History's Lessons

[H2O Man]

I think that two of the disagreements that keep popping up on DU:GD are closely related. I’ve noticed a few patterns that may shine a bit of light on those issues which, while they will not resolve the differences in opinions and values, are still kind of interesting.

The two issues involve: people’s opinion on the issue of voicing sincere complaints about the behavior of elected officials, including democrats, and the value of using historic figures and situations as a teaching tool. I’ve noticed a tendency for some people to think it is "wrong" to criticize any democrat, and to criticize those who use history in their attempts to support their point of view.

A couple of weeks ago, I quoted NYS Governor Mario Cuomo from his book "Diaries of Mario M. Cuomo: The Campaign for Governor," which details his run against a Reaganite in 1984. Some people criticized Cuomo because refused to say he would always support every democratic candidate. (page 148) Mario Cuomo recognized that people did not have to be Stepford Voters in order to be "good democrats," even if some others insisted otherwise.

Today, we have Elder Statesmen like Governor Cuomo reminding us that we must take a brave, principled stand against those who are posing a threat to our Constitutional democracy. Most of us can agree that President George W. Bush is using the threat of terrorism as an excuse to trample on the Bill of Rights. We know that it is important to elect a larger democratic majority, in order to reinstate The Great Writ of habeas corpus.

Yet we are unlikely to convince our progressive friends who are not registered democrats to support us on this, when we are either unwilling or unable to identify that the damage to habeas corpus began when President Clinton signed the April 1996 "Anti-Terrorism Law" that restricted habeas corpus.

See: http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/may96/terror.htm

There is also some disagreement on using history when making a point in some of the on-going discussions and debates on this forum. If Bush were to get on tv and advocate that people ignore American or world history, no one on DU would take him seriously. Of course, we would not be surprised, because the ability to understand history is obviously a skill that the president has. But that does not subtract from the value of understanding history – indeed, history is taught in our schools, our colleges, and our universities because it is extremely important for us to understand, in order to protect our Constitutional democracy.

Many of us are convinced that Bush and Cheney need to be impeached. We base our beliefs on the US Constitution, and on the rational positions advanced by many of the most intelligent democratic thinkers in the country today. We base much of our opinion on our nation’s history.

I was at a Teach-In on Impeachment in Binghamton, NY this weekend. I listened to John Nichols and Elizabeth de la Vega, when they made strong cases for impeachment. And I listened to an aide for Representative Maurice Hinchey, who said that the Speaker of the House has not only attempted to take impeachment off the table, but has discouraged those democrats in congress who are attempting to put it back on the table.

I disagree – strongly – with Nancy Pelosi on this issue. That doesn’t make me any less of a democrat than any DU who supports her attempts to crush the organic grass roots impeachment movement. I went door-to-door campaigning for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. I also strongly disagreed with his reducing the Great Writ of habeas corpus – as did Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY). Having a lobotomy would not have made me a better democrat.

I have said before on DU that we do best when we discuss and debate the important topics of the day with an open mind. We have an obligation, not only to ourselves, but to our democratic party and to that Constitution to be skeptical of any claim to fact – especially those made by elected officials – and to demand proof ….because in the final analysis, history shows us that all tyranny rests upon the twins of fraud and deceit, and in convincing people like you and I to accept a lie on face value. Indeed, if our Constitution’s Bill of Rights makes nothing else clear, it should be that citizens have not only the right, but the obligation to question all elected officials. And I say with no risk of being wrong that any person who willingly abandons that responsibility to question has not only betrayed themselves, but they have failed in their citizenship.

[redqueen]

1. Just want to thank you for mentioning The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. n/t

[H2O Man]

3. It started the

dangerous slide in citizens' rights that should be of concern to all of us. And, when we talk to our progressive family members and friends about the need to elect democrats to congress, and mention issues such as habeas corpus, we need to know the history of the threat to the Great Writ.

[redqueen]

5. Isn't that where the "Free Speech Zones" came about?

I know it was under Clinton... and was a result some of the legislation which followed the OK City bombing...

[H2O Man]

6. "Free Speech Zones"

I am not sure. I think that some universities tried to start "free speech zones" in the late 1960s. I do remember the Democratic National Convention used the tactic to try to marginalize members of the Rainbow Coalition, who were not happy that the party leadership had dissed Jesse.

[countingbluecars]

2. Great post.

K&R

[H2O Man]

4. Thank you.

I believe that one strength of the democratic party is the number of history teachers we have. It's not a coincidence that those who understand history tend to support our party. It would be an error if we took the calls to leave historic examples/lessons out of our discussions on DU.

[Me.]

7. Why Would Anyone Not Want Us To Pay Attention To & Learn From History?

Especially when such vast correlations apply to what is happening today? Why shouldn't we know and apply the methods others used to solve problems> Could it be that our solving problems is what they truly don't want?

[H2O Man]

8. Great question.

There is a reason why high schools, colleges and universities teach courses in history. There are wonderful books that people can read to learn about history. There is even a History Book Club, established in 1947, that people might enjoy:

www.joinhistorybookclub.com

When we think of the historic examples of groups attempting to deny others education that includes history, we note when slaves in the US were punished for attempting to become educated, or when the English passed laws making it a crime for Irish Catholics to educate their children. Why anyone would willingly advocate historical lobotomies for democrats doesn't make sense to me.

[Me.]

10. Nor Me

And aside from the educational lessons of history, there is an inspirational benefit for those troubled by the current state of affairs. The Irish are educating their children now, slavery has ended and an African-American is running for president. Nothing lasts forever. History is right on this.

[TahitiNut]

51. It's also a matter of learning HOW to learn .. from history or anything else.

Taking the obvious example of fascism, I see a basic disconnect in how we attend to the underlying ethical corruption inherent in fascism as distinct from both the external trappings of fascism or the direction and degree of abuse and harm that results from fascism. The whole reason researchers and students of history give attention to such phenomena as the "Good German" or the populist beginnings of the Nazi Party is based on a realization that it has almost nothing to do with the swastika specifically and the fact that it was fascism long before the first Jew was killed in a gas chamber. Yet we STILL have people who, even with some knowledge of history, take stances effectively based on the spurious notion that (1) it isn't fascism unless it targets Jews, (2) it isn't fascism unless it's embodied in a single, totalitarian "charismatic" leader and propelled by a personality cult, (3) it isn;t fascism until people are being disappeared or openly brutalized by the state. We tend to ignore instances of fascism that had all the potential for such ultimate abuses. We ignore Franco's Spain, Tojo's Japan, Batista's Cuba, and even Mussolini's Italy as we fill our gaze with Nazi Germany.

Even worse, we tend to accept without challenge the protestations and representations of the advocates of fascism ... from Hitler to Ford, and from Mussolini to Lindbergh. The common rationalization to justify frauds and deceits is a signature of fascism. Separation of fact from fraud and revisionist deceits is very difficult.

[H2O Man]

63. Right.

I also think that it is good for us to consider how different empires over-extended militarily, because they required a lot of natural resources from outlaying lands to maintain their standards of living. The obvious example is the Roman empires. Of course, some of our friends would point out that the Romans had different images on their coins than we have today.

[KoKo]

107. Yes....we keep huddled in our own cognizance of what we've seen

on History Channel... (those who didn't live through the "aftermath" of that Mighty Encounter..and to them it's far in the distance of the last Century.)

Thanks...

[kineneb]

58. just opened up my copy of Machiavelli's "The Prince"

speaking of learning from history... he had some sage things to say about running governments and leadership, and also the use of mercenaries (the Renaissance Italians should know best on that subject) and no mention of fascism...

(one could read his book and substitute "leader" or "president" for the word "prince" and almost have a contemporary work...sad to note how little really changes)

[H2O Man]

64. Good call.

It's not a coincidence that Machiavelli's works are Karl Rove's favorites.

[Raksha]

94. Historical lobotomies...that's a great phrase!

Historical lobotomies are exactly what I see some people advocating when they insist that the Nazi or Hitler analogy should be off-limits. The people I see using the Nazi analogy to the proto-fascist (or de facto fascinst) state of America today are NOT trying to gloss over the differences and especially the scale of the Holocaust, which was unprecdented. And yet they are constantly being accused of refusing to recognize the obvious differences, when ALL they are trying to do is point out the similarities.

[H2O Man]

100. I'm glad that

you like it. I think that the democratic party is strengthened by having free thinkers, especially at the grass roots level. We don't need to wear school uniforms, or allow ourselves to become Stepford democrats. Though I might not agree with everything that every progressive democrat says on this forum, I'm glad to see even the more intense debates.

[Coexist]

9. my party is like my relatives....

some who share my blood are wonderful, some are idiots, some are wonderful idiots, some are people with whom I disagree on a lot, but find out over Thanksgiving Dinner, that we agree on a key issue, others whom I tend to agree with on most, I may get angry with over their lack of support for something I think is important.

But come a family feud, they are still related to me - they are my family.

However, if my blood relatives all die off, and there is nothing left by in-laws, and we disagree on most everything - even the basics - are they still my family?

[H2O Man]

14. That's an interesting

way to look at it.

In a party as big as ours, there are going to be people who I share values with, and others who I have little-to-nothing in common with, with the exception of a shared interest from time to time. That allows me to be comfortable saying that I will support the democratic nominee in 2008. I am concerned that some of the more concrete-thinking, moderate-to-conservatives in the party might be causing a divide with some of the potential democratic left supporters.

[babylonsister]

11. We have not only the right but the obligation to question elected officials-

thank you, H20 Man. I hope many DUers read this post and rethink their 'blind' allegiance.:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

17. Thank you.

I am not concerned with the moderate-to-conservative democrats thinking and talking like moderate-to-conservative democrats. That's fine: it's who they are. They shouldn't feel pressured to pretend that they are otherwise. Nor should they pressure progressive or liberal democrats to pretend that they are other than who they are.

There are divides in the party. Again, an aide to a democratic US Representaive told an audience that Speaker Pelosi is pressuring others not to push for impeachment. If DUers agree with her, that's okay. If they disagree with her, that's okay, too. I hope that those who disagree will take the time to contact their representatives in congress, and also contact Speaker Pelosi. When I call her office, it's not as an enemy or foe, or as someone who would be supporting a republican or independent against her. It's as a democrat, who has a grasp of history, and who understands the very real need to impeach Dick Cheney.

[EFerrari]

12. Thank you, H20 Man. This was a needed and clear reminder.

I've been feeling very troubled because I feel so at odds with my own representative and so concerned about the likely Democratic nominee. My reasons for feeling as I do aren't so important to this thread as how the heck to manage them and still participate in a more or less useful way on DU.

One or the other conflct would be a handful. Both seem a little overwhelming.

[H2O Man]

21. There is an

old saying, "Don't let the right hand know what the left hand is doing." I am convinced that this saying was made with DU in mind. (smile)

[Didereaux]

13. Thank you for a well, well written piece.....if only

...I fully realize how much sweat and work goes into just a 500 word essay, so I really appreciate when such a piece shows up on a board. Such things have got to be the rarest offerings that exist on the internet.

If only more, myself especially would take the time to work out our thoughts and then type them out, then unmercifully critique them ourselves before posting...well it boggles the mind to think what would appear!

...

[H2O Man]

22. Thank you .....

though I should say that no "sweat and work" went into my humble OP, which took about 3 minutes to write. Perhaps I should take more time!

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Thanks Waterman

:-)

[H2O Man]

23. Thank you, my friend.

In recent days, I have found myself being very thankful that you are here on DU. Thank you for all that you do!

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. We both try

and that is all we can do

[earth mom]

16. Dissent is Patriotic. nt

[H2O Man]

24. Exactly.

It's a good thing for democrats to take the training wheels off our minds.

[cuke]

18. Cuomo had a reputation for undermining Dem rivals

He was afraid one of them would become popular enough to threaten him in a primary. Why do you think Cuomo was followed by a period of republicanism in NYS?

And his well-earned reputation as a "Hamlette on the Hudson" was due to his reluctance to take principled stands in favor of contemplating the political fallout from taking a position on a difficult issue

[robinlynne]

20. You would do well to read this OP, and then the sophism Op from yesterday, friend.

[cuke]

27. Why?

I've read both, and I'm still unsure of why you say that

My point is that Cuomo's willingness to criticize Dems was not based on the principle that no one was above criticism; It was based on his desire to undermine competitors.

[H2O Man]

25. Being rather familiar

with Governor Cuomo's political career, I can say that it is true that Ed Koch felt that Mario wasn't a true neoconservative democrat, like Ed. That's one of the divides in the party that still exists in many areas. It led to democrats like Ed supporting Bush in 2004. Cuomo, on the other hand, has supported the democratic candidates running for president. So, in answer to your question about how republicans came to gain power, I'd say that the responsibility lies with "democrats" like Ed Koch.

[cuke]

28. If it was only about Koch, you'd be right

[H2O Man]

30. Obviously there

is more to it than Koch. However, Ed symbolizes those who still have a grudge against him. Governor Cuomo's friends and foes fall into fairly easy to identify groups. There is a reason he was asked to deliver the speeches at the conventions. There is a reason Ted Kennedy was in communication with him when he was considering a run for president in '84. And there's a reason why President Clinton wanted him on the Supreme Court. You are known by your friends, and by your enemies.

[cuke]

33. And politics makes strange bedfellows

Politicians often have to deal with, and even make "freinds" with, their ideological opposites. LBJ would be an unknown congress member if it wasn't for the Hunt Bros, who also funded the right-wing noise machine that still inflicts us today. I prefer to judge politicians primarily by what they have accomplished (and Cuomo, to his credit, did have more than a few of those) and not by who they associate with. After all, they're politicians. They only associate with Boy Scouts when they're campaigning.

And maybe I'm a bit more cynical that you are, but I doubt there's a politician who doesn't take both political realities and self-interest into account, even when they do take a principled stand. It annoys me to see self-serving bastards used to misportray those who disagree as being unwilling to engage in principled criticism of their allies. I'm not saying that was deliberate, or that you have anything but good intentions. However, I simply disagree and I don't think that earns anybody the right to imply that I am unprincipled, as the other poster who responded to me seems to be trying to do

This is DU. No analogy will go undisputed. Every argument will be disputed.

[robinlynne]

19. hear! hear!

[H2O Man]

31. Thank you.

I appreciate your support!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. "Trusting" leaders is an abandonment of demcocracy.

If we actually believe that it is "a government of the people, by the people, for the people", then it is our responsibility, as "the people", to ensure that the government does our bidding.

We are often reminded that politicians are "only human" and we should understand and forgive their failures. So are serial killers, car salesmen, and barbers. Are we, likewise, to understand and forgive their failures? I think not.

"The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same."
Marie Beyle

[H2O Man]

34. Well said.

I also like to keep in mind the wisdom of Malcolm X, who said that just because a man throws worms in the river, it doesn't mean that he is a friend of the fish. That's a good thing to keep in mind as we approach 2008.

[Kurovski]

29. K&R.

As always. :-)

[H2O Man]

36. Thanks!

I appreciate it.

[Horse with no Name]

32. Thank you for this.

It is 100% correct. Just because someone has a (D) behind their name shouldn't exempt us from holding them to standards that are important to each one of us. It is becoming more apparent that there is more than one type of Democrat--some of whom I am not sure I can fully support because I don't see much difference in them than I do the republicans.

[H2O Man]

38. One of the things

that I got from the Teach-In on Impeachment was that most progressive democrats see the value in decentralizing the democratic party. Progressives are more likely to value grass roots values and efforts. Progressives believe in the concept of one person, one vote, and all that this implies. The conservative democrats want a centralized authority. By no small coincidence, they think it is only proper that the conservative democrats exercise that authority. When we look at many of the on-going disagreements on DU, as well as within the democratic ranks, it comes down to that simple difference.

[lovuian]

37. Woohoo h20

:woohoo:

[H2O Man]

40. It's interesting:

I had a fairly clear idea which DUers would agree with my OP. There is a pretty solid core group of progressive democrats, who may disagree on some issues from time to time, but have been in agreement on important issues such as the dangers posed to this nation by the Plame scandal, the neocon/AIPAC espionage scandal, and the Niger forgeries.

[KoKo]

108. The "Lurkers" are

the only reason...to keep plugging IMHO.... Qualify on edit: DU Lurkers...not the others... :D

[PA Democrat]

39. Nicely articulated H2O Man.

As citizens, our obligations don't end with casting our ballots. We have a constant obligation to ensure that our elected officials are indeed representing us and fulfilling their constitutional obligations.

I use a free service called MegaVote which will send out weekly emails when Congress is in session detailing your 2 Senators' and your Representative's votes. It also includes information on upcoming votes and email links for your representatives. I use this service a lot to tell my reps how I want them to vote on upcoming legislation as well as to provide both positive and negative feedback after a vote has taken place. I think it's important to let them know we are paying attention. I think if there were more of us doing this, we would have a government that did a better job at meeting our needs and remaining faithful to the Constitution.

BTW, for anyone who is interested, here's the link for MegaVote:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/megavote/

[H2O Man]

41. Thanks.

One of the things that Elizabeth de la Vega said on Saturday night at the Teach-In on Impeachment in Binghamton was that we are all ordinary citizens, but when we stand up for the US Constitution, we are extraordinary citizens.

Thank you for providing the link for MegaVote.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

43. I'm on that list!

It makes it much easier to keep tabs on the local guys who you don't hear about in the news at all. :)

I also get Congress.org's weekly update. very informative.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

[Bluerthanblue]

42. kudos- very well said- and deeply

thought through.

Thank you for this excellent post.

peace~

[Octafish]

44. You are a good Democrat, H20 Man.

You have explained why Democrats are different from Republicans and everyone else. In addition to believing all people are created equal and are born with the right to equal treatment under law, Democrats are willing to listen and learn. In the process of discussion and debate, we are free to change our minds or come to new conclusions. Others -- the tyrant -- are interested in keeping people in the dark, the better to continue their manipulations and machinations, as well as to protect their own positions of priviledge.

[H2O Man]

46. Some of us old folks

remember 1967-68. We had a democratic president. But the country was in crisis. A couple of Senators, Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, ended up challenging that president. There comes a time when principles and values force people of conscience to dissent, even within their own party.

Neither man supported a republican, or an independent. They were good democrats.

[spanone]

45. another great H2O Man post

r

[H2O Man]

47. Thank you. n/t

[malaise]

48. Beautifully stated H2O man

Dissent is good.

[H2O Man]

50. "We Dissent!"

"It is not enough to allow dissent. We must demand it. For there is much to dissent from. .... We dissent from the conditions and hatreds which deny a full life to our fellow citizens because of the color of their skin. ... We dissent from the monstrous absurdity of a world where nations stand poised to destroy one another, and men must kill their fellow man ....We dissent from cities which blunt our senses and turn the ordinary acts of daily life into a painful struggle .... We dissent from all these structures -- of technology and of society itself -- which strip from the individual the dignity and warmth of sharing in the common tasks of his community and his country."
-- Robert Kennedy; October 22, 1966; Berkeley campus, University of California.

[malaise]

54. I'm watching Countdown on PBS

Cheney's Law. Everyone should dissent after this.

[Kurovski]

49. Kick. (nt)

[rosesaylavee]

52. K & R n/t

[bleever]

53. An open mind, informed by history, willing to question elected officials.

Tools for an effective citizen, and a true Democrat.

K&R.

[H2O Man]

65. "Of all our studies,

history is best qualified to reward our research." -- Malcolm X; Message to the Grass Roots

[Rex]

55. Wonderful post.

[H2O Man]

66. Thank you. n/t

[Kurovski]

56. Kick. (nt)

[jpgray]

57. Interesting--you see critique of hasty, inattentive historical analogy as a call to -ignore- history

Might it just be a plea not to -abuse- history with comparisons so facile and selective they subvert the crucial differences of the compared situations? We dislike Bush's flawed historical comparisons, why refuse to accept criticism of our own? And why use the very Bush-like tactic of responding to criticism by making a caricature of honest disagreement? Your "some say we should ignore history" recalls "some say the Iraqi people are incapable of Democracy" in its attempt to baldly mischaracterize all dissent. In fact, those who make flawed comparisons need to pay -more- attention to the interdependent contexts that are crucial elements of the particulars being compared. They are ignoring the complexities of history, which makes for pleasing but functionally useless arguments. They don't educate, being based on a distortion, and they only convince the already convinced.

[Lasher]

59. Good food for thought

Yet we are unlikely to convince our progressive friends who are not registered democrats to support us on this, when we are either unwilling or unable to identify that the damage to habeas corpus began when President Clinton signed the April 1996 "Anti-Terrorism Law" that restricted habeas corpus.

You are right about this, and the principle extends to other issues. In this I have been too inflexible, and will give the matter some thought, hoping I might improve.

But then there was this:

...the ability to understand history is obviously a skill that the president has.

Did you mean to say that? I don't see that at all.

[jpgray]

60. A lot of Bush's rhetorical PR and marketing tricks are updated versions of those used in the past

Rhetorical methods to disguise bad, illogical actions have always been in vogue.

[H2O Man]

62. Nope --

I erred in writing that. I meant the exact opposite: Bush has no grasp of history. He believes that he is the exact center of it.

I had caught another error that I edited a moment after posting this. I wish I got that one, too.

[Lasher]

71. That's what I thought.

Thanks again for the heavy post. You make a difference.

[bridgit]

61. Reasonable, a bit wordy for me but while we're alluding to words...

"a tendency for some people to think it is "wrong" to criticize any democrat..." is for me not the issue. As I've mentioned recently elsewhere; vigorously criticizing dems is for me preferable to: "harshly", vitriolically, negatively-to-a-fault, filled-with-bile, hateful, spiteful, and worse, etc, critique has a way of undermining the very stakes that are said to be holding this so-called big tent to the earth itself.

IMFO & while literature was a study area of mine history being in there somewhere: too much reliance on historically based allegory is able to rend us all into lop eared bunnies turning page after page searching for reference where expeditious action is called for.

In psych samples for employment 'excessives' send up flags, the too much things: too much criticism of one's surroundings, harsh or otherwise, too much humor/too much improvisation in response to a given, are seen as discountable traits while elements such as: cohesion, 3-D thinking, creative problem solving, society, are easily recognized as preferable.

I'd like to see DU move through a passage of resolve regarding key issues, and rather less bounce like a cork atop the froth of pensive oceans, but that's just me.

[H2O Man]

68. "a bit wordy"

I suspect that I am frequently a bit wordy. This essay is actually fairly short for me. I meant every word of it, though, and so I'm pleased that some people agree while others disagree. That's a good thing.

I don't think that any scientific study is required to understand what is happening on DU. If people think back to high school, and remember how different groups of kids viewed themselves and their role in the classroom, they will understand.

There are significant differences in values and goals on DU, and within the democratic party. It may be beneficial for us to recognize that, and to work to identify what common interests we have. Then I'd like to see DUers get out and work to register voters for the 2008 elections. Voter registration and public education, with a goal of increased participation in the elections on all levels -- town/city, county, state and federal.

When I say that, it's important -- at least for me -- to point out that the progressive democrats have an ability to go into neighborhoods that our moderate/conservative friends can't.

[bridgit]

84. I do understand that, and the piece stands on it's own, many DUer's labor beneath...

and it's not per se a bad thing, but still: The Amadeus Complex. A template within which we feel all our words, thoughts and/or deeds are strung bead-like-perfect, balanced, and beyond reproach. To remove, if you will, any one note and the entire structure falls down.

Another component is one where 'the complex sufferer' (and we have yet to broach suffering you & I both know that...then poetic license if allowed) feels no need to have to audition. Finding as a resultant of the inherent perfection above; auditions to be cumbersome, accolades & laurels are to be simply handed over without any further review. Still, and in any event...

Yours, H2O Man, are less than a handful of pieces I look for with consistency here at DU. I do find what you do, the matters atop which you write, to be earnest, thoughtful, communicative, and balanced...

And I appreciate that.

[mmonk]

67. Thank you for the wise words.

I agree with ALL sentiments you have stated and will continue the fight. While I belong to a particular political party and admire certain politicians, I never get caught up in the cult of personality and never accept less than the guarantees of liberty espoused in the Bill of Rights and the structure of government iniated by the constitution. Since I am firm in this position, those in office that differ from this position I cannot support. It's all fundamental to my liberty.

[H2O Man]

69. Thank you.

I think that there are a lot of DUers who, though they may be to the left of Governor Cuomo, are comfortable with his definition of traditional democratic values. And, in fact, progressive democrats are the traditional democrats. Anyone familiar with our party's history knows that is true.

[mmonk]

80. Yes. I'm traditional as it gets though here I have the reputation

at times of being too "liberal" whatever that has come to mean these days. I feel I'm fighting for the values that have helped shape our party through its history. The principles and fundamentals I try and argue for in my eyes seem natural.

[ismnotwasm]

70. Great post

I started voting Democrat by default, having become politically aware through the Carter/Reagan years. I stopped, began voting Socialist, although in my heart I figure there was no way that ideology would fly in the US. I never voted for Bill Clinton for instance.
(A point I make with my Right wing Conservative father, who STILL brings up Clinton during arguments)

But HAVING become politically aware during those years, as well as being profoundly affected by the Vietnam war as a little girl, I saw Bush and Co. as a potential walking disaster stalking though the world, and I was right. I threw my efforts into the Democrats, but I'll never give up my right to criticize. Here at DU, I stay out of most of it as it seems counter-productive. An example-- as a feminist, I was appalled at NOW's seemingly automatic endorsement of Senator Clinton, I wouldn't vote for simply someone because of gender or race when they are part of a political system that often seems broken, as much as I would love to see a women in office. But I won't participate in tearing her down in threads that seems sexist, or blindly critical of anything she does.

I know I'll vote for the Democrat nominee. I know I can find fault with all of them. I know the world I want my grandchildren to grow up in doesn't look like the world today. I know I want my grandchildren to give a shit about our political process, to think it matters, that it *does* make a difference.

My oldest daughter, who spent a year in Afghanistan and is a decorated combat veteran, finds political apathy the nations biggest sin. She is quite a bit more conservative than I am, (more of a "moderate") but we have much common ground. She feels lost after her service, not because of objections and protests over an illegal war, but because there isn't more. She feels we've let our returning soldiers down, by NOT voting, by not demanding accountability.

I have a son who is in the National guard and will probably be deployed to Iraq. I wonder how he will feel?

[H2O Man]

74. Very interesting.

The 2006 elections showed that the American public wanted congress to find a way to end the Bush-Cheney aggression in the Middle East. Since the democrats took control in January, they have voted to provide every increase that Bush has requested. We have conservative democrats here who are asking us to suspend our own judgement, and to trust the elected democratic officials, because they have a very wise plan to end the war. Like Nixon's plan to end the Vietnam war in 1968, their plan is so wise that they can't detail it, and it is in bad taste for the progressive grass roots to keep pushing for details.

I agree with your daughter.

[creeksneakers2]

72. The Habeas Corpus changes in the 1996 anti-terrorism law

were minor and technical. Most of the changes only codified or slightly altered previous court rulings.

The public has long complained about prisoners getting endless appeals of their cases. Cases filed by prisoners make up a substantial volume of all cases filed. There was a good case for a time limit on filing.

Conservatives who attempted to redefine the appeals process often received the liberal response, "We could do something about too many appeals if something could be done to make the initial trial and early appeal process fairer. Then we wouldn't need so many appeals."

The 1996 anti-terrorism act mandated legal representation for appeals from convicted individuals. That made it more likely that a meritorious appeal would be successful and heard in less time.

I don't believe that Clinton's changes to Habeas Corpus are significant enough to place them in the same category as Bush's. Bush says no Habeas Corpus at all if he designates a prisoner as a terrorist.

[H2O Man]

73. The changes in 1996

were, as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out, a step in a very dangerous direction. He recognized it was part of a process. And he was right.

[emmadoggy]

75. Great post, H2O Man.

Not only that, but many of your replies on this thread have been filled with some wonderful little nuggets too.

Your posts are always so calm, measured and insightful which I really appreciate. :thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

77. Thank you.

I appreciate your support.

[bigtree]

76. There's not much that I don't agree with on this

. . . but, I can't help immediately picturing some of my own arguments which use history to remind that, while the scope and depth of the crimes of this administration far outstrip those instances that we know occurred in past modern administrations, there are no underlying outside convictions related to those crimes which lead directly to the Executive like Watergate had even before the 'Watergate Committee' was formed in Congress to investigate the crimes.

A largely ignored (and dismissed) part of that contemporary impeachment's history was the benefit that committee had of John Dean's revelations linking the White House to the crimes of the burglars which he had made in open court.

Another contemporary example of an impeachment process which has been similarly dismissed as less than analogous is the Clinton affair. That eventual congressional prosecution had the benefit of the Whitewater Committee and the overreach of the independent prosecutor, Starr. As with the Watergate impeachment effort, the Clinton impeachment proceeding was preceded by months, years of muckraking by Congress.

There is no analogous process underway in this new Democratic majority except for the committee hearings which have only been going on for a few months. I know that the retort is that there's already enough evidence out there to hang these folks in the White House. I agree. But, I recognize that, in our democracy, the opposition in Congress (which shares a political affiliation with the Executive subjects) is well-afforded many levers of defense against some attempt at a summary, or even a partisan prosecution.

That's why I believe the lack of some outside investigation or prosecution is a (possibly) fatal deficiency for those in this particular Congress who would hope to overcome their lack of enough members to ensure a conviction. There is, of course, the argument that the process itself would be vindication enough for undertaking the extraordinary action -- especially in view of the extent and persistence of the crimes and abuses. But the history you want us to respect and use as a guide doesn't tell us what the reaction or, even the prudence of proceeding with some partisan set of charges would be -- unsupported by any outside effort which would remove the taint of bias which would galvanize enough support in Congress and the country.

As important as confronting the administration on their crimes is, I would argue that there is an equally important consideration which was manifest in the failure of republicans to upend Clinton in their impeachment effort.

Our votes are perhaps the most sacred and vital expression of democracy. As abhorrent as the votes for Bush may have been, they are just as sacred as ours in opposition. As an impeachment effort directed at the Executive intends to remove the president and the vice-president from office, it also intends to nullify those Americans' sacred votes which allowed them to assume power. That, I believe, was the most important concern of Americans who opposed the impeachment of Clinton, notwithstanding their objection to the overall pettiness of the charges.

I think those Americans who voted for Bush last time around already knew of his crimes and abuses. The fact that we did not succeed in the elections in advancing enough Democrats to assume enough of a majority to prevail along partisan lines in an impeachment effort shouldn't just be dismissed as an irrelevant concern with numbers. It should be a caution to those who would push past the hesitancy of members and proceed as if we could somehow ultimately prevail in an impeachment and a conviction on our party's initiative alone. And it should instruct us on the potential value of a political trial which promises to generate a defense from the opposition which will appeal to the very same Americans we intend to influence, with equal passion.

If Democrats in Congress did eventually decide proceed to an impeachment, that act, itself, would make history in all of it's particulars' lack of precedence more than it would reflect the past. Pelosi's caution, I think, is warranted by that lack of precedence in history. Discouraging impeachment in this Congress isn't 'crushing' any more than encouraging one is somehow arrogant. If we accept that there will always be a Congress where divergent views are allowed to be presented and supported, side-by-side, then, perhaps, we can put aside all of the nonsense about one faction within our party being more concerned with upholding the rule of law than the other.

We are both concerned (deeply) about the crimes and abuses of this administration. But, we have divergent views of how best to confront them. Both of us will use history to support our views, but I don't believe we can often be satisfied that either has the lock on the interpretation of that history. We're left to our ability to persuade with history as a mere guide.


(I know this is a long response. I apologize. Think of this as an 'old DU' post and the length should sit better with you.) ;-)

[H2O Man]

78. Long responses

can be a good thing.

It was interesting for me to listen to the Teach-In on Impeachment in Binghamton on Saturday. My children and I sat near some of our closest friends. In the summer of 2003, one of my friends remembers me calling and telling her that the Plame scandal was going to be traced back not only to the OVP, but to Dick Cheney's desk. I was right on some things, and wrong on others -- I thought more people, including Karl Rove, were going to be indicted. I also thought that when the dust settled, congress would begin the impeachment process, and Cheney would resign in disgrace.

I thought of that when I listened to John Nichols and Elizabeth de la Vega tell of how the Founding Fathers recognized the threat of an imperial presidency, and were clear in saying that the president would be likely to use war as an excuse for a grab for power. The Constitution has impeachment as the cure for that very threat.

That there is enough evidence on record now to not only justify the House beginning the process today, but enough to result in a conviction in the Senate if the politicians were to let the rule of law be the standard, is beyond question. The only issue is if the congress will allow principle or pragmaticism to dictate their actions .... and that is, of course, a polite way of saying it all comes down to if they have the courage to uphold the laws that protect our Constitutional democracy, or if they look for what is to their own political advantage.

[bigtree]

82. There certainly is a case to be made that Congress needs to be more forceful

But, the success of these confrontations often rely on adherence to what's 'politically' advantageous. I think it could be folly to ignore potential political consequences of their actions if we accept that a Democratic majority is important and vital to our ultimate successes -- especially in the midst of a presidential election year.

I'm not convinced that impeachment would be a 'cure' if it resulted in an acquittal along party lines. Many in Congress who are reluctant to proceed to an impeachment aren't convinced on that point either. I don't believe that's as much of a reflection of political 'courage' as much as I think it's a lack of faith in the success of the type of partisan impeachment proceeding that proponents are urging. We want the same accountability, but don't believe that just initiating one with a set of charges generated entirely, in-house, by our one party would succeed. But we want the same success as you do. On the totality of the prospects proponents present, we remain unconvinced that initiating the type of proceeding that would be anticipated would work. That's not lack of courage at all. It's skepticism and prudence.

Of course, history does provide numerous examples of administration crimes addressed by other means than impeachments. The rarity of *impeachment of the Executive should also serve as a guide to its efficacy. Although proscribed by the founders as a remedy, there is no assurance of it's success. Certainly they were referring to it's potential, but they had no way of guaranteeing that it would be an effective check. Indeed, Jefferson worried aloud about the pernicious effect of the independent Judiciary on Congress' ability to hold the Executive accountable in an impeachment -- concerned about the ability of the Judiciary to shield the Executive from demands for documents and testimony, much like today -- *calling impeachment, in that case, no more than a "scarecrow."

Certainly they recognized the efficacy of the myriads of other levers of accountability Congress has at its disposal. Certainly Congress has thought better of these other levers throughout its decades of history than it has of it's rarely used power to impeach the Executive.

[KoKo]

97. The only way I could see your argument as a possibility is

that many of the Democrats in Congress feel it's better to let all the information come out slowly in drips so as to have a better case of this Administrtions Crimes for all the Country to see. Problem is that in dragging the process out by not following up on the denial of subpoenas by these criminals and using the tools they do have at hand...they are making themselves look weak and spineless. By continuing to throw their Dem Activists (who have worked hard to help expose the Administrations Crimes since 2000 Stolen Election)"under the bus" (the latest being the "Resolution to Censure Move On.org) they have hurt the Democratic Party they are trying to elect to the Presidency in '08.

One paragraph from your post was disturbing to me:

I think those Americans who voted for Bush last time around already knew of his crimes and abuses. The fact that we did not succeed in the elections in advancing enough Democrats to assume enough of a majority to prevail along partisan lines in an impeachment effort shouldn't just be dismissed as an irrelevant concern with numbers. It should be a caution to those who would push past the hesitancy of members and proceed as if we could somehow ultimately prevail in an impeachment and a conviction on our party's initiative alone. And it should instruct us on the potential value of a political trial which promises to generate a defense from the opposition which will appeal to the very same Americans we intend to influence, with equal passion.

Most Americans who were not Activist Dems plugging away on the Liberal Internet Sites did NOT (in my humble opinion) know about this Administrations crimes and abuses. In fact "Most Americans" still don't because of our Corporate Owned Media who sponsors RW Talking Points to diffuse the criminality of these folks when they aren't just totally ignoring them or covering up what has been leaking out.

I could understand your argument for why Dem House and Senate might not want to go for Impeachment if I knew that they were pursuing the mighty tools that they already have at their disposal. The issuance of cautionary letters and hollow subpoenas for months is hardly a sign of agressive oversite that can be taken seriously given the enormity and amount of criminal behavior. The continual disparagement of their Activists with comments like Pelosi made about how "First Amendments allows those with 'Impeach Bush' shirts to camp out in front of her house when the homeless would be arrested for the same") and the other comments made to and about Activists are also not a sign that those who've worked tirelessly to expose these criminals through blogs and citizen investigations are respected as the part of the party who is energized and enthused enough to do the "legwork" that will be required to get the New Dem President and all those new Dem Senate and House Members elected.

Your post is interesting...but by taking Impeachment "off the table" we need to see more agressive holding Bush/Cheney & Co. responsible for their crimes and not be rubberstamping every appointment they put forth to replace the one that "got caught" and resigned.

Peace!

[H2O Man]

99. Right.

One of congress's primary functions is to inform the public. This concept is documented in the Senate's Watergate Report. They take a historic approach, and document it with US Supreme Court rulings which speak specifically to the issue.

Thus, because there are two gross errors in the public's misperception about impeachment -- that it is a political, rather than a legal process, and that "high crimes and misdemeanors" means a specific level of criminal behavior -- the congress should be providing clarification. The obvious contradiction in the two gross errors in perception alone indicate a glaring need.

The Founding Fathers not only granted congress specific powers, but noted that with those powers comes specific responsibilities. One is for making sure the executive branch follows the supreme law of the land, which is of course Constitutional Law. There is no question that both President Bush and VP Cheney have violated their oaths to uphold that Constitution. There is no question that they brought this country to war, based on falsehoods.

It may sound reasonable to say that the democrats in congress have to be cautious about impeachment. However, that stance doesn't really hold up to close examination. They are tasked with protecting the Constitution, and that involves impeaching executive officials who violate it. Rather than attempting to smoother debate by saying that we have to worry about trying and failing, they need to look in a mirror and see the ugly results of failing to even try to do their Constitutional duty.

[bigtree]

103. I fail to see the difference

. . . between ongoing committee hearings and an impeachment proceeding initiated by our party alone in the anticipated outcome, except in the influence of politicians in the opposition who will be the ultimate judges in the latter in this Congress. There is actually more of an expectation of 'justice' if a committee effort manages to make it to an outside prosecution or investigation.

It sounds powerful to assert the remedy of impeachment, with its ultimate judgment of removal from office. But that reverence to the extraordinary and rarely employed remedy of impeachment to the denigration of all of the other levers of accountability seems to me the most irresponsible consideration -- especially since such efforts could, and traditionally have, throughout history, led to the very prosecutions proponents profess to be concerned with achieving.

Just posturing with one process or the other does nothing to assure accountability. And, I'm not convinced that the mere elevation in visibility of an impeachment would necessarily ensure the conviction which is the standard of judgment we should agree to pursue. Otherwise, what's the point of it all? A public scolding?

We can get so convinced that our case is a shoo-in and be so completely stymied by a defense. In this case, in an impeachment, there would be a political judgment at the end. I just don't see how anyone can look at the stacked deck of political judges and jurors and not see the process as a political one. It is inherently political, by design. That makes political considerations, in that process, imperative.

Also, I want to stress again, the importance of the potential disenfranchisement
of those who cast their vote for Bush in the last election. Those votes are in the hands of these biased legislators. That makes the numerical balance of power in Congress, in my view, more than just a political inconvenience.

Right now the balance is as stacked against a conviction as it's been stacked against every other partisan effort by Democrats to confront this president. It's not reasonable to expect that enabling obstruction to fall away just because Democrats jump forward with an impeachment.

You'd be unwise to neglect to take into consideration the political ramifications of those actions. Consideration of the reaction of voters in an impeachment is more than just pandering, it's a responsiveness to their expressed will. Bulling through all of that would seem to mock the democracy we're relying on to balance all of our actions within our collective system of governance. I can easily imagine defending these same principles in favor of a Democratic presidency.

Caution in proceeding with an impeachment of the Executive isn't appeasement. It's a respect for the ultimate expression in our democracy; a respect for the votes we would intend to replace in an impeachment with the judgment of politicians.

[H2O Man]

104. The difference is obvious.

An impeachment is a specific hearing that moves towards a specific outcome. The on-going "investigations" are not.

As Elizabeth de la Vega noted on Saturday, all of the evidence required for impeachment is already on record. There does not have to be a single further subpoena. Not one.

As the US Representative's aide stated, Waxman already has over 2000 documents that can be used if the democrats in congress ever decide to uphold the Constitution.

Advocating for on-going investigations is just a stalling tactic. Not a clever one, not an intelligent one, and not a brave one.

[bigtree]

106. Ongoing investigations are no more of a 'stalling tactic' than those of the Watergate Committee

or the Whitewater Committee.

There were convictions and there was the admission of Dean in open court which preceded the formation of the Watergate Committee.

Your OP is a homage to history. There is no history of a contemporary impeachment of the Executive which is absent of congressional investigations. It makes no sense at all to dismiss the ones which are already ongoing as a 'stall.'

[H2O Man]

109. In the case of

the Senate Watergate committee, it was to investigate a series of crimes and abuses of power. When the facts were documented, the House began their process. Today, there are as many facts already documented as in the Watergate era. But there is not the effort to begin the impeachment process. In fact, the exact opposite is true: as the congressman's aide said Saturday, Speaker Pelosi is pressuring democrats to not move to impeach. That's the difference between sugar and shit, and no amount of spin changes that.

[bigtree]

110. I think there's too much invective behind the aide's description of her efforts

She obviously doesn't want to move to the type of partisan-initiated process proponents envision and advocate. How much can you really make of some ability someone says Pelosi has to whip legislators together on anything? Where's the evidence of that?

A reasonable explanation for her opposition to moving to an impeachment could be, as my own, that she just doesn't believe the initiation of the process will achieve the results proponents claim. Those types of differences are a constant reality in Congress, as they are elsewhere. And, no side of the effort to hold the administration accountable deserves to be labeled a coward for adhering to the course they believe correct, because, no one side is advocating a course which is assured of achieving the justice all say they want.

[H2O Man]

112. Can you provide

any grain of evidence -- a single thing other than speculation -- to support your claim that there is "too much invective" in what he said? A single conversation with Speaker Pelosi and a congressman that you are privy to? Provide that, Sir, and we can go forward. Otherwise, this becomes rather one-sided.

[bigtree]

118. do we have any room to interpret what you've reported here?

I think we can rightly take Pelosi's many other statements and his account as a whole, instead of just allowing his obviously biased account to stand as a definitive statement of her actions.

Here's your statement. Not very elaborate.

". . . I listened to an aide for Representative Maurice Hinchey, who said that the Speaker of the House has not only attempted to take impeachment off the table, but has discouraged those democrats in congress who are attempting to put it back on the table."

There are other direct accounts from Pelosi herself of her intentions regarding impeachment. They aren't irrelevant. They suggest that she's not convinced that it would be an effective or widely supported option among her constituents. She has other reasons which have nothing at all to do with her 'courage.' I strongly reject the characterization of her choice as 'cowardice.'.

My point is that she may well have discouraged some from embracing impeachment, but I reject the inference that that action is necessarily a cowardice. I don't really know how to defend against your own impression (and the congressman's) of Pelosi, which is what you've provided here.

Many of those who don't support moving to an impeachment just don't believe that it will work. For that, they're called cowards. I don't believe an impeachment would provide the justice proponents say it will so I don't support moving to one at this time. Should I then characterize all who advocate the course I think will lead to Bush's acquittal as cowards as well?

[KoKo]

114. So many "whistleblowers" have leaked info to Waxman & Leahy...

Indeed without those folks coming forward "behind closed doors" or in whatever way they leaked to newspapers, etc. ...how would we have known how to follow the trail back.

It's all DOCUMENTED...that's why so many are resigning ...they have to "lawyer up" ...in case of whatever might come down. The way our Dems are acting is as if "nothing will ever come down" that's prosecutable. :shrug:

This Administration is like the "Mob Gone Wild." It makes Nixon's stuff seem pale in comparison...as if breaking and entering the Dem National Headquarters and a Psychiatrist's Office Files plus LYING to Congress...had morphed from that into the biggest CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE IN AMERICAN HISTORY!

We STILL only have the "tip of the Iceburg" of the malevolence, criminality and disregard of Laws that have been honored since our founding. Not even mentioning "Habeous" which goes back to Magna Charta and Geneva Convention Accords after that Massive Crime against the Jews, Gypsies and Others who didn't fit into the Nazi pedigree!

Sheesh!

[KoKo]

105. I can answer you only with the wisdom of others on what you say:

ON COURAGE:


It takes as much courage to have tried and failed as it does to have tried and succeeded.
-- Anne Morrow Lindbergh.

Try and fail, but don't fail to try.
-- Stephen Kaggwa.

Refuse to compromise what you know to be right for anyone or anything.
-- Brian Tracy.

It takes a lot of courage to show your dreams to someone else.
-- Erma Bombeck.

Hold fast to dreams for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly.
-- Langston Hughes.

Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.
-- Henry David Thoreau.

The collapse of character begins with compromise.
-- Unknown.

Speed bumps are of negligible effect when the vehicle exceeds triple the desired restraining speed.
-- Murphy's Law of Disobedience.

Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat nor gloom of night stays these Couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.
-- Old Post Office Motto.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds.
-- Albert Einstein.

Courage is doing what you're afraid to do. There can be no courage unless you're scared.
-- Eddie Rickenbacker.

Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.
-- Jonathan Swift.

You only have power over people as long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again.
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

A timid person is frightened before a danger, a coward during the time, and a courageous person afterwards.
-- Paul Richter.

Love it the closest thing to true happiness that you can ever hope to achieve in this life, and if your going to let a little thing like rejection stand in your way then you might as well lie down now because people are going to walk all over you.
-- Unknown.

Either you think - or else others have to think for you and take power from you, pervert and discipline your natural tastes, civilize and sterilize you.
-- F. Scott Fitzgerald.

I laugh in the face of danger... then I hide until it goes away.
-- Xander Harris.

We were a silent, hidden thought in the folds of oblivion, and we have become a voice that causes the heavens to tremble.
-- Khalil Gibran.

A hero is one who knows how to hang on one minute longer.
-- Norwegian Proverb.

Reach for the moon, even if you miss you'll be among the stars.
-- Unknown.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:qO0KhyX5_XEJ:www.farid-hajji.net/quotes/courage.html+It+is+More+Noble+to+Have+Tried+and+Failed+than+never,+Great+Quotes&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=26&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[mmonk]

81. Sometimes, long responses help clarification.

If it's worth reading, the length doesn't matter. Never feel inhibited because you feel it may be lengthy.

[astonamous]

79. Thank you for this very timely post. n/t

[H2O Man]

86. Thank you.

There were a few threads in the past few days that I wanted to respond to, not in a negative way, but rather to say that there are some significant differences in values and goals within the democratic party. I think that you are right about this being timely -- at least I hope you are right! -- because we need to have mutual respect and understanding, in order to coordinate efforts for 2008. I think that progressive democrats are too often taken for granted by the conservative minority.

[suffragette]

83. One of the people I have admired the most was my 6th grade history teacher

The history textbooks we had at that time were so incomplete and inadequate. They failed to include many people who had such impact on our history in the U.S., particularly women and people of color.

That teacher spent much of her own time in the evening at the library, reading, collecting info, then assembling materials and bringing them to class. There we learned of Harriet Tubman and George Washington Carver and so many more were part of the history here than were included in the official texts of the time. She also related the people and events of the past to what was occurring at that point. We also learned to read closely, to question and to look beyond what we were first given to have a more comprehensive and complete picture and be able to draw informed conclusions.

You remind of her and I thank you for that and for yet another perceptive and thoughtful post.

[H2O Man]

89. Thank you.

I really appreciate that.

[Vilis Veritas]

85. Nice post.

Peace

[Vilis Veritas]

87. The will of the people or Corporate Will?

I would like to expand your premise to include the rest of the population in the US, simply for the sake of debate and all in an effort to expand my own consciousness, especially since I admire your posts greatly.

You wrote; "that any person who willingly abandons that responsibility to question has not only betrayed themselves, but they have failed in their citizenship", the key word being
willingly...a point I would like to make is that a vast subset of the current population does not willingly give up anything - they simply do what they must to survive according to the corporate will.

'Willingly' implies free will, something I feel people lost over 100 years ago when Corporations were granted person hood.

I submit that people are doing what they must and that has nothing to do with being a concerned citizen and EVERYTHING to do with being a good provider/CONSUMER as defined by their
corporate oligarchs through the vast corporately owned media machine. We now have the 'corporate will' guiding/manipulating a vast majority of the decisions made by the MASSES.

This is not about citizenship any more, it is about survival of Enlightenment thought and the ultimate spiral back into darkness - that is the only way we will ever have another
enlightenment period and once again cherish the idea of freedom - IMO.

The light has been shining for so long we have become blinded to the reality of our own demise. It will take a new dark ages to bring about the desire within the very soul of humankind to see the light again.

Peace.

[Me.]

91. You're Quite Right & Make An Excellent Point

People are working hard, at a furious pace, to keep home and hearth together. And it becomes harder with each passing day. But I would also suggest that there is something else at work here, a point I didn't consider until I read this Naomi Wolf article. Americans are scared. This leads right into your point for who benefits by such tactics and brutality?

“I wish people would stop breaking into tears when they talk to me these days.

I am traveling across the country at the moment -- Colorado to California -- speaking to groups of Americans from all walks of life about the assault on liberty and the 10 steps now underway in America to a violently closed society.

The good news is that Americans are already awake: I thought there would be resistance to or disbelief at this message of gathering darkness -- but I am finding crowds of people who don't need me to tell them to worry; they are already scared, already alert to the danger and entirely prepared to hear what the big picture might look like. To my great relief, Americans are smart and brave and they are unflinching in their readiness to hear the worst and take action. And they love their country.

But I can't stand the stories I am hearing. I can't stand to open my email these days. And wherever I go, it seems, at least once a day, someone very strong starts to cry while they are speaking.

In Boulder, two days ago, a rosy-cheeked thirty something mother of two small children, in soft yoga velours, started to tear up when she said to me: "I want to take action but I am so scared. I look at my kids and I am scared. How do you deal with fear? Is it safer for them if I act or stay quiet? I don't want to get on a list." In D.C., before that, a beefy, handsome civil servant, a government department head -- probably a Republican -- confides in a lowered voice that he is scared to sign the new ID requirement for all government employees, that exposes all his most personal information to the State -- but he is scared not to sign it: "If I don't, I lose my job, my house. It's like the German National ID card," he said quietly. This morning in Denver I talked for almost an hour to a brave, much-decorated high-level military man who is not only on the watch list for his criticism of the administration -- his family is now on the list. His elderly mother is on the list. His teenage son is on the list. He has flown many dangerous combat missions over the course of his military career, but his voice cracks when he talks about the possibility that he is exposing his children to harassment.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/american-tears_b_68141.html

[Vilis Veritas]

92. Fear mongering is rampant these days...

Russia, Iran harden against West
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1018/p06s02-woeu.html

Three Pakistani groups plotting attacks on Bhutto-official
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSISL324551

IMF Predicts Global Economy to Slow
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-17-voa47.cfm

These are just three headlines gleaned THIS INSTANT off of GOOGLE NEWS...we are living in a constant FEAR induced state of conciousness that is the mark of corporo-fascist state.

Is it all a ruse to control the masses of people who are waking up?

...Turn off the TV, throw out the newspapers and start talking to your friends and family...

No Fear.

edited for clarity...got sloppy in edit...;-)

[Me.]

96. Not To Mention Burma

'Is it all a ruse to control the masses'?

I would suggest that the 'masses' aren't the only ones who are afraid. I think about entries from Mary Chestnut's diary where she reveals the ugly truth that the slave owners are petrified that the slaves will rise up and kill them in their big white mansions.

As for the current crop of elites, they may be living in a very schizo world. They can't seem to help their greed, or their reptilian manners, and yet their actions suggest they too are scared to death.

Five closed fingers make a fist. If the people in this country finally do come together as a whole, they should be afraid. A day I think is coming because as I've said almost ad nauseum, you can only beat a dog so often before it turns on and bites you.

[Vilis Veritas]

98. Agreed...even masters can be afraid, for they themselves...

may be ruled.

What if the master's masters are not afraid...deep money. Very deep money. Never changing, old REAL wealth (not fiat)...which may have to shift alliance, but will never acquiesce power.

Of course that is just speculation for the sake of discourse.

[Me.]

102. I Say Nothing Lasts Forever

They may not have thought out their long term game plan when globalization, and 'making the world smaller, easier to control' was put into play. They probably didn't think of the consequences of all of us being able to communicate as easily as we are now able.

[H2O Man]

93. Right.

Very interesting points. There are times when I think it is of value to look at the examples of fascism from the middle of the last century as a warning about the direction we are heading in. Other times, I think that the history of empires which over-reach is worthy of of our attention. Yet, as you correctly note, we have moved into a corporate state, and we find the ugly evidence of that with the corporate media, the corporate candidates, and even the corporate militias, which are referred to with the sterile and misleading name of "private contractors."

We do face the harsh realities of trying to exist within the context of that corporate state, and not lose our personhood. We have things like jobs, families, mortgages or rent, grocery bills, car payments, and winter heating bills to contend with. It's nice to read the Declaration of Independence, or Gandhi's saying that it "is beneath human dignity to lose one's individuality and become a mere cog in the machine." But it can be difficult, indeed.

In Erich Fromm's "The Sane Society," he noted that our society had some things that should be of real concern, such as rates of depression, substance abuse, and suicide. There has been increases in the rates of each of these since Fromm wrote his classic book. Perhaps we are in one type of dark age already.

At the same time that there is a lot that is negative, there is still a great deal that is good today. We have the ability to create change. We can be the opposite of "cogs" -- which means that we all are unique individuals, who offer some talent or ability to the group effort to transform our society. I'm very confident that we are going to come out ahead in this struggle in the long run.

[Vilis Veritas]

95. I also feel optimistic.

And thanks for more good reading...

IIRC, Frederick Law Olmsted wrote some on the effects of poor urban planning and population density on the human condition and how the rates of substance abuse, suicide and depression are only going to get worse as cities become ever more crowded. I am searching for a link, but it was in a college class on landscape architecture...however, I am sure that this same theory can be applied globally.

[ninkasi]

88. Your post is excellent

as are many of the responses,

[H2O Man]

113. I'm glad

that you enkoyed it.

[KoKo]

90. "....all tyranny rests upon the twins of fraud and deceit,...."

Well said, H2Oman...well said.

When we give up our rights to question what we see and hear...we are in the last throes of what could become our demise.

:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

115. Thanks.

We need to hold on to the Constitution of the United States.

[G_j]

101. great post

thanks

[H2O Man]

116. Thank you.

I'm glad to see so many of the gang from the infamous DU Plame Threads here.

[me b zola]

111. Wonderful thread

:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

117. It is a good thread.

I'm impressed that most of the people who contributed to the thread have a grasp of the importance of knowing our history.