Isn't THAT the truth??? Perfectly said.

Exactly - it's death of a thousand cuts. Very powerful post.

I like his discussion of the "burden of self-deception grown too heavy." Judging from the posts by some of the true believers, that burden is approaching the breaking point for some of them. They make some extreme, over the top statement, such as defending without qualification, the NSA, and when confronted with well documented facts, twist and turn and race off in another direction. I tried, patiently, today, to respond to each of the twists and turns (because none of them were solid) to pin the person down, and was accused of "weaseling out" of my previous responses. Psychologists define that as "projection".

Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world.

This is what has always haunted me most when I read it. The distance between us and the Gov't continues to grow. This was bad during Bushco, and it's not any better under the Obama Admin.

Too bad the part before your excerpt is also so relevant:

were not all Republicans.

Neither my rep nor my Senators can be arsed to send me even a form email when I call or email about an issue. Sure, if I want a flag that flew over the capitol, I could probably get one from them. Beyond that, dead air.

When was the last time that you know of that marching, writing, calling, emailing and the like made a single member of the House change a single position?

For just one example, so many women contacted Senators after Anita Hill testified that every Senator on the Judiciary Committee marveled about the number of calls right on national television. Many also allowed as how their wives and daughter had given them what for.

And that is the story of why Clarence Thomas never got confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Telling us to contact them and pressure them is only part of the game, to give us the illusion that we can actually impact their behavior if we try hard enough. Not buying it.

I question and poke them, not to get *them* to change, but to raise awareness among ordinary people.

The Washington group has decided they are our overlords. I raise awareness and get people to object to evil actions, because if enough people opt out of the system...no one will carry out the directives of the people in power.

They *need* us to do their evil. We don't *need* them.

And that's what I've found so disheartening about this Administration. Not that efforts to make government more accountable and less distanced from the people are thwarted at every turn; that such efforts aren't even made. Bush et al are war criminals, yet TPTB look the other way. Torture has happened, yet no serious effort is made to do anything about it. Wall Street gambles us to the brink of ruin and again, no serious efforts to punish or change them is made. We have a President who's supposed to be a Constitutional scholar, yet his response to revelations that the 4th amendment is being violated by the NSA is to strive for better PR, not a law-abiding agency.

We are running out of time to fix this.

The people in power don't think of us as equals. They think they're in a different league, not subject to laws or restrictions. They think of us as lesser creatures that need minding, like rebellious kids or pets.

That sort of "distance" is unhealthy. They're just as human as we are, just as weak and foolish as they think we are, but they have their ivory towers and mountains of money to keep them thinking otherwise.

What can you do to someone(something?) you think is inferior to you? Anything...

was not a "Constitutional Law" lecturer, as most law students understand that term.

The common understanding is that a Constitutional Law course would cover the entire Constitution, a course that typically takes a year.

Back in 2007, I originally read that he was a professor, but that got challenged. Turned out he was a lecturer. UChi, though, did say he had been offered a professorship, but he turned it down. I don't think that statement specified what courses he actually taught, though. The only controversy I recall--and I did a lot of googling back then to defend him on another board--was lecturer v. professor.

What I read on the internet more recently is that Obama actually taught equal rights and race relations, which, yes, involves parts of the Constitution, but is not a Constitutional Law course.

I take stuff on the internet with a giant grain of salt, unless I know the source. Someone did write a book about Obama's time line and resume, because no one could completely figure out the time line before the 2008 election.

The Amazon review section of that book says the same thing--race relations and equal rights. However, I figure the author of the book is a rightie, though I was not interested enough to research if my guess is correct.

So, I know of no way to know for sure if ever did teach a Constitutional Law course, unless an honest person who was at UChi at the time and in a position to know goes on the record. Or someone comes up with the old written course catalogs.


I don't think any official statement back then claimed he was a Constitutional law scholar. The Constitutional law scholars who are respected by anyone who matters have been at it, hammer and tongs, full time for years. (And they can't even agree with each other on what it means. Neither can the Supremes.)



And people thought Clinton was the Teflon President!

secret Congressional Committees, secret wars.

Yes, we do need to do that. Before, like for them, it is too late.

Boiled frogs.

The younger folks don't know any better because they have no personal history to compare it to.

and sad

peace, kp

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

'Government of the people, by the people, for the people'.

There seems to be a contradiction there.

If only we had wiped the smug look off the face of that 'aide/Rove' before he could do anymore damage to this country.

one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move.

But it's not simple to do. We have to remove the people from power who are doing this. To do that, we need consensus that the people in power are doing bad things.

We don't have that.

Btw, the non-evil people of Nazi Era Germany appreciate your understanding. I always thought it was insane that we expected people to "do something" about a rogue gov't gone wild, and that it may well happen here. Unfortunately, it did.

There are options, including one we were talking about during the Bush Admin- a new Constitutional convention, for instance, or a new economic system that they don't control. Basically, we'd have to withdraw our power from them and isolate them. It would take a broad coalition to do it, but as things get worse the option will be there.

Of course, they still have the nukes...that's a new fascism upgrade, isn't it?

If so, that's not going to happen. The ERA could not even get into the Constitution.

On the other hand, maybe you mean we simply have another revolution, defeat them and start over, --because that is what amending the Constitution in any other way would take. If that is your thought, yes, they do have nukes and missiles.

Here's what else they have.

Armed Forces of the United States, all branches

The Coast Guard

50 State militias

State police of 50 states

County and local police

Armories

Homeland Security, both in D.C. and in every state

Secret Service

CIA

FBI

DIA

NSA

All of the above being armed and trained to kill.

At least some armed people in every federal agency and probably state and local agencies too, who are also armed and trained to kill.

Plus, I bet some right wing security guards and others would fire on us in a heartbeat, too.

And that's only what I know about and off the top of my head.

I have thought very hard and I honestly believe the following to be true: I am willing to die for a cause. However, I don't have to think long and hard to know that I am not willing to die for a cause that does not have a prayer in hell, aka the proverbial hopeless cause.

So, unless you have some really very well-developed thoughts about how we don't simply get slaughtered, leaving them happier than before, your plan is just not realistic. Ditto, if you have no plan for fundraising.

Personally, I think it's all over and they've won, we just haven't reached where that takes us yet.

As I said, there are options, but we don't have a consensus that what our gov't is doing it wrong. People that believe the gov't is right is what fuels all of the forces you listed. As long as they have willing footsoldiers, they're in control.

As for the options you mentioned, I've already responded to them.

They are not going to amend the Constitution or let us start over without them or ignore them and they have plenty of firewpower to back that up and they only make themselves stronger every year.

Unless you have an option that trumps the prior sentence, it's over.

to a website that is about amending the Constitution.

I didn't know we had to agree with the posts we reply to...

and that is EXACTLY what the Security State most fears, i.e. someone from
"within the ranks" who bolts, goes public, goes BIG, with all-or-nothing energy
that is the stuff of heroes.

And this is precisely why Manning & Snowden are seen as so "dangerous".

On Edit: BIG caveat = Obama would need to have the back of any "new Smedley Butler"

would cause government or the people to do something to change conditions.


I have already said that I don't believe that even a widespread armed revolution will work. Besides, I don't see it happening anyway.

I don't think one person from within government is going to get anywhere. If it even looks like he or she might, he or she will be dead.

And I think torturing Manning and sentencing him to 37 years or whatever it was is going to deter a lot of people in the future.

Manning and Snowden were young, single guys. Someone really in a position to know something is going to have a significant other, kids and maybe grandkids. And, as I said, no person with a spouse and children is going to pull a Manning or a Snowden in light of what is happening to them.

I think thats probably how "they" got to him, once he was elected POTUS,.

everything to expose the corruption. But far too many are more worried about 'how will it make my 'team' look if I do that' so, like then, things will just keep getting worse.

Imagine if, instead of smearing the messengers, we focused on the message and let those in power know they can't count on 'team players' anymore. Because without that support they couldn't keep doing what they are doing. They count on the 'teams players', both of them, to keep them going.

Germany did have messengers, very courageous messengers, but most of them ended up dead. Too bad they didn't get the necessary overwhelming support they should have had. History might have looked a lot different. But those messengers were called 'traitors' 'enemies of the Fatherland', smeared to the point where no one dared defend them.

are the product of my thoughts and imaginings.

I think it's too late.

Abandoning the red team blue team paradigm is fine, but that is not going to take back the country.

Or just continue chatting?

Our kids will bear the consequences of our decisions.

Vote and work for those that you ideologically align with.

Do not vote or work for those that you are not aligned with.

Live with the consequences.


How hard is that?

This is what I will do.

For us, I don't think there is realistic solution.

No one said it would be comfortable.

I've said upthread that I am willing to die for the cause of anything that has even a slim possibility of working. However, as I also said upthread, I thought a long time and discussed elsewhere a long time; and, so far, I don't think there is a thing we can do that has even a slim possibility of working.

If you have something specific in mind--besides amending the Constitution or armed revolution--which I have addressed upthread, I would love to hear about it and hope you will pm me with it.

Amending the Constitution, the only viable path to real change is rebellion. I'm old, but I can and will fight if necessary. I don't think it will be an issue because too many American citizens won't fight. They'll continue their blind lives.

The biggest variable(s) I see that could force change, are the "Perfect Storm" of economic crisis, environmental crisis, and resource crisis.

Those issues will force change. My "conspiracy theory" side has wondered before if the 1% know something they're not sharing with the rest of us. Don't want to stir up the proles...

I was going to PM you, but an open discussion is, IMHO, desirable, and better.

thinking back over the last 20+ years, I really fear for this country. More specifically, my grandchildren.

It chaps my ass when people say "we aren't that bad- look at Russia, China, etc". If you say that that is the direction we are heading, you get accused of using hyperbole.

It is excruciating to be in that category. You're put on the defensive by people on all sides. You're pretty much alone except for those who call you names and belittle your concerns. Welcome to my world.

Knowledge without the power to act is an extreme amount of pain. I've always been leery about the idea of the power of one person to change the world. It takes a great many people to do so, even if all of the attention is focused on a few individuals.