Katrina Vanden Heuvel, writer for the Nation was interviewed on Democracy Now and mentioned electoral reform (after Danny Schecter segment) in hopes that it would sprout from/around Occupy Wall Street.
“The moral clarity of this movement is what I think has moved people to get up and walk and be in motion,” says Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation magazine. “And what’s so interesting to me is—I was here last Wednesday for the march to Foley Square—that so many groups, which have been trying to get some energy, are finding the spark in here and coming together.” [includes rush transcript]
QUOTE: “The moral clarity of this movement is what I think has moved people to get up and walk and be in motion,” says Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation magazine. “And what’s so interesting to me is—I was here last Wednesday for the march to Foley Square—that so many groups, which have been trying to get some energy, are finding the spark in here and coming together.” [includes rush transcript]
Phi Beta Iota: Katrina's interview begins at 41:20. A pox on the two-party tyranny–one bird, two wings, same shit. OccupyWallStreet is not just independent, but independent of those who pretend to organize “independents.”
Call it, then, the state of exception: these years during which, in the name of security, some of our accustomed rights and freedoms are circumscribed or set aside, the years during which we live in a different time. This different time of ours has now extended ten years—the longest by far in American history—with little sense of an ending. Indeed, the very endlessness of this state of exception—a quality emphasized even as it was imposed—and the broad acceptance of that endlessness, the state of exception’s increasing normalization, are among its distinguishing marks.
. . . . .
Before the War on Terror, official torture was illegal and anathema; today it is a policy choice.
. . . . . .
Ten years later, what was the exceptional has become the normal. The improvisations of panic are the reality of our daily lives.
Read full article.
Phi Beta Iota: This is a very thoughtful article that cuts to the heart of the matter, i.e. the U.S. Government's divorce from both reality and principle–the immorality and insanity of all that the U.S. Government does “in our name” and at our expense.
October 3, 2011
Contact: Glenn Turner, 917-817-3396
glenn@ripplestrategies.com
Corn vs. Sugar Industries Legal Battle Heats Up Over “High Fructose Corn Syrup” Name Change
New Website FoodIdentityTheft.com Provides Background for Reporters and Consumers
Expert Legal Spokesperson Available For Interviews
WASHINGTON, October 3, 2011 High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is a man-made sweetener used in thousands of grocery store products and it has a serious image problem. Consumers are avoiding it. Food companies are taking it out of the products they make. Some supermarkets have banned it. Demand for this highly-processed ingredient is falling fast.
The Corn Refiners Association comprised of corporations that make HFCS -decided that changing the name was a way to fix this problem. They are petitioning the FDA so that HFCS can legally be called “corn sugar” and ultimately just “sugar². An official decision hasn¹t yet been made, but in 2008 the Corn Refiners Association began a $50 million dollar marketing campaign labeling HFCS as ³corn sugar². They are now being sued by a group of sugar farmers and refiners who believe the name change will confuse consumers and harm the sugar industry.
To better understand the Palestinian bid for membership in the United Nations, it is important to understand the original 1947 U.N. action on Israel-Palestine.
The common representation of Israel’s birth is that the U.N. created Israel, that the world was in favor of this move, and that the U.S. governmental establishment supported it. All these assumptions are demonstrably incorrect.
In reality, while the U.N. General Assembly recommended the creation of a Jewish state in part of Palestine, that recommendation was non-binding and never implemented by the Security Council.
Second, the General Assembly passed that recommendation only after Israel proponents threatened and bribed numerous countries in order to gain a required two-thirds of votes.
Third, the U.S. administration supported the recommendation out of domestic electoral considerations and took this position over the strenuous objections of the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon.
The passage of the General Assembly recommendation sparked increased violence in the region. Over the following months the armed wing of the pro-Israel movement, which had long been preparing for war, perpetrated a series of massacres and expulsions throughout Palestine, implementing a plan to clear the way for a majority-Jewish state.
It was this armed aggression, and the ethnic cleansing of at least three-quarters of a million indigenous Palestinians, that created the Jewish state on land that had been 95 percent non-Jewish prior to Zionist immigration and that even after years of immigration remained 70 percent non-Jewish. And despite the shallow patina of legality its partisans extracted from the General Assembly, Israel was born over the opposition of American experts and of governments around the world, who opposed it on both pragmatic and moral grounds.
Phi Beta Iota: The specifics demonstrate with great clarity that at the time the U.S. Government had intelligence but lacked integrity. Today the U.S. Government lacks both intelligence and integrity. Electoral Reform is the sole possible demand that can resolve the crisis of US democracy and US capitalism run amok–inverted into velvet theatrical facism.
How Real is Versailles on the Potomac?
Chuck Spinney, 11 October 2011
Barcelona, Catalunya
I began using the phrase Versailles on the Potomac in the late 1990s as a metaphor for the ‘let-them-eat-cake’ politics of the Military – Industrial – Congressional Complex or MICC. The MICC’s pervasive practices of front loading and political engineering evolved insensibly during the Cold War to create a dysfunctional majority faction in the Congress that undermined the checks and balances of the Constitution by gradually transferring Congress’s power of the purse to the President. By 1990, it was clear the insatiable greed of MICC would prevent a sensible adaptation to the end of the Cold War.1 In my view, which I think has been borne out by events, the MICC’s greed not only undermined our nation’s adaptation to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but drove the United States into a reckless policy of adventurism and war warmongering, a policy that benefitted a few at the expense of the many. I summed up this viewpoint last January in my essay, The Domestic Roots of Perpetual War, which is also the first chapter in the Defense Labyrinth, a short handbook written by insiders to help interested citizens understand how the Pentagon really operates.2
Fast forward to the fall of 2011: The economic crash that began in 2007, the government's response to it, and the moral collapse of a one of the most promising presidents in American history make it clear that the metaphor Versailles on the Potomac should not have been limited to the MICC, because the MICC is but one thread in a larger fabric of degenerate political mutation. Since the late 1970s, democratic governance in the United States has been mutating into what can now be characterized as an intolerant neo-fascist oligarchy, where an increasingly unequal distribution of wealth is destroying the American middle class by enriching a tiny minority with unprecedented wealth. It is also clear that this super-rich minority is using its wealth to entrench and perpetuate its power by destroying our traditional institutions.
Think my statement is a little too wild?
Read the essay Debt and Dumb, published by the current issue of Vanity Fair. The authors, Simon Johnson and James Kwak, are hardly radicals,3 but they end their essay on in the same place: on the larger question of the ongoing political mutation of the United States into a Versailles on the Potomac.
Are the current demonstrations triggered by the Occupy Wall Street movement, and more importantly, the Oligarchy's hysterical reaction to them, in any way indicative of pre-revolutionary instabilities similar to those that emerged spontaneously in France during the late 18th Century?
Only time will tell, but massive forces may be afoot, and if they are afoot, they may well spin out of control.
1 James Madison explained the dangers of a majority faction in Federalist #10, where he laid out the logic of the system of checks and balances in the design of the Constitution. My pamphlet, Defense Power Games (1990), explained how the gaming strategies evolved by the MICC during the Cold War undermined these checks and balances and explained why the end of the Cold War would not result in a real peace dividend.
2 Defense Labyrinth was written by 10 pentagon insiders, retired military officers and specialists with over 400 years of defense experience and is available free of charge in pdf format, downloaded here or here.
3 They are editors of the influential financial blog, The Baseline Scenario. Johnson is a professor at MIT and a former Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund.<
Phi Beta Iota: A tough read, getting through it twice confirms that the US Government and its ability to borrow are of concern to the 1% only in relation to their selfish interests. There is a chasm between those that pay taxes and those that steal their tax funds so great as to warrant a revolution.See Also:
One of the most interesting aspects of Occupy Wall Street (#ows) is the work it is doing to set up permanent occupations in EVERY city (over 1,000 locations globally, and growing) of note.
Here's a quick overview:
Navigation of the complex legalities of sleeping/living in an urban, public space (park, square). Every major city has a thicket of regulations in place to prevent people from congregating, let alone sleep overnight.
Defusing provocations from police to prevent more aggressive action. The police made a couple of attempts at provocations already (lots of pepper spray, lots of beatings with batons, and lots of arrests) in NYC. So far, the protesters just took it and didn't fight back.
Acquiring provisions. On-line support has helped the protest acquire many of the food, water, and other items it needs (although its unclear how many locations get anything approaching the level of support seen in NYC).
Food preparation. By keeping the permanent group small, the need for food/food prep stays manageable.
Shelter. Most locations selected prohibit tents. Lots of variants (cardboard, tarps, etc.) have emerged. This is going to be tougher in winter in the northern climes, but not undoable with small numbers of overnight residents.
Defense. Currently, the occupy movement is strictly adhering to the regulations and non-violence to avoid being ejected from their locations. The best medium term defense is a flashmob.
Media. 24x7x365
Local Governance. Open source. Consensus needed. Leaderless (pitch in if something needs doing, but don't assume you are running the show).
A permanent camp in each location means that there is a gathering point for HUGE protests in the future (quick response to shocks/events/etc.). Also, protests that span hundreds or thousands of cities simultaneously.
It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.
And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.
Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.
Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.
