergo, there is one law the lawless Bush administration and their keepers from the plundering class cannot flout: the second law of thermodynamics. They won’t be able to claim executive privilege to avoid the consequences of negative entropy.
In a similar vein, we, the underlings of empire, stand helpless before the prevailing madness. Individual reason rarely acts as a countervailing force to stem a drowning tide of cultural cognitive dissonance. Because the more epic and all-compassing the mistake, the more epic and all-encompassing come the rationalizations, the scapegoating and the compulsion for do-overs. If the surge isn’t working as fantasized, then we’ll double-dog surge you and then bomb Iran. If police state tactics fail to alleviate a sense of anxiety, then we must construct more detainment camps, more maximum security prisons, enact more federal death penalty statutes. “Bring back the electric chair; being put to sleep, like stray pets, is too good for the traitors,” the mob will rage. That’s the solution, but (cognitive dissonance being what it is) we need to go bigger — we need an electric sofa — yet, bigger still — an electric dining room set! “Aahh … the smell of deep-fried dissidents in the morning.”
And over the smoking corpses, let us pray. We need to pray for … what? … more prayer. These prayers would work, the homicidally faithful will insist — if every single doubter was induced to drop to their knees and pray. Hence, we need prayer in the public schools. We need prayer on public transportation. We need prayer in public restrooms!
Animus, ignorance, and magical thinking are a tragic mix — and I’m afraid that vintage of mind is the hideous wine of our times. The social criteria that gives rise to fascism is in place in the U.S. and those in positions of power have a strong interest in seeing things remain that way. All we can do is what folks (a minority) have always done … exile or resistance.
In my opinion, both are honorable. The other options are varying degrees of “little Eichmann[ism]” — Ward Churchill’s much scorned, career purge-inducing — but never-the-less accurate phrase. If one does the “soul work,” to appropriate archetypal psychologist James Hillman’s term, it is still possible to resist complicity. Training yourself to avoid lying for provisional gain is a time honored means of prevented alliances with exploitive assholes. They will avoid you, fire you, curse your name from the darkness of their inner abyss — but this will solve the problem of dependance on them — and you’ll be forced to live by other means. Generally, one is more adaptable than one believes.
Keep yourself as healthy and as sane as possible: we’re going to need you around after the inevitable collapse of the present system. Also, beware of those reductionist demons of the mind who diminish the soul-making possibilities of “mere” words. The acts of writing and reading are seen as passive; to crackpot realists, these activities seem useless, unproductive — the feckless indulgences of a class of the thin-wristed effete.
Accordingly, Americans have all but ceased reading. Worse, they displace their feelings of self-loathing borne of their own corporately induced passivity upon writers and thinkers. If the tenets of democratic discourse are to survive, it is imperative that writers and thinkers begin to engage in a passionate defense of themselves against the kvetching armies of crackpot realists that have encircled and laid siege to our collective hearts and minds.
But don’t expect to be lauded with praise for the effort. It’s doubtful our adversaries will be moved by our entreaties: There cannot be a rapprochement with reality for those who have never had a relationship with it in the first place. Yet verbal imagery and depth-inducing insights are the DNA of compassionate engagement. It is not a coincidence that George W. Bush is an inarticulate oaf. Conversely, there are many things in this world that require being touched by words, for there are occasions when words alone can suffice to take us deep and lift us up and serve to ameliorate our alienation.
It is in this spirit that I offer the words above to you; I’m traveling light; they’re all I’m carrying with me, at this late hour, in these dark and dangerous times.
July 4th, 2007
I knew a dog named Scooter one. He had a problem with “cling-ons” when he defecated. He would then “scoot” to clean himself up. Scoot on the grass, scoot on the rug, scoot across the bed. It was effective for him, but it always left a trail. Other than that he was a very loyal dog - not mine by the way. I am strongly reminded of him when thinking about the tremendous popularity of Scooter Libby. My guess that a big part of saving his butt has to do with the trail he would leave if put in a hostile environment.
The wires are burning with the decision to commute. On one hand we hear the same rhetoric that we heard all through the trial:
he didn’t do anything wrong
he didn’t leak Plame’s name and identity
Plame wasn’t under cover anyway
What about Sandy Berger?
What about Clinton’s pardons?
Obviously these folks are operating under the same principle as the Bush administration - tell the same lie often enough and people will think it is true. Maybe it’s Rove’s strategy (who I suspect is a big “scooter”).
Rob Kall over at OpEd news did a to the point response:
Some Talking Points on Bush’s Commutation of Libby’s Sentence
Watching the conversation on Libby unfold, here are some responses to the arguments right wingers seem to be putting forward:
A jury found him guilty of OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and did not believe Libby just forgot.
Libby was prosecuted by a republican appointed prosecutor and sentenced by a republican appointed judge.
Bill Clinton was found innocent by the senate.
This was about national security– the intentional outing of a CIA agent.
Libby was protecting Cheney and probably Rove, Bush’s agent. Bush pardoned a man complicit in a crime he himself was implicated and suspected of being involved in.
Sandy Berger was found guilty of taking a few reports. Libby outed an active CIA agent. Berger didn’t receive jail time.
However, it is Keith Olbermann captured the outrage that I feel, and the depth of the betrayal by the Bush Administration. The full comment and video of the comment is available at MSNBC. Here are some excerpts from this excellent statement:
I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.
I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.
I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.
I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.
I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.
I accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.
And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.
The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, of your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the “referee” of Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s analogy. These are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.
But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush–and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal–the average citizen understands that, Sir.
It’s the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one–and it stinks. And they know it.
.
So why did Bush, the hanging Governor, who spared not one bit of mercy to criminals in Texas, find mercy in his heart of “Scooter?” Was it because Scooter might leave a stinky brown trail that led right back to Cheney - and to Bush? Or perhaps because he has been a loyal dog. Regardless, it seems more than self-serving for Bush to commute Libby’s sentence (with the possibility of a full pardon). Perhaps it is just more royal hubris from the King of the United States. The laws are up to him, and justice is his whim. Whether that justice is to give people life sentences without ever being charged, tried, or represented in a US court of law. Or whether it is to spare a buddy from the hardships of separation required for the crime he committed - obstructing an investigation into a treasonous act which had its roots high in the administration.
Bush’s argument that he “respects” the jury, but the penalty was “too harsh,” is perhaps his true perspective on telling lies and muddying the waters - even when those lies and obfuscations are a direct breach of national security and US law. Perhaps this is a trivial event to him. If so, it shows just how far he has strayed from his role as President of the United States.
June 26th, 2007
By Jason Miller
“Children are completely egoistic; they feel their needs intensely and strive ruthlessly to satisfy them.” –Sigmund Freud
Frightening as it may be, the Earth’s fate rests in the hands of children. With incredibly formidable military firepower at its disposal, the United States could catalyze Armageddon at any time. And while they may be adults chronologically, our sociopolitical structure is dominated by emotional infants.
Nietzsche once pronounced God dead. In the United States, we have a more readily demonstrable (and perhaps related) problem. Our collective id has rendered its governing superego impotent, and perhaps dead. Our prevailing moral standards, as inconsequential as they have become, are of the Jerry Falwell variety. They are mean-spirited, self-serving, judgmental, narrow-minded, selfish, and belligerent. As far as US Americans are concerned, Christ may as well have preached the Sermon on the Mount from the lowest recesses of Death Valley.
Recall that our basic drives such as libido, hunger, and aggression flow from the infantile dimension of our psyche known as the id. In terms of psychodynamics, the superego’s role is to counter-balance the irresponsible, amoral, and essentially sociopathic nature of the id with a healthy degree of conscience and guilt. Yet in the United States, we are inculcated with a deep sense of our exceptionalism and entitlement from the moment we emerge from the birth canal, thus crippling our ability to empathize and seriously impeding the development of our superego.
Consequently, conscience, guilt, personal discipline, and delaying gratification are barely extant in the toxic cesspool of our sociocultural environment.
Let’s examine some of the spiritually corrosive social forces which have molded our malleable natures in such a way that our behavior as a nation closely resembles that of a depraved miscreant:
While counseling and therapy are essential tools to heal from psychic wounds, emotional disorders, and mental illnesses, many mental health professionals offer their patients palliative “ego strokes” rather than the remedial brutal honesty and tough love they truly need. Instead of giving their clients the tools they need to heal themselves, they enable their ids to continue running rampant, unfettered by that “nasty old superego” and its “toxic guilt.”
Even those who don’t seek professional help are absolved of the pangs of conscience by the high priests and priestesses of the corporate media. Prostitutes to the establishment like Oprah pat them on the head, reassure them that their pathological self-absorption is wonderful, and tell them to further immerse their minds in pernicious idiocy by reading instruction manuals on narcissism like The Secret.
Commit a crime? No problem. We have a legal system, not a justice system. If you have money enough to hire a shrewd attorney, you are unlikely to face the consequences you deserve, regardless of the egregiousness of your crime. Unfortunately, if you don’t have money, you will face the equivalent of electrocution for stealing a loaf of bread, which means several brutal, dehumanizing years in the most populous prison industrial complex in the world for “crimes” like self-medicating to escape your already miserable circumstances.
Lack the cash to buy the $2,000.00 flat screen you “have to have” to watch the obscenely commercialized and over-hyped Super Bowl? No problem. In the advanced stages of our savage economic system, finance capital reigns supreme. There are untold thousands of lenders prepared to let you use their money, provided you agree to pay their usurious interest rates.
Want it yesterday? Not to worry. We have fast food, one hour photo, instant credit approval, movies on demand, pills to chase the blues and blue pills to give you an erection, instant coffee, microwave meals, zero down loans, and a host of other means to satisfy the relentlessly impatient demands of our ids.
Feeling bored, lonely, or depressed? Turn on the television. Fill your mind with inanity, brain candy, infotainment, and potent affirmations that your tenacious adherence to the reprehensible “American Way” is justified, patriotic, and admirable.
Need a career, training, money for college, the indoctrinated belief that you are risking your life for a noble cause, and the false security that your government will support you once they are done with you? “Join the people who have joined the Army” (or Marines, Navy, or Air Force). Our moneyed elite (desperately) need willing pawns to wage their wholesale terror operations in Iraq and elsewhere.
While it may sound a bit conspiratorial, before we go dismissing the notion that the erosion of our moral restraint (superego) has been intentionally engineered and orchestrated, let’s consider the question, “Cui bono?”
Having stunted, retarded, corralled, or in some cases, disabled the superegos of the “unwashed masses,” there is almost no end to the malevolence our sociopathic plutocracy, upper level military careerists, “religious” leaders, AIPAC, and reactionaries can commit in our names (with our overt or tacit approval) to further enrich and empower themselves.
Consider but a few examples of abominations for which we, as a nation, are responsible:
We have committed war crimes analogous to those of Nazi Germany through our pre-emptive invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. How many hundred thousand or million civilians must die before we realize that “collateral damage” is an Orwellian euphemism for mass murder?
We have long been complicit in the brutal oppression of the Palestinians. When the final Palestinian is imprisoned, obliterated, or driven out of Gaza and the West Bank will we then recognize that we facilitated an ethnic cleansing?
We employ economic tyranny and manipulation to make de facto colonies of developing nations, harvesting and consuming 25% of the world’s resources to “sustain” 5% of the world’s population. Isn’t gluttony one of the Seven Deadly Sins?
We listened to the likes of Ronald Reagan (a reactionary who never met a socially redeeming policy, law or public initiative he didn’t want to eliminate) when he moronically asserted that enacting universal health care would undoubtedly lead to “Godless Communism.” So we continue embracing a system enabling cynical wealthy elites and amoral corporations to generate outrageous profits derived from the administration of health care. As a result, there are 50 million uninsured US Americans, we have the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world, we are 37th in the world in health care quality, HMO’s and managed care entities often refuse to provide necessary medical procedures, insurance companies routinely deny claims based on technicalities, and hospitals dump indigent patients on Skid Row rather than treating them.
On the subject of indigents, how is it that a nation awash in prosperity has over a million homeless human beings on any given night? Or that cities like Orlando and Las Vegas have made homelessness a crime? How can a significant percentage of those condemned to sleep under bridges and eat from dumpsters be veterans who fought for our country? Could it be that chicken hawk ruling elites like Dick Cheney used them as cannon fodder in their wars necessitated by capitalism’s endless demand for new markets, cheaper labor, and more resources, and then disposed of them like so much rubbish when they came home?
We strong-arm developing countries into implementing neoliberal economic policies and free trade, deepening the impoverishment of their citizens to further enrich ourselves. This leaves them little choice but to migrate here, where virtually all of the money and resources are flowing. Now that 12 million “illegals” have established residence in the US, we are arrogantly preparing to perpetuate their employers’ capacity to exploit them or to implement a draconian plan to rip their families and lives apart, imprison them, and eventually send them back to the abject poverty we created.
Climate Change? We simply deny we bear an ounce of responsibility and rev up our gas-guzzling SUVs, pick-ups, and Hummers.
Yes, in spite of the extreme moral poverty reflected in the myriad wounds we continue to inflict upon the Earth and its sentient inhabitants, we have the audacity to call ourselves a Christian nation. Whether it is conscious or not, we organize our existences around the abhorrent beliefs that “it’s all about me,” “get them before they get me,” “he who dies with the most toys wins,” and “blessed are the rich, the joyous, the well-fed, the aggressive, the merciless, the heartless, and the warmongers,” thus manifesting the virtual antithesis of Christ’s teachings.
But what can you expect from a nation of unsupervised ids?
Jason Miller is a wage slave of the American Empire who has freed himself intellectually and spiritually. He is Cyrano’s Journal Online’s associate editor ( https://bestcyrano.org/) and publishes Thomas Paine’s Corner within Cyrano’s. You can reach him at
Next Posts Previous Posts
