GG said...

I doubt there are very many Americans who expect at this point that the Democratic leadership will take a stand against the President due to any actual beliefs. But shouldn't politicians be at least a little bit shrewd about their own political self-interest? As craven and ugly as their capitulation will be, the political "strategy" they chose is actually just more self-destructive than it is anything else.

This isn't directed at Glenn necessarily but the answer to his question is so completely obvious.

Why should they be? Why should they be more "shrewd"? Why would they care in the least? People will vote for them regardless. People will vote for Obama or Clinton. They will vote for whatever Democrat is put in front of them.

Why aren't they more "shrewd"? Because they don't have to be. They also don't have to have a spine or morals or a fucking conscience for that matter. They aren't representing anyone but themselves and their corporate masters.

Who are you voting for?

It's simple really... Why don't we all write letters to our respective congresspersons explaining how upset we are about this issue? That should do the trick, don't you think? Who's with me? Then we can all go shopping and still be home in time to watch the reruns of American Idol!

And if, for some crazy reason, our letter writing campaign doesn't work, everything will be better if we just vote for more Democrats in the upcoming election. They will put an end to this nonsense for sure!

See you at the mall.

It's not enough to leave comments on blogs. Please start letting us know about all the radical upheaval you're leading. -- GlennGreenwald

Is that what we need? For me to lead a tac assault force on Washington?

And see this is the problem isn't it? If I led who would follow? LWM? Timberpooh? I am not intellectual enough for them. I am a violent, knuckle dragging cretin. I am "anti-intellectual" and "unserious." I yearn to do violence...(lol, what a joke).

Now if, on the other hand, someone with a voice and a following, who knows the law, who is an exceptional thinker, writer and orator decided that they wanted to take a real stand, rather than simply recording the fall... if that person and other persons with similar traits and in similar positions decided to organize themselves and lead, well then something might actually get done. Where are the MLK's or even Abbie Hoffman's of our day?

But that is probably too much to ask. I mean we are not really in need of such citizen leadership yet, correct? Like I said before, letter writing and more Democrats will surely do the trick.

If only MLK had had a blog...

My brain hurts! -- Paul Daniel Ash

Why? It shouldn't.

Those that still believe "our representatives" are effective leaders - or leaders at all for that matter - are deserving of scorn at this point. How much willful blindness and stupidity are intelligent people, who have been paying attention, required to suffer? You continue on if you want to but I am way past suffering fools.

1) writing letters to your congressman

Worthless... absolutely worthless is the answer. I am sorry but I do not have the time to explain why that is the case. Everyone here should know the answer by now anyway.

2) writing responses to a blog

Apparently entertaining to some and helpful to Glenn but ultimately worthless.

3) writing your own blog

What is the point of a blog like UT do you suppose? Are they simply the new media? Critical analysis, calling out the lying liars and accurately recording events? All noble pursuits no doubt. What have they accomplished? They have educated us. Opened our eyes to things that we would have perhaps not realized on our own. That is fantastic. Are they effecting any real change? No.

Do we need more evidence? Do we need more books? Do we need more blogs? What could prominent bloggers accomplish if the they also attempted to organize action and become citizen leaders as well?

4) violent insurrection (shouldering weapons, taking to the street, etc.).

Are any of these activities more than a waste of time? If not, what are you suggesting in their place? -- Condatis

"Taking to the streets" (as well as mass sit-ins, strikes, boycotts, etc.) does not necessarily involve violence perpetrated by the citizenry. Do I really need to explain that? I am in a generous mood and would rather not judge you by the juxtaposition in your last but it does seem somewhat telling as to your beliefs. Regardless - violent insurrection is not without precedent. I seem to remember reading about a certain group of colonists who decided that was an appropriate course of action.

I would love to avoid violence but the truth is that, with any direct action, there would be violence. And, with few exceptions, it would not initially be perpetrated by the citizenry. Our governemnt would see to it that there was violence.

That is the problem. I have come to the conclusion that, by and large, the American people are either too ignorant and/or cowardly to successfully demand change. The cowards, much like LWM, aren't truly serious about correcting our national course. They are unwilling to take the beating. They are content with staying the course and would prefer that no one stirred the pot too much.

The ignorant will not educate themselves but they might wonder what all the hub-bub was about if a few million of their countrymen camped out under the Washington monument. They might actually decide it was time to figure this stuff out. If we are waiting for them to find Glenn Greenwald and the UT comments section we will be waiting a long time.