You won't get very far with that sort of talk around here.

Not just here, either. Americans are simply not up to it these days, if they ever really were. Don't forget there was hardly a majority in favor of the Revolution the first time around. If the Hessians hadn't been so... how shall we say... "mercenary" and stupid, and King George at Windsor hadn't been, well, mad, there might not have been a United States of America, Independent and Free. Certainly not if it were up to the lawyers and merchants.

Of course it should be time to consider revolution always. We forget our revolutionary origins at our peril.

We may choose to denigrate the Reagan Revolution, but it was most certainly transformative, first in California (starting in 1967, January 1, just after midnight) then throughout the nation. And make no mistake, it was revolutionary, counter-progressive with a vengeance, and it has been the basis of our current government/corporate hybrid system ever since.

Make no mistake, too: it was and is bloodthirsty, grasping, greedy and frequently lawless.

Bush the younger and his operators have just been building on that legacy. Of course they don't see anything wrong with it. Neither do most electeds. It's just the way things are, they way things have almost always been as long as they have been in office. The way they expect things to continue.

So what to do? Try to impose the < ahem> Constitution on them? Come on, they don't believe in Constitutionalism nor in some cases, to they even believe in the concept of a self-governing constitutional republic. Despite their sometimes pretty words and obeisance to the Founders, they despise the very idea of this nation's origins and have been subverting its governing systems since forever. They are modern versions of royalists, monarchists. Or they are ugly hybrids of communist/fascist totalitarians. Authoritarians most certainly, but their authoritarianism (which was not unknown among Progressives) has become Autocracy.

And the People's Representatives in Congress Assembled go along with it almost always. And they blame We, the People, for their institutional failures. It's our fault because we elect them. We fall for their blandishments and lies; we forgive them their many trespasses. Once in office, most of them can stay there for life, and many do. And as their lives play out in the Capitol Bubble, their real constituencies become one another, not us. And over time the Government of, by and for the People becomes divorced from the People, serving only itself. They see there are no consequences, none they need pay attention to, and there are many rewards.

They're just being realistic and pragmatic. Since there is nothing We, the People, will do about their betrayals, why should they change their behavior? Soon enough, they come to believe there is nothing we can do, and why shouldn't they believe it?

There's incrementalism and then there's incrementalism. From the view of those in power (whether in the government or behind the throne as it were) the operating incrementalism is toward ever greater consolidations of power into the hands of an autocratic executive -- that already has far greater power accumulated unto it than mad King George dreamed of, than our ancestors fought a Revolution against. That's the "incrementalism" that's been going on for decades, grossly accelerated under the current lawless regime.

What counter to it is there really?

As someone said to me the other day, "Where's the anger? Where's the outrage? Why don't the people rise up?"

Indeed.

Let's face it: we really are our own worst enemy. Signed, Rockefeller Republicans.

-As someone said to me the other day, "Where's the anger? Where's the outrage? Why don't the people rise up?"

Indeed.-

The massive street protest around the world preceding the Iraq invasion did diddly. I can sympathize with the lack of motivation to hit the streets and get tasered and incarcerated for nothing.

Furthermore, since it's now clear that Bush can even gin up an excuse for an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran (attacking only military targets as always and only generating a terrorist death-count) with the complicity of the papers and the telly *again*, and not even face impeachment proceedings.

When Bush declares martial law (the media will undoubtably come up with a nice euphemism so it's more consumable) and grudgingly 'delays' the general election that McCain cannot win, it's going to be on Nancy Pelosi's head. As though that means anything.

Does anyone believe they are really going to allow another Bobby Kennedy to take control of the Unitary Executive they have worked so diligently to create?

Yes, it is time for a revolution, as happens every time income becomes overbalanced toward the top. The last correction came in the Depression era, and before that it was Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting.

Now it's time for another. But as long as we are distracted by bread and circuses, the revolution will be delayed.

That's why it's important for Dennis Kucinich to read his impeachment articles into the Congressional Record and for the mass media to take note of it. The crimes of the Bushites need to be held up to public attention as much as possible until the complacent masses realize what has happened to their freedoms, not to mention the price of bread and admission prices to the circuses.

The pressure of the costs of the petroleum on which our economy is based along with the cost of food will put people in a mind to hear the voices from the wilderness like those of Dennis Kucinich and Glenn Greenwald.

One can only hope.

The crux of Sena Fitzmaurice/Comcast problems with Blue America ad: Carney "... wants to pardon phone companies who broke the law and gave thousands to his campaign."

Actually, it's worse than that Shooter. It is a matter of public record the Bush Adm. conducted warrantless surveillance on American citizens, with the assistance of telcoms, contrary to U.S. (FISA) law. As far as I know, this is not a matter of contention or debate. The Bush Adm. has claimed Executive Authority, for itself and telcoms involved, in breaking the law (FISA). Carney, I believe, wants to provide retroactive immunity for telcoms involved (see: Senate FISA bill s2248) in ongoing lawsuits before a court of law can decide if the Bush Adm. has the constitutional authority (under Art. II) to break the law (FISA). Thus, Carney wants to provide retroactive immunity before a pardon could/would be comtemplated.

At least, that's the way I see it.

bah.

~William. don't sue me for defamation but people who are 'left pragmatic' ain't in their right minds -*right handed, maybe. Also, I caught a 47" muskie on a bank pole. Can you believe it!

~Che "it's just the way things are". Don't believe them.