Glenn's post was just one more example, in an endless line, that war is the great destroyer.

They say that the first casualty of any war is the truth, and I believe that. I also believe that "fairness" or "equal treatment under the law" is the second casualty.

The government at all levels is waging wars. Wars on terrorism, drugs, "enemy" countries, the poor, the homeless, fat, cigarettes, or damn near anything that the rulers decided to prosecute at any given time.

The nation stands close to the edge of destruction, and the mindless busybody meddling in the affairs of others as we ignore important matters at home is what will destroy us.

If you want a "decent country" then stop policing the world. Stop all "intelligence agencies" from committing war crimes against other governments. Stop giving any country money --- let the populous donate to charities that can help those unfortunates in foreign lands. This is a first step.

Step two; get rid of all laws that simply outlaw a vice. No laws against any drugs, gambling, prostitution, sugar, hamburgers, cell phones, or any of the things that the busybodies happen not to like.

Step three: break the country up into smaller units. The empire must end, and the bankrupt central government has lost all moral right to exist. Yes, the USA has no right to exist. The people do; not the government. Let the people re-write the covenant between themselves and their government: even if that means that Florida tells the rest of the states to "kiss ass" and leaves the Evil Union. (you may still come visit us in the winter)

Ladies and Gentlemen; the constitution has failed. We must start over with no option off the table as the present rulers love to say. All options on the table at a constitutional convention is one way of the people regaining control of the central government. I think that beats violence in the streets.

After the last 100 years, we know that "electing better leaders" is a fucking pipe dream.

Quite frankly, it's my opinion that adolescent desires for revenge and retribution are at work here, for slights real and imagined going all the way back to the 7-2 Supreme Court decision in 2000.

You are completely wrong, at least as it applies to me. After 9/11 I was standing 100% shoulder-to-shoulder with Bush. He fumbled away my support, incrementally, painfully, in his long, slow steady parade of incompetent blunders.

His approval rating track during that time - 90% to 29% - seems to suggest, uh, I'm not unique.

You said it, my friend.

Altho I think a certain man said it earlier, and shorter, thusly:

"A little revolution now and again is a good thing".

Lots of people argue that the comment "a republic, if you can keep it" indicates where things began to go wrong. Others pluck for Lincoln's starting a war to preserve a form of government (a telling point) ... but the truth is far more mundane, and was noted well by Lord Acton when he said "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

ALL governments, no matter what their structure, underlying ethos, or intentions, begin to go wrong from the first day of their existence - and the ratchet effect usually ensures that the trend is consistently negative thereafter.

This does not mean that there isn't relative advantage in one particular structure over another, or one particular ethos or set of intentions or philosophical moorings over another. What it means is that all governments need to be reformed FROM OUTSIDE. They never, ever, voluntarily reform themselves. The one truth that both education and political mythology are designed to conceal is that "there is no government without the consent of the governed". Thus, the idea is propagated that electing the right people will fix things, when what is necessary for government reform is the withdrawal of your consent to being governed by criminals.

As of today, there is no sign of any significant body of people in the western world (in or out of the USA) willing to withdraw their consent.

Hence, reform has not happened, is not happening, and will not happen until such time as this body of people steps forward in unambiguous terms.

If any here think that simply prosecuting a few more criminals will enact such reform, then they are simply not paying attention (even tho i tend to agree that would be a good thing in its own right).

All the above, in my humble opinion, naturally.

That's all I wanted to say.

Yes, I can agree with your post.

I am not in favor of violent action unless the people have no other choice; and I mean no other choice at all.

In our situation, that leaves only a few options. First, some state might try to leave the Union and see if the central government would send in troops again. If California was the state, it might just work.

The second option would be a push for an unlimited constitutional convention. The Articles of Confederation were overturned by a constitutional convention; why not have another since we have done it once before?

Of course, a third option is that the coming hyperinflation might lead to total collapse of the central government with the various states declaring independence in the chaos --- this might be possible without a lot of bloodshed.

One high-level Democrat with strong ties to Feinstein, who spoke on condition of anonymity, characterized the senator's statements on Panetta this week as "a show of strength, a brush-back pitch, from a powerful chair who can be helpful or hurtful" to Obama.

"She feels strongly about protocol," Feinstein's friend said. "As chair of the Intelligence Committee, she expected a courtesy call, especially if it was going to be outside the norm."

"If she did not respond with a show of strength, she'd be seen as weak," the insider said. "This is not the time for weak leaders. And she is not the kind of wallflower that would simply turn the other cheek with this kind of offense."

...

With the withdrawal of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as Obama's nominee for commerce secretary - in the face of a pay-to-play inquiry - and the current brouhaha over Panetta, she said, "I would be more careful. You don't want to squander all the good will from the election."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/07/MNTH154H3S.DTL

Yes, one better play nice with Feinstein, or your smashing electoral victory will be "squandered".

Pathetic. Pathetic.