Volatility

June 14, 2010

Notes Toward a New Constitutional Convention

 

John Jay opens Federalist #2 with an encomium to public interest government.
 

WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.

 
I’d say there’s one thing we’ve learned which is also certain, and which the American revolutionaries themselves self-evidently understood, that rogue government is worse than nothing.
 
Or, to put it a different way (since we often hear expressions of an elemental fear of the political unknown): Given kleptocracy and incipient tyranny, to bow and submit, out of whatever discreditable emotion, is worse than to run the risks inherent in casting off the illegitimate system and building a new one. The colonists heard the jeers of the loyalists and the fears of the stagnant and cowardly, and probably the whining of sheer laziness as well. But they were willing to run the risks Hamilton described in #1, just as they were again choosing to run them in admitting the failure of the Articles and reassembling to frame a new Constitution. Jay now resumes this theme in #2.
 

It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number.

 
This is true of today’s situation, as evinced by several examples. The Civil War supposedly settled the secession question. It really only settled might making right, but at any rate that stasis settled in for a long time. But today we have intellectual discussion of secession and even nascent movements, and the rationale for these arises at different points along a wide ideological spectrum.
 
The phrase “of their number” brings to mind the tea potters who had no problem with Bush policies but suddenly hate those same policies now that they’re Obama policies. But the example shows again the fraying of the alleged bonds of politics.
 
And then there’s Peak Oil and relocalization. Are we questioning union as well? Yes, we regard the top-heavy, bloated centralized system as unsustainable. It will have to simplify and decentralize whether it’s willing to or not, simply out of its inability to prop up its own weight and complexity. Do we also call for simplification and decentralization as a moral and political imperative in itself? Some of us do that as well. It’s evident that the corporate debt/”growth” economy has done nothing but concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few gangsters while stealing the people’s wealth and destroying our quality of life, our sense of well-being, our very democracy and freedom.
 
We can win these all back, but it’ll have to be done fighting on the line of building new power at a lower level of government and smaller, simpler level of political and socioeconomic organization. A relocalized economy and a decentralized, participatory democracy, are the two broad goals we must seek. Of course this still leaves open a vast number of possible details and ways of achieving those.
 
But first we must consider the difference between today and the original Convention. Consider Jay’s encomium to the land and the people.
 

It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

 
He goes on to echo the long cherished idea of America as a promised land for freedom I briefly discussed in my previous piece on the Convention.
 
Today we no longer enjoy the conditions Jay could boast about. The relatively low virulence of socioeconomic conflict back then was primarily because of natural abundance, the resources and the sheer magnitude of open land (if one left out the Indians). Jay was more correct than he probably knew when he mentioned the soil and waters even ahead of the unity of the people. There just wasn’t much scarcity to fight over.
 
Today it’s a radical injustice to still demand, and an evil deception and depravity to exalt, the economic version of the ideology of the frontiersman (so-called conservatism, “free market”, economic “libertarianism”). This could in theory have worked on an actual physical frontier where land was open to the rugged homesteader willing to work it. (But anyone who really knows American history knows what a complete myth this actually is to describe the settling of the West, which actually involved big government handing over all the best land and massive corporate welfare on top to the railroads, the agricultural rackets, real estate speculators, and other gangsters.)
 
Like I said this could in theory have worked back then. It can’t possibly work in today’s depleted world where there’s no room left and we all squirm or suffocate or thrash in a sardine can. (And none of us even own the can.) Whatever validity “capitalist” notions may have theoretically had in an empty, bounteous land, they have zero validity in an enclosed, seething cattle car. Today we no longer have capitalism because even in principle there’s no room for it in a centralized oligopoly. So just like with every other non-corporatist ideal, if you want real capitalism you have to want economic relocalization.
 
Jay describes how the founders, having embarked upon the great trial, recognized their error with the Articles and reconvened to try again.
 

A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.

This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.

 
These are the things we have to hash out. A new Convention will have to reclaim true federalism and decentralize it beyond what the original Framers considered appropriate for their own time.
 
The two main circumstances which have changed are the changed material dispensation, as I mentioned above, and the current tyranny of corporate rackets. This is the proximate cause of the federal government’s abdication of sovereignty and its malignant metastasis into a kleptocracy.
 
I’ll give another brief exposition on corporatism, this time a riff on “Too Big to Fail”. We all say, and even the cadres of government say, “TBTF is unacceptable.” But look at it this way – is the government itself Too Big to Fail? In a sense, yes. Most of the things the people currently consider non-negotiable are completely dependent upon a big, aggressive federal government, everything from entitlements to cheap consumer goods. It’s in fact false that we need anything this system provides, or that we couldn’t find better ways of providing it for ourselves. But of course the system propaganda seeks to suppress realization of the truth. And the government will reject “failure” wherever it can even if it is proven beyond any doubt that society would survive this government’s failure and would even be much better off for it. So they want the continued existence of the government for its own sake.
 
The government’s actions in bailing out the banks and dispensing massive corporate welfare prove that where it comes to corporate TBTF, in the case of specific big banks and corporations and sectors, here too the government simply wants to maintain these rackets in parasitic existence and loot the real economy on their behalf, just for its own sake. It’s all one unified corporatist governing structure. The kleptocratic system’s only goals are self-preservation and maximizing robbery.
 
The difference is that in theory government is constitutional and partakes of the sovereign authority, whereas by definition no corporation can ever be sovereign. By definition it can only tyrannically usurp governing power. This can happen only where it destroys the legitimate government, or where legitimate government has abdicated, alienated its legitimacy, and become illegitimate.
 
That’s what we have today. In that case, we have tyranny exercising power while authority is replaced by a void. In that case, by default, sovereignty falls back into the hands of the people as a mass of clay for them to fashion as they will, if they will. Otherwise they cease to be a people and become an atomized rabble of slaves.
 
Jay then recommends the new Constitution. He compares its genesis to the work of the First Continental Congress back in 1774. He compares how that earlier work, like the work of his day, faced the opprobrium of liars and criminals, especially in the press.
 

It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.

 
 But most of all he lauds the mettle of the brave, conscientious activists who worked so hard to produce something of value for the people.
 

They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That, being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of the time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after the most mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.

These and similar considerations then induced the people to rely greatly on the judgment and integrity of the Congress; and they took their advice, notwithstanding the various arts and endeavors used to deter them from it. But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this convention, and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience.

 
Contrast this with the minions of the kleptocracy. All the vile cadres of corporations, government, media, academia, the professions….the combination of gutter greed and powerlust, chickenhawk jingoism, tinpot arrogance and whiny sense of entitlement, loutish pride in ignorance, mediocrity, and stupidity, comes together to form what must be the most repulsive assemblage of subhumanity in all of history.
 
Contrast today’s gangster cesspool with the bright panoply of political heroism Jay evokes. Even allowing for rhetorical airbrushing, the difference beckons from across such an abyss as to seem infinite.
 
But perhaps the chasm isn’t so wide if we move away to a different vantage? Such people as Jay evoked can never again be produced by this system, but perhaps we the people can still find such character among ourselves.
 
We the people must reassert sovereignty. The legitimate government space is now vacant. Certainly we must beware of the kleptocracy’s capacity for force, but nevertheless we have to assert our sovereignty to the full extent of the possible, and then some. Only this can prove that those who stole our country are wrong when they call us slaves who deserve our fate.
 
So a new Convention shall have the mission of reconstituting the constitution. Its strategy shall be a new conception of federalism, explicitly devolving power to lower levels of the federal structure. This shall be part of a general movement of economic and political relocalization. Indeed, relocalized politics shall be a necessary precondition for any new convention which isn’t Astroturf. So it follows that the first order of business is to reconstitute something along the lines of town hall government. Other models include the medieval city, the American and French revolutionary clubs, the Russian soviets, the anarcho-syndicalist communes, and political manifestation of the Populist cooperatives. Tactically, anything seems possible, and part of the whole point of participatory democracy is experimentation.
 
That’s the way, if the seedlings are hardy enough to take full advantage of what soil and sun and rain are left, and I think even today these are still ample if the seed is sound, they can grow and flourish and eventually come together to comprise a vibrant forest.
Advertisements

18 Comments

  1. John Jay, the Constitutional Convention, the American revolution? How can you swallow this unadulterated high school civics bullshit? America had a preexisting well developed continent wide self sustaining civilization, perhaps for several thousand years. The European settlors eliminated these inhabitants both before and for one hundred plus years after the Revolution. Meanwhile, their own civilization was erected on slave labor and indentured servitude, government corruption, land speculation, bank fraud, commercial chicanery, monopolization and plunder of natural resources, and outright theft. Read a little Gustave Myers, History of the Great American Fortunes. It is available free on line. I would paste in the link if I understood how to do it.

    Comment by jake chase — June 14, 2010 @ 4:21 pm

    • I’m trying to find ways to politically adapt things so they can be of use in today’s struggle. Life and everything else is for the living.

      However imperfect the historical record may be, the political philosophy of freedom remains true, and just because the revolution was diverted and eventually left in a ditch to rot doesn’t invalidate its aspiration, however much today’s criminals would like that interpretation to prevail, and however much corporate liberals and other nihilists try to collaborate in that slander.

      So I don’t care about versions of political correctness which refuse to use the heritage we have because it involves mythology. Everything involves mythology. The enemy sure doesn’t shrink from it.

      Pasting in a link doesn’t work when you try it?

      Comment by Russ — June 14, 2010 @ 4:47 pm

      • My point is that all the political rhetoric about freedom and values and voting is just nonsense that operates as a cover for insider maneuvering, fraud, racketeering and theft, and that those constitute the real American history, our real legacy: 235 years of exploitation which stripped and denuded one generation of working people after another, subjected four or five generations of soldiers to murder and mayhem for no discernable purpose, and somehow managed to produce a fairly sizeable picture book middle class existing from paycheck to paycheck and mortgage payment to mortgage payment and car payment to car payment.

        Suddenly, everyone expects the world is about to end because this overprivileged booboisie has been swindled by a collapsing pyramid of debt that was stage managed by the pied pipers Clinton and Greenspan and exploded by a cadre of banker swindlers led by Goldman, while, meanwhile, the government continues to be hollowed out in the service of corporate interests and law continues to be sold by a bought and paid for Congress and undermined by a pygmy Supreme Court composed of ideological scoundrels with nothing but political or racial or gender credentials to recommend a single one of its members.

        Guess what? This has been business as usual since 1791. The first dagger to the heart of American freedom was Hamilton’s scheme to create a National Bank and an instant federal debt to enrich a speculative class that could quickly grab off public lands and make sure that settlors and farmers never achieved anything resembling independence. Instead, what they got was debt, which is the very same thing the latest middle class casualties got and and now are finding very difficult to service.

        Even now, the solution to our problem is quite simple. Extinguish all the debt through a national bankruptcy. Dissolve the corporations. Organize the economy to provide necessary and useful goods and services and pay working people to provide them. Take on responsibility for those unable to work. This solution is called Communism. Of course, it has never worked in the past and there is no particular reason to think it would work in the future, which is why we are likely to limp along under the crippling burden of these existing debts. But make no mistake about it: most individual people will rebel or become Jacobins or Communists or anything but the individualists they have always been, and most of them will find a way to slog through all this endless shit, on their own, as families, without leaders or parades or help from patrician shitheads like some Kennedy or Gore or Kerry (or Bush), unless and until a climate disaster puts an end to the whole human thing.

        Comment by jake chase — June 14, 2010 @ 8:02 pm

      • It seems your comment starts out cynically. I suppose I should apologize that I’m so childish that I actually still demand to live in freedom and that I crave to live among the human values I was born to value. I should apologize for my moral and spiritual quest. I should, but I don’t.

        But then you give a version of what needs to be done and seem to endorse it. Although I don’t think all that has to be done on “communist” lines. All of it is compelled by the freedom philosophy and the relocalization imperatives themselves.

        As for the new economic arrangements, all on a decentralized basis, there’s infinite room for experimentation – everything from small markets to syndicalism to kibbutz-style socialism. That’s for communities to decide.

        Comment by Russ — June 15, 2010 @ 3:51 am

  2. Well, that was inspiring.

    And I have to say that the paragraph provided a particularly satisfying experience.

    “Contrast this with the minions of the kleptocracy. All the vile cadres of corporations, government, media, academia, the professions….”

    It seems to me that what is required to get the ball rolling, as it were, among other things, is a catalyst.
    And if I had to single out something in particular, the catastrophe in The Gulf might be just the thing.

    I see that Obama has compared The Gulf disaster to 9/11.

    His words: “I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come.”

    Almost certainly true, but I think, sooner than The President might imagine, this ongoing “event” is going to shape how “We The People” think and feel about Obama, his administration, and The Federal government especially.

    Comment by Edwardo — June 14, 2010 @ 4:22 pm

    • The comparison is very apt, in a way he couldn’t have intended.

      Just as Bush happily allowed 9/11 to happen because he didn’t care about stopping it, so Obama did nothing to clean out the MMS and revamp the drilling regulatory regime, even though such a disaster was just a matter of time, especially given the absolute refusal of “regulators” to do their jobs, a refusal Obama knew all about and endorsed.

      Now that I think about it, Bush laughed off the most precise Al Qaida warning c. 3-4 weeks before 9/11, around the same length of time before the explosion that Obama went all in on Drill Baby Drill and declared warnings about lax regulation and corner-cutting to be a “tired debate”.

      Heckuva job. And Obama has been his own Brownie for months now (although he has other Brownies like Salazar and Allen as well).

      So it’s like his Katrina and his 9/11 all wrapped up in one package.

      Comment by Russ — June 14, 2010 @ 4:57 pm

  3. On your allegation of cynicism I plead nolo contendre. It has been obvious to me since the early 1960s that every political impulse now leads in the wrong direction. Nitwit ideas such as that ‘growth’ will resolve class conflicts, that larger and larger (and larger) self interested institutions can be ‘regulated’, that saviors will emerge to provide ‘leadership’, that tokenism produces ‘justice’, that ‘democracy’ and ‘free markets’ will make the world a safter place, that ‘education’ leads to happiness and material success. I’m sure I have missed some big ones. All of these received ideas are bogus, and the consequences of swallowing them are now obvious to anyone capable of looking around.

    We have failed adequately to limit power and priviledge the inevitable consequences of which are impossible debt burdens and opportunity loss- this translates to slavery, but the free enterprise kind in which paternalism tends to be absent.

    Expect the rise of the six income family: Dad works three jobs, Mom works two and Junior flips hamburgers. Don’t worry though; it will all be over by 2030 at the latest.

    Have you read Flaubert’s Bouvard and Pecuchet?

    Comment by jake chase — June 15, 2010 @ 7:31 am

    • No, I haven’t read the Flaubert.

      As for the scenario you describe, that’s definitely where we’re headed, and probably worse.

      But history has often been full of surprises, and sometimes people find the right Archimedean point to leverage circumstances into something worth doing.

      At any rate my only purpose is to try to fight. I’m not interested in the risks, either from the criminals or from how everything allegedly “goes wrong” at some point. It’s the fight that means everything.

      So while I agree completely on the idiocy of the lies you listed, some of them actually hijackings, I also take it you’d pre-emptively place all attempts to fight back on the list as well, and that I reject. That’s what I meant by “cynicism” – not realism toward the present, but rejection of any concept of a future.

      I at least have the idea of a future, and as long as I try to do something toward it, however limited action is by circumstances, then the idea’s alive.

      Comment by Russ — June 15, 2010 @ 9:19 am

      • I would suggest that only individual survival strategies are likely to succeed, even modestly. Organize five of your well chosen friends- maybe. Organize the whole farcockteh country- not a chance.

        Comment by jake chase — June 15, 2010 @ 2:06 pm

      • The “whole country” is a doomed concept anyway. As I said above, one way or another federalism’s going to devolve, get its center of gravity closer to the soil, as things should be.

        But it might also be true that nothing will suffice at all, and it really will be every man/small band for himself. But I do think the likelihood of that is an inverse function of to what extent people of good will can organize at the regional level.

        Comment by Russ — June 16, 2010 @ 2:10 am

  4. So… you are attempter ??
    I like the Jay quotes. Interesting.
    For info… a few years ago, these very same questions were put in front of US, in the EU.
    Federalism, yes or no ?
    And… believe it or not, the people were, and ARE, very very interested in these questions. In France, at least.
    The debate was passionate.
    Our leaders were not expecting us to be so interested in our fate, nor so politically aware of all that was at stake. (!!!)
    I personally voted against our proposed federalist constitution, precisely because I did NOT want the kind of federalism in Europe that is playing out in the U.S. (Although I COULD say.. just WHAT is federating the united (!!!) states at this point in time ??
    The question is…
    Corruption has been around for a long time. It will always be around. We will not get rid of it. It is human.
    But… in a humungous, UNIFORMIZED world, well, corruption can become as humungous as everything else in the system has become. Humungous corruption, like humungous corporations. Or humungous federal government.
    Or humungous debt.
    We need to draw back from BIG, as you mentioned above, and work on tightening, and weaving connection IN and THROUGH smaller structures.
    As you say.
    But… I STILL say that you are wrong to zero in on the kleptocracy.
    This is a SYSTEMS problem.
    Not so much an individual one.
    When you get humungous structures the way we have now, the individual dilutes himself in one big ocean of the masses.
    We are operating under some self deceptive ideas about just how INDIVIDUAL (in the sense of unique…) we CAN be in THIS system.
    That goes for the rich, and the “kleptocracy” too.
    On cynicism…. Jake, you sound a little bit like… Quoeleth (the guy in Ecclesiastes…) WITHOUT the poetry.
    I prefer… the poetry in MY Ecclesiastes, thank you.
    It’s time to pick up and move on from the lying in the dust covering one’s head with ashes mentality about “our” past sins.
    Collective masochism will not bring all those dead Indians back anyway. And.. WE didn’t kill them either, even if we must bear the consequences of our ancestors’ acts…
    Cynicism is our greatest enemy these days.
    After all… we need to do a little REVISING of that “bible” constitution, now, don’t we ?
    Take it down off that way up high shelf where we have stuck it in order to bow down to it at every occasion, and do some serious rewriting.
    The times require it.
    Personally, I’m STILL very attached to freedom as an ideal.
    But… I feel as though I am in a dwindling minority here.
    After all… what does being free mean if we colonize the whole of nature in our human folly of conquest ?
    We need frontiers. Wild spaces. Still.
    IN OUR HEADS, at the very least.

    Comment by Debra — June 15, 2010 @ 9:11 am

    • Debra, you read me well on freedom and the frontier.

      This is all a systems problem, but since the existing system has been completely hijacked by organized crime, it is therefore a kleptocracy. Or a kleptocratic system, if you prefer that term.

      The exponential debt economy was part of the evolution of the system from “normal” historical corruption to full kleptocracy.

      And underlying that it’s a cheap oil-based system, and we’ve now reached the end of cheap oil.

      As for the structurally inevitable and politically desirable devolution/decentralization of federalism, I like to say the EU bought into upward integration at the peak of the market.

      Today those who supported it who weren’t slated to profiteer off it are learning the hard way how they were swindled.

      Comment by Russ — June 15, 2010 @ 9:30 am

      • I tell my friends to dig into a book called “From Dawn to Decadence, From 1500 to the Present, 500 Years of the History of Western Culture” (approximate title) by Jacques Barzun.
        Jacques is an historian of IDEAS.
        In the 1200’s, François of Assisi and HIS contemporaries were initially extremely disenchanted about the corruption of HIS times.
        Rampant systemic corruption in the 1200’s…
        Kinda gives a sense of PROPORTION to the idea of corruption and how long it has been outraging us..
        What interests me is that… Francis managed to reinject the Franciscan ideal into the Catholic Church at the time, and that was an INCREDIBLE feat, considering how attached the Church already was to material wealth and temporal powern and how much Francis’s ideal of poverty was an incredible slap in the face to the status quo.
        And… in the 14-1500’s, well… Luther had the SAME gripe, once again, and well… things just didn’t turn out the same, did they ??
        Harping on about the kleptocracy is too bad, when the problem is THE CONDITIONS that allow the kleptocracy to take over. The systemic problem.
        THAT is what we need to be revising.
        (Like, there needs to be some rewriting of the Constitution going on, as I said above.)
        But… we will have to accept that getting rid of those conditions will bring us pain, too.
        Downsizing. Our lifestyles too.
        No having cake and eating it too.
        Things don’t work that way.

        Comment by Debra — June 16, 2010 @ 5:53 am

      • It seems like the written Constitution still can be the vehicle of the people’s constitution, if we can shake off the existing system parasite.

        Or maybe there will have to be rewriting, we’ll see. There will certainly have to be federalistic devolving.

        And the same is true of these obese “consumer” lifestyles. I think here too more people are wising up as to what a disastrous path it was to surrender citizenship in favor of consumerism. And post-oil it can’t be sustained anyway.

        Comment by Russ — June 16, 2010 @ 9:37 am

  5. Words are dynamite and not much is better than clamoring our way to justice.

    It bugs me it’s difficult. Wide eyed, I was convinced in school there was nothing to it. We are free. We know it. We die for it. It’s history going ahead and ready worldwide.

    What happened? I’m not silly and I’ll give what it takes.

    Do we build new nations on our doorstep?

    Comment by Brian Hayes — June 16, 2010 @ 3:12 am

    • Hi Brian,

      It’s true, all real political changes began with ideas, words.

      So there’s a chance that what we do in the blogosphere won’t be in vain.

      I know what you mean about the lies of our upbringing. But little by little, people are breaking out of those ruts, overcoming those lies.

      Little by little, we can do what we can, and see where it leads.

      Comment by Russ — June 16, 2010 @ 4:44 am

  6. The author fails to mention a most important fact. The states have already applied for a convention call in sufficient number to cause a convention call. In all, over 700 applications have been submitted. All that is required is 34 applications from 34 states. The applications can be read at http://www.foavc.org. Many of the applications contain issues designed to improve the country along the lines mentioned in this article.

    Comment by Bill Walker — June 17, 2010 @ 12:48 pm

  7. Thanks Bill. I’m aware there’s other efforts along these lines, and I mean to read up more on them.

    The ones I have read about, though, weren’t along decentralizing, anti-corporate lines. More like the opposite.

    I’ll check out the link.

    Comment by Russ — June 17, 2010 @ 4:01 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: