For Truth and Reconciliation to work, the public should want the truth or see value in it. They would need to be curious and self-introspective.

I guess that the reconciliation part has to do with compromises. And I'd be willing to go for it if it weren't for the young bucks buying T-bone steaks with food stamps, and welfare queens driving around in Cadillacs.

First fix that, then we'll compromise.

Whose truth and who's supposed to reconcile with whom?
Well, off to Whole Foods to get me some Brie and Gewuerztraminer with my food stamps in my Audi A6.
Cadillac is so yesterday's welfare queen.

What strikes me as deeply flawed about all the discussion of impeachment is that almost everyone assumes a static situation: that the trial would start tomorrow and that everyone would vote on party lines, so there would be no conviction. The point, in my mind, of impeachment is that it empowers the Congress to investigate and executive privilege cannot block that Congressional right. Now if, after turning over all the rocks and seeing what scurries out, the Administration turns out to be blameless: fine. Given this Administration, that's unlikely. But bringing to public view the facts what really happened (Plame outing, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib) will change the situation and perhaps make conviction possible. (Remember, it was Republicans who finally went to Nixon and told him he needed to resign after investigations finally laid the truth out for all to see.) In my mind, the value is in the investigation. Without the Constitutionally-mandated subpoena powers an impeachment investigation has, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would be relatively toothless.

A6? Decked with a fur steering wheel? Sweeeet!

Don't forget to pick up some rugola.

Reconciliation my ass! Tar and feather 'em and ride 'em out of town on a rail.

". . .the rot is so deep in US society that a just punishment process would require the incarceration of 94% of the white people inside the beltway."

That isn't a bug, it's a feature.

They have earned execution. Incarceration is a kindness, and perhaps an unpragmatic one: while alive, they might yet still wield power.

You're not punished as long as you tell the truth about what you did.

We've already, in effect, had that after the Civil War and during the heyday of the civil rights struggle. It fucking failed. Miserably. Forgiveness isn't the issue: restitution is. The injustice in this nation _cannot_ end until the rapine of the upper class is not merely ended, but their profits disgorged. I couldn't care less who feels what, and no right-thinking person should. The analogy to South Africa does not apply. There, bigotry within mainstream society was the problem. Here, any bigotry of consequence lies with a narrow aristocracy. The most virulent, bigoted, perverse and selfish white male Republican that lacks political office and influence doesn't begin to have the moral culpability of most "liberal" Democratic officeholders.

You play to win class war or you stay the fuck home.

Impeachment is, like many laws that should be repealed (most particularly the Military Commissions Act which basically allows for a de jure dictatorship of the U.S., but hey, no worries) a congressional obligation, but I think speculation on it is pointless at the moment. To get any of these things, we'd need a) a powerful block of honorable persons in Congress or b) an honorable president to come along next election. We will get neither in the next two years.

But truth and reconciliation in lieu of any of Congress' obligations is such a sublime combination of pointlessness, absurdity, impracticability, and insult that my head is, irl, starting to hurt thinking about it.

On the upside, I finally begin to understand how all those non-Euclidean angles in R'lyeh work.

I guess that the reconciliation part has to do with compromises. And I'd be willing to go for it if it weren't for the young bucks buying T-bone steaks with food stamps, and welfare queens driving around in Cadillacs.

If this was sarcasm, I think I missed the relevance. If this was meant to actually support a point, I have to wonder what combination of immorality and poor cognitive ability would allow any person (not necessarily the poster, as, again, I'm not sure what he or she meant) to concentrate on the hypothetical abuse by a few persons of a tiny portion of the federal budget while the Republicans (and many Democrats) not merely waste but traitorously employ well over half of the whole budget.

Oh, so I suppose I'm radical for wanting guillotines and firing squads, am I? Hmmph.

"young bucks buying T-bone steaks with food stamps, and welfare queens driving around in Cadillacs."

I'm also curious-- is this sarcasm? Besides, isn't it precisely the same indignant right-wing windbags who stereotype the same groups of people Labiche does who are generally against impeachment? (Well, them, and "ultra liberal" Nancy Pelosi, but I digress.)

Anyway, I say legalize marijuana and clear cell space for the 94 per cent. And where's my T-bone steak?

The R of T&R will be performed on Oprah. Reconciliation will be achieved in 12 steps. Billy Graham's son will declare America healed. Burger King and McDonald's will provide a free burgers and Cokes or Pepsis to all, regardless of you know what.
The T will appear the following day:120,000 jobs will be outsourced to Malawi and Zambia and the same number of stealth cruise missiles will hit the enemy of the hour. President Harlan W. Bush IV will declare America safe again and stay the course our founding fathers paved for the GNO (Greatest Nation on Earth.)
Impeachment must come out of the barrel of a gun, Mao might have said.

"Line the motherfuckers against the wall, and set to auto."

Now THAT I understand. Amen.

And missing sarcasm on the web is no great sin for the writer or the reader. No worries.

My point was that interests masquerading behind freedom of speech, or of meritocracy or whatever, work overtime to drive a wedge between people needing to compromise in order to reconcile.

Perhaps so, but there is, again, a more salient point:

What ethical, social, or economic value is gained from attempts at compromise?

Short answer: NONE. AT ALL. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Rightwingers are holding nigh-all of the cards. They gain nothing from giving up anything. A mafia don will kill you if you steal a hundred thousand dollars from him. And he may kill you if you steal $3.75 from him. It's the principle of the thing. Assuming the police are a non-issue, there is no reason for him to compromise. Rightwingers, in both parties, are nothing more than parts of organized crime rings. The same philosophy applies. They will slow down only to stop, and they will stop only when they're dead.

If your mom is raped, is there anything to gain from a "truth and reconciliation" meeting with the rapist -- who will, in this analogy, NEVER be prosecuted even though any fresh out of law school lawyer could win the case? Better yet, if some guy beats the hell out of you, takes possession of your home, and engineers it so you lose your job is there any value in "truth and reconciliation" with the guy six months later while you're homeless? That. Is. Not. A. Remedy.

It isn't even a good idea.

It isn't even an idea that could be enacted.

It would be a better use of our time to discuss what would happen if Bush transformed into a block of pure chocolate.

(Then why am I still here? To stand in solidarity with all those who have suddenly found great merit in state-sponsored execution for treason.)

Do any of you really think the Obama administration will push their A.G. to prosecute Bush crimes not already under investigation?

I don't. And I don't think the few criminal trials underway are making a dent in the public consciousness thanks to our corporate media poo-pooing each and every revelation about genital lacerations on Gitmo prisoners and billions gone missing in Iraq.

I think the loudest song you're gonna hear from a Pres. Obama is the "Let's Look Ahead Boogie." he night will close with a sobbing, slow rendition of "Don't Ask Questions, Heal the Nation" by Aretha, written for the even by Mike Huckabee and John Ashcroft.

Come ON! I'm with Mark. The futhermockers are gonna walk...

(Then why am I still here? To stand in solidarity with all those who have suddenly found great merit in state-sponsored execution for treason.)
Posted by No One of Consequence at June 12, 2008 05:59 PM

two rounds in the back of the head, whild kneeling in their underwear next to holes they themselves dug.

That's how they do it in the places whose other practices theirs most closely resemle...

Exactly woody. People debating the cruelty of pain during execution are missing the point: the audience _wants_ pain, which is why we are using such elaborate methods. Bullet to the back of the head is about as painless as it gets. No brain, no pain.

And you don't need to waste taxpayer dollars on a doctor to check for death.

And yeah; they're going to walk. I'd like to think that we could get ourselves turned around in the next ten years. Delusional, perhaps, but conceivable.

But NOTHING will be done by Obama. He will squander the First Black President cachet immediately on day one. A tremendous insight is revealed about our nation from the fact that the first black president will be an oreo. (And, yeah, I can say it.)

Yikes. Look, I agree that Bush and the gang ought to be criminally prosecuted, but all this violent revenge porn you guys are indulging in is frankly making me sick to my stomach.

Really, at the end of the day what matters isn't that the Very Bad People are punished, though that would be icing on the cake. What matters is that what they've done comes out in the open in a way that the perpetrators are discredited, and the public acknowledges it by saying "Never again".

To those naysayers who say a Truth and Reconcialion commission isn't realistically viable, well, sheesh, Jonathan said as much already in his post. Though given the hard times this country has yet to go through, its moment may yet come. In the meantime, it's a very worthwhile concept to keep at the back of our minds.

"Really, at the end of the day what matters isn't that the Very Bad People are punished, though that would be icing on the cake. What matters is that what they've done comes out in the open in a way that the perpetrators are discredited, and the public acknowledges it by saying "Never again".

You mean like with Watergate? Or Vietnam? Or poll taxes?

You've missed the point entirely. It's not just that it's impossible to do a Truth and Reconciliation commission. It's pointless and stupid. It helps no one. It solves nothing. It will convince no one of anything. Anyone with the power to make such a thing happen would be better off enforcing the law. And like it or not, treason is punishable by death, which is kinda fitting considering the measure of the crime.

But, again, we should never be distracted by tremendously pathetic ideas like T&R. It would be a grave insult to all of those who have already died in our government's latest murder spree. It is a blessing that it is an impossibility.

He will squander the First Black President cachet immediately on day one.

Considering the AIPAC speech, Obama - still high from prevailing over the other saber-rattler - must have figured why wait.

* * * * * * *

The concept of truth & reconciliation is, well, not exactly laughable, but, even as a fantasy, hard to squeeze into anything resembling the USA I've come to know and loathe. And I ain't short on imagination.

With or without the prospect of moral sanction, there will be no testify! moment of moral clarity. Few want to hear it, and none care enough to demand it. Unless, of course, the whole charade is limited to Bush-Cheney, Inc., in which case, the odds of becoming reality skyrocket to one in a billion. Sure, it would render the whole exercise pointless, but wouldn't it feel great?

For fuck's sake, we don't even know what constitutes a demand.

Americans are galaxies away from indicting our own political system, much less incarcerating or executing it. To do so would require far too much self-examination.

To Labiche's point, we don't do culpability. It crimps our style.

* * * * *

"Really, at the end of the day what matters isn't that the Very Bad People are punished, though that would be icing on the cake."

And, that, Quinn, is exactly why we get what we get.

If the Very Bad People who devised the policies which led to the state-sanctioned slaughter of thousands of citizens throughout Southeast Asia and Central America had suffered the punitive wrath of an informed, indignant public, we would not be having this discussion today.

I'm not one to advocate state-sanctioned executions, if only because my faith in The State to do anything of value has been seriously undermined over the last decade. Yet, to agitate against Ye Olde Summary Execution for the architects of mass murder is to seriously minimize the extent to which we already have blood on our hands. At this point, it isn't a matter of whether we have blood on our hands, but how much and whose and to what end.

But let's play Utopian Lefty for a moment (as if we do anything else), and pretend we at least share a belief in - and commitment to - something resembling Justice For All, albeit without the nasty bloodletting which so offends our civilized sensibilities.

Instead of the choreographed obscenity of a highly praised war criminal's flag-draped casket gently rolling into the sunset, Ronald Reagan would have atrophied in prison and been buried in a fashion befitting his blood-soaked legacy. Daddy Bush would be there now, playing solitaire and writing love notes to John Negroponte. Bob Gates and Donald Rumsfeld would - at the very least - be sharing a toilet. So what if they got frozen shrimp on Sundays and watched Desperate Housewives together. At least they wouldn't be murdering people who never did them any harm.

Can't we all just get along? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say no.

But we can mitigate our most homicidal impulses if we're willing to look in the mirror and 'fess up that we human beings - all of us, like it or not - are burdened with a capacity for cruelty which can only be mitigated by the certain prospect of being held accountable for one's crimes.

If Very Bad People are to be spared from punishment - which means providing them with an opportunity to resume their serial crimes at a more politically opportune point in the future - then why should anyone else be held to account for their crimes?

Unless and until we can summon enough indignation to spark a genuine hunger for justice - and accept the fact that justice is not fucking pretty - there will only be war and kleptocracy and an endless stream of revenue for those who invest in KBR, Honeywell, Raytheon and Taser International.

As vile as revenge porn may be, it pales in comparison to tapping our infinite reserves of concern and stroking each other while one atrocity after another - decade after pointless fucking decade - is unleashed against the world's most vulnerable populations. That we continue to tolerate it, finance it, profit from it and then shake our heads in disbelief is an awfully poor reflection of who we really are. Until that changes, it is who we are.

Maybe it always will be. But, as someone is sure to remind me, always is a long time.

"Really, at the end of the day what matters isn't that the Very Bad People are punished, though that would be icing on the cake. What matters is that what they've done comes out in the open in a way that the perpetrators are discredited, and the public acknowledges it by saying "Never again".

It's almost superfluous to add anything after NOoC and Arvin have had their say, but still:

As many others have said before, there's no need to "censor" anything here; we just add it to the tidal wave of trivia and mindless entertainment that makes up our public discourse, and the sheer volume of it plus the speed at which it flies by makes it impossible for any of it to stick. We all heard Iran-Contra testimony, and nobody gave a fuck. People here in Virginia almost elected Ollie North to the Senate a decade later, for fuck's sake! Perhaps you've seen the polls that show how the American People™ - ahh, the good ol' American People™ - have started to rethink their supposedly ironclad opposition to the Iraq occupation because hey, a man on the teevee said that there surge is workin', and ooh, look at that shiny object?

This is the stupidest goddamn nation on Earth. Not to let the Democrats off the hook, but the slightly more virulent form of the disease, the Republicans, have spent the last forty years consistently ramping up their methods - war abroad, Constitutional crises at home. Nixon expanded the war from Vietnam to Cambodia and Laos while Watergate happened stateside (and he was still called a "peacemaker" at his funeral by Bill Clinton). Reagan turned Central America into an abbatoir while selling weapons to the Iranians (which you would think might at least make for a fun zinger for a Democrat today to throw out there, just to watch Republicans sputter), killing Qaddafi's daughter and preserving the nutmeg trade with Grenada. And we're all too familiar with what Il Douche has done with his time in office. Each one amazingly more brazen and psychotic than the last. But does this translate into Americans thinking, "Hey, maybe I should be skeptical of this Republican brand?" Of course not! They cuts mah taxes and they bombs people what needs a good bombin'! After a term in office for Obama - assuming this racist cesspool of a country doesn't actually elect McCain just for spite - go ahead and bet the house on Americans forgetting all about what Republicans have proven themselves to stand for and giving them another turn behind the wheel.

Seriously, dude - how much more open does it need to be? I don't care how many hours you work each week, I don't care how many things you have to deal with in your life - at what point can you finally spare a few seconds or muster up a fraction of historical consciousness to connect these huge fucking dots? What do these people have to do to make it any more clear: "This is what we do, this is what we are"? At what point do you finally acknowledge that Americans are selfish imbeciles who couldn't care less if the world burns as long as there are still soft drinks, potato chips and remote controls?

Here's something fun - go check out the reader comments at popular sites like YouTube whenever anything related to politics gets posted, or just check the comments at mainstream news sites. After you get done vomiting, remind yourself - these are the people who are computer literate and interested enough in current events to even pay attention. Then remind yourself how vastly many more don't even consider any of this important enough to pay attention at all (what percentage voted in '04? 50%?).

At that point, if you still feel optimistic, pass some of whatever you're holding over here.

Here's something fun - go check out the reader comments at popular sites like YouTube whenever anything related to politics gets posted, or just check the comments at mainstream news sites. After you get done vomiting, remind yourself - these are the people who are computer literate and interested enough in current events to even pay attention. Then remind yourself how vastly many more don't even consider any of this important enough to pay attention at all (what percentage voted in '04? 50%?)

yeah, about 50%. and about 50% of that 50% determine the outcome. amd that's BEFORE the Pukes get busy stealing votes.

Kerry was "defeated" by the theft of about 1% of that 25%.

hey, man, i been out for almost a week, so pass it this way, too.

Thanks to Upside Down Flag for expressing the point I raised earlier with less gratuitous cursing. Reading about our government's latest kill count can actually bring me close to tears if I meditate on it. I channel that into anger because crying makes my congestion unbearable.

Look, the problem is humans are awful. We have the privilege in the U.S. of facing down the very worst in our natures, backed with traditions of murder and bigotry that normalize the worst parts of us to survive the last ice age. This is why I'm so certain that mere "education" will not solve the problem. We are not stupid. We are bad. We have names for people who believe that education alone will change our natures: suckers, chumps, rubes, to name a few.

Information, raw data, is the least processed and least useful form of education, generally speaking. An engaging teacher, a comprehensive narrative, a passionate speaker -- all of these things are better. But they wouldn't be enough to convince the 10% of us (U.S. citizens) who are racial bigots to abandon their convictions. They wouldn't make a dent in the 50% or better that are nationalistic bigots (this merges with race; Clinton, the first President to bomb white people in a "police action", got a lot more grief than others before and after for slaughtering brown ones). UDFlag is right: telling people that our leaders are immoral is pointless. It wouldn't work. We know this because they've already seen the evidence of it.

And what incentive is there for anyone to tell the truth? Doesn't anyone remember childhood? People tell the truth because they have to: no other reason. We common people, we working people, we peasants, we are better and more moral than our aristocracy because we must be. Those of us who step out of line get slapped down. Chesterton said it, and it should be carved into relief on every high school civics textbook:

"The poor object to being governed badly. The rich object to being governed at all."

I am accused of loving revenge porn. How many political and economic decisions does an American make per day? How many have moral consequences? It is countless. Fuck revenge. If I wanted revenge I'd have to take out 35% of the population. True vengeance would require me to go into every bar, every church, every home and slaughter people for a litany of offenses, each a matter of life or death, that would take hours to recite. I just don't have that kind of time. Besides, it's unhygenic. And once they're dead, who will make my sandwitches?

More seriously, revenge is irrelevant. Our aristocracy commits crimes with their every move, their every breath. They do so with impunity because they are uniquely powerful. This power prevents them from being prosecuted. They will not separate from this power for any reason. Why would they? As soon as they lose power, they lose their lives. They have set the terms. Am I a monster because I accept them?

Bush can be dead, or Bush can be an aristocrat, but Bush can never be just a citizen, subject to laws. That is his choice, not ours.

No one here has revenge fantasies, but the idea that the powerful will be felled by passionate speaking is the most noxious of delusions.

Wow. This thread is really something.

I suspect that the kind of justice the previous posters are referring to does not exist; the perfectly balanced, no residue kind. Ever seen it? I haven't. I suspect it's like "the free market," an idea that only exists in the minds of people looking for an excuse to do something they know they probably shouldn't, but can't control.

Somewhere between the idea and the action this perfect justice inevitably transforms into plain ol' violence which, morality aside, doesn't deter future violence. If violence prevented violence, we'd live in a Utopia. Maybe one's been declared lately; I'll put up a Google Alert.

"Oh, but y'see, it hasn't been the RIGHT KIND of violence...It's been the greedy, selfish kind, not the morally correct, super-justicey kind." Well, you might be right, but I'm not convinced. And if the groups of righteous people carrying righteous guns start righteously shooting, I might be righteously killed whether I deserve it or not. While we're at it, who decides who gets that righteous bullet? You? Uh, no thanks. Me? Fuck that. Firing squads, treason trials--all these have a tendency to grow.

I don't care who you are, or what you go through, this world causes rage. It's terrifying and uncertain and unfair, and we all make it up as we go along. Believe it or not, the people demonized in this thread ALSO think they're doing the right thing, even if "the right thing" is only "getting richer, getting more, making sure my genes continue on and all of THEIRS don't."

Instead of reverting to the same old "this group kills that group to make a better world" idea that hasn't worked for 30,000 years, I'd like to hear something new. Maybe that new idea will also be flawed; probably it will. But at least we'll be investigating, right? And really: "kicking ass and taking names" is so stereotypically American; maybe if we all weren't so intoxicated by the idea of righteous violence, following that will o' the wisp into Hell again and again, we'd stop screwing up the world.

That's the thing about evil; it often looks like righteousness. If you're certain that you can tell the difference--if you're 1000% sure--go for it. (Nothing I could say would stop you anyway.) But know the odds are against you. Even a cursory reading of history demonstrates that such faith is a necessary precondition for doing really bad things, and all of the really bad people had it.

But you're right--compared with the possibility of enacting more evil in the world, and doing it in the name of justice, which not only defiles what you say you care about, but continues a chain of action and reaction that will make it even harder to spot true justice in the future--suggesting a "Truth and Reconciliation" commission is an absurd waste of time. Enough with all THAT pollyanna bullshit...

Looks like I riled some things up in here. Well, I guess "revenge porn" is pretty loaded language.

Listen, I do recognize that most of you (even the ones riffing on each other's calls for machine automated firing squads and humane bullets to the backs of heads) are making really good points about the seeming hopelessness of our situation. For instance:

--Arvin, you're so right, there is blood on our hands. We're swimming in it. And no, I don't think we can all just get along (or were you just attacking a Straw Liberal there?).

--No One of Consequence, I agree, "Never Again" IS an idiotic thing to say. (And I was an idiot to use it the way I did; I wrote in too much of a hurry. I know that "Never again" in reality just means "Never again, until the next time". Still, I feel it could be a helpful thing for society-at-large to resolve, in the same way that it's not bad for a lush to swear off drinking, even if he only keeps the promise for a week.)

--And yes Labiche, we are being manipulated into incuriousness. Though I can't quite tell if you're serious about the Lizard people.

But... well... I have this non-controversial theory that the more depressingly and angrily reality-based a site is, the fewer readers it gets. For instance, I love me some Arthur Silber, but sometimes I'm afraid I'm the only one. The thing that I think makes A Tiny Revolution so attractive is that it usually manages to successfully run the gauntlet between being fun and cheeky on one side, and smart and reality-based on the other. Funny and optimistic things are more attractive to return to day after day. That's why I keep coming back, at least.

I'm just curious-- as the chorus in here seemed to be belting it out in a minor key well before I arrived to piss everybody off further-- is that the reason you all keep coming back here, too?

As for a T&R commission... I understand the situation may not be exactly the same, but why doesn't the generally positive example of South Africa's T&R commission seem to sway anybody here?

BULLSHIT!!!

I must appologise for my last post if it offends, one must realize that I concider myself(and others do also)the most unforgiving motherfucker YOU'll run across in this lifetime.

Instead of reverting to the same old "this group kills that group to make a better world" idea that hasn't worked for 30,000 years, I'd like to hear something new.

I'm not a this group kills that group kinda guy, Mike. Collective punishment and justice are - in my prickly, hazardous, non-binary moral universe - incompatible.

I've long opposed capital punishment. But the home invader who poses a danger to me and/or my family is unlikely to ever learn of my enlightened perspective.

I'm not a fan of violence. Yet, it persists. In too many forms to count.

That's the thing about evil; it often looks like righteousness.

Now that's something we agree on.

* * * * *

Arvin, you're so right, there is blood on our hands. We're swimming in it. And no, I don't think we can all just get along (or were you just attacking a Straw Liberal there?).

Sorry, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.

Straw liberal or real liberal, I'll cop to no longer knowing the difference.

Even under the peachiest of scenarios, Truth & Reconciliation assumes a fundamental power shift - one which has not occurred, and is extremely unlikely to occur anytime soon (soon meaning in my lifetime).

* * * * * * *

If the secret ever gets out that the sole purpose of government is commerce, a power shift enters the realm of possibility. But it wouldn't be pretty. The ruling class understands this implicitly. For them, all options are on the table. They will stop at nothing to preserve the status quo.

They didn't yesterday.

They aren't today.

They won't tomorrow.

Much love, much love, Mike of Angle, and I am snide and abusive to the ones I love (I have issues, I know, in therapy):

"Somewhere between the idea and the action this perfect justice"

Who the hell is talking about perfect justice? My god, I thought with fertilizer prices up no one could spare the fodder to make strawmen, but apparently, I was wrong. Feel free to demolish the argument that you raised yourself, though.

". . .plain ol' violence which, morality aside, doesn't deter future violence."

I have no idea what "plain ol' violence" is, but the notion that violence, under no circumstances, cannot forstall future violence is ridiculously fucking stupid. As such, I'm pretty sure the quoted sentence didn't mean to say that, but if it didn't say that, what it actually said is completely unknowable.

Any concept of self-defense demolishes the idea that violence absolutely cannot forstall further violence. It is the pragmatic aspect of violence, in fact, that is morally troubling. We don't imprison serial killers because "violence can't stop violence." We imprison them because killing them -- which makes them 100% less likely to kill again -- is deemed immoral.

[More navel-gazing acts of strawman production snipped]. "Firing squads, treason trials--all these have a tendency to grow."

*blink*. What the fuck is this poster talking about? We ALREADY imprison and kill criminals, all the time. The tendency to do such does not "grow." There is abso-fucking-lutely nothing novel about the notion of stopping a criminal. The only novelty -- one that the poster implicity must be obssessed with -- is that we're talking about treating Rich, Powerful, White People just like us peons. Suddenly, giving them the same judicial outcomes as the rest of us requires risking All of Fucking Civilization (re: "tendency to grow").

Of course, in a way it does. It annihilates their civilization, even as it enhances our own. That trade is acceptable.

"Believe it or not, the people demonized in this thread ALSO think they're doing the right thing, even if "the right thing" is only "getting richer, getting more, making sure my genes continue on and all of THEIRS don't.""
So fucking what? Flat earthers think the world is flat. They're wrong. The mere fact that you fail to understand why what you believe is stupid won't make it less stupid.
So, wait: we should have never abolished slavery because slaverowners believed slaveowning was right, correct?
For the record -- I'm speaking for me here, and may not be speaking for everyone else -- I am not overtly concerned with punishment. I am concerned with undoing harm.
Quick jump to first-year law school: criminal laws exist for utilitarian and retributionist reasons. Reeeally short version: utilitarian notions are about deterrence -- make the bad thing not happen anymore, or at least less. Retributionist notions are about just deserts. The former looks forward and the latter looks backward.
Stopping our aristocracy means killing some, period. Their rules, not mine. They will not stand for any utilization of justice. They will kill us rather than prevent that. So when I say they gotta die, I'm not interested in torturing them. That's what Hell is supposed to be for. I just need the problem to stop. That's why revenge and all these "vigilante justice" notions are absurd to me. The only people under the threat of death are the ones who have said we're going to take all you have or we'll kill you. Of COURSE we respond to that demand with "die, bitch." That's pretty much what the state does right now to all of us. I garauntee you, if you run around acting like a mini-version of Bush, the cops will perforate you. You walk into 7-11 and say "give me your shit or I'll kill you," please don't look shocked if the cashier helpfully increases the number of orficices you own.
And, btw, David Icke is a utopian. Seriously. This is the same problem that all Illuminati enthusiasts are utopians. Think about it. If some group of metahumans -- or nonhumans -- are the ones Fucking Everything Up, then we're OK! Holy shit, we're not selfish, self-serving, self-aggradizing, murderous, hateful, bigoted, obsessive, petty, stupid, lazy, oversexed, lying, cheating, thieving, warmongering, cowardly, hard-hearted, sadistic apes -- the lizards are making us do it! There's hope for us all!!!!
I love me some lizard! Feel free to quote that out of context.
And I hang around here in order to get myself quoted out of context, btw. And because of the intelligence of the commentary (even when it's stupid, it's more clever than what passes for smart in many places: it takes more skill to be properly wrong here than right on kos). And I adore Silber.

3. cultivating an air of defeatism while watching other people do numbers 1 and 2

Yes, but not watching from too close, lest we run the risk of participation. And some good drugs because there's no sense in being bored or depressed to interfere with our viewing pleasure.

Look, we're all utopians and Lizard enthusiasts. While we make fun of the American public's inability to note irony, we experience it with charming make believe notions (T&R would surely work if only we were a different culture).

We don't use scapegoats to displace our own fuckupdness?

I'll speak for myself and the ilk to say, uh, yes we do, and furthermore I plan to continue.

And revenge porn? I'm not snobby or educated enough to turn away from it. I don't think I'd watch us executing the mentally infirm in Texas, but must confess that with the right narrative, political revenge porn would be compelling teevee.

WE CANNOT GIVE WHAT WE DON'T HAVE. NOLA? Sure reconcile that disaster. Lied into war?, Yeah, that too. Spyed on? OK by me, add that. Rape of the treasury? Why not, WE're rich in the world, win some lose some. TREASON? I never met Ms. Plame and never will so what the hell and lets be real, nobody likes the CIA anyway.
BUT THE BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT, it crys out from the very ground where it was spilled. THOSE CHILDREN WE KILLED for oil, that's NOT OURS to forgive, WE cannot reconcile, and WE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO RECOMPENSE.
THAT BLOOD, when giving testimony, will not say George Bush or Dick Cheney killed me, it will say SOME AMERICAN KILLED ME. It will say SOME AMERICAN BOMBED MY HOME. It will claim SOME AMERICAN SHOT MY FATHER. It will say SOME AMERICAN TORTURED MY BROTHER. It will say SOME AMERICAN RAPED MY MOTHER. It will say SOME AMERICAN CRUSHED ME UNDER A TANK. And WE will confess WE PAID FOR IT ALL. And hugs, smiles, kisses, and/ or cash just don't get it.

Quin asked:
By the way, are you actually advocating violence against the rich whiteys who own the state-- or just stating the harmless opinion that nothing is going to change unless thing get a little bit violent for a while?

The latter out of necessity. I WOULD advocate the former _if_ I had an actual plan. As a patriot, I'm required to. Do recall:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
  --  Thomas Jefferson

But we both know that just random calls for violence would increase the strength of the right wing in the short term and get many innocent people killed. I remember the French Revolution. I remember the Russian Revolution. I will never advocate violence sans plan. We need structure, and lots of it, and we need the levers of the state, not street riots. All I'm saying is once states and municipalities stop playing ball with the Beltway, then it will come to blows. Aristocracy survives by organized rapine, and rapine is violent.

So we need 1 and 2. Why 2? Because criminals are making the laws, any attempt to reform them will be considered criminal. Do recall that MLK was right, but many of his actions were illegal. There's no point to hewing to the letter of the law when those laws were created illegitimately -- I do hope I do not have to buttress my case by pointing out voter caging, poll taxes, broken congressional rules and other instances of political crimes, at least not on this site.

My own personal Master Plan to Fix Everything begins with states. Luckily, our weird federalist system has states doing most of the day-to-day work of keeping people alive and occassionally happy, so rejection of the federal gov. won't crush civilization. If states can band together to form a separate association from the normal civic channels, they can walk away from federal support. The latter will happen naturally, anyway, imo. Why? Eventually, people are going to just stop paying their taxes willingly. You heard it here first, folks.

Now, let's say a couple of blue states work together to change their health care situations (and don't rely on D.C.), then change emission standards and energy production. This is FAR more likely than change in Washington because the hoi polloi has an actual shot of taking over a state. Bound by economic and political ties, such states could take the lead in the tax revolt. Further, blue states have a very, very potent power: Blue states actually don't need the fed, but the fed needs them. Red states need the fed. Blue states put more money into D.C. than they get it. This money is redistrubted to the poorly-managed, even-more-corrupt red states. Now, I don't want to reinforce every stereotype around: not all red states have the worst educational systems, for example (especially not for minorities). But, in general, many of their economies do not have the awesome benefit of a sea coast (yes, lots of exceptions, but generally) nor the ideological structure to make good use of what they have. So if the revolution starts at the state level, the blues can make a go of it. All the govenors have to do is tell the fed you're not arresting anyone for not paying their taxes.

And the Beltway will cry for blood. They will strike first. They always do. Remember the civil war.

By the way, it is essential that the blue states take the initiative and promise free health care and either housing support or an actual freakn' free house for veterans. D.C. hates our soldiers and cannot be relied upon to heal them. This is not just a moral issue. Nor is it simply a matter of necessity since Congress will not lift a finger to help vets. No, it is a tactical move. Remember that bloodshed I just mentioned? Who's going to be called in to make it happen?

(So yeah, once the dust settles, I suppose you could go for Truth & Reconciliation. But hell, after the second civil war, you're gonna be too busy redistributing wealth and hunting down expatriots who have fled to the far corners of earth to bother.)

Hm. I'm checking out that Stop Me Before I Vote Again book, too.

I'm with Quin on this, mostly. The "violence porn" didn't so much make me sick to my stomach as dripping with contempt. This one takes the cake, though -- Arvin Hill, wasn't it?

"I've long opposed capital punishment. But the home invader who poses a danger to me and/or my family is unlikely to ever learn of my enlightened perspective."

In other words, "As a lifelong liberal I say bomb the hell out of 'em. I absolutely oppose war, though I made principled exceptions for Vietnam, both Gulf Wars, Kosovo, Panama, and Grenada [remember Grenada], and Afghanistan. And I have never quite gotten over my rage at the Chimp for not attacking Iran and North Korea, the real greatest threats to peace in our time. But really, I abhor violence, especially when it's committed by Republicans, who should all be drawn and quartered in public, on TV."

And what's most ironic, really, is that as far as I can tell, the people indulging in these fantasies here have not really suffered that much at the hands of the Bush regime. I know, I know, hearing him say "nukular" is a torment not to be gainsaid; no wonder so many libs are fantasizing that American politics is a game of Grand Theft Auto, and they want their turn with the game controller. I want you to know that I feel your pain, but you're basically showing that your minds (such as they are) work like the mind (stop laughing! he has one, sort of) of Dubya himself. Mark Crispin Miller showed in The Bush Dyslexicon that Bush is most alert and eloquent when he channels revenge and punishment.
Executions of Republicans? Bring it on!

But as far as I'm concerned, the question of vengeance should not really be left up to a bunch of presumably white, educated, middle-class American males. It is not even relevant to you. The people who've been most hurt by the US are the ones who should be heard from -- people of color in the US, people in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Latin America and Vietnam and other places that have had our bombs blowing up in their streets, our torturers shocking their bodies, our corporations leaching away their wealth, our sanctions killing their children, our stooges trampling on their rights. Since these crimes have been a bipartisan affair, committed by liberal Democrats as often as by neoconservative Republicans, are those of you jerking off to your violence porn really ready to kneel before an Iraqi woman as she presses the pistol to your neck? To submit meekly as Afghan peasants drop cluster bombs on your city, blowing off the hands of your children? To huddle in the Superdome with thousands of other privileged Americans as Chilean students drag you away one by one to the torture chambers? To rot in a jail cell for Driving While White?

Like Bush, you guys evidently take for granted that it will be you who takes the vengeance. Don't be so sure. But thanks for showing your true colors. You've given the best evidence I could have asked for against your own wisdom and enlightenment.

Taking a page from previous posters, Duncan decided to set up straw man arguments instead of answer the comments made by previous posters. Way to blog like a rightwinger, Duncan.

"In other words, 'As a lifelong liberal I say bomb the hell out of 'em.'"

No one ever said that. In fact, most people here were saying the opposite. If I wanted to read bullshit strawmen, I'd track down Hannity's statements on the web. Please don't shovel this shit here.

"And what's most ironic, really, is that as far as I can tell, the people indulging in these fantasies here have not really suffered that much at the hands of the Bush regime."

"As far as you can tell." Since your ass is staring at a computer monitor and telepathy doesn't exist, I'm guessing you can tell all of the better parts of dick and squat.

Thus, I'm forced to conclude that you don't know how many of us have lost jobs. You don't know how many of us have lost friends in the war. You don't know how many of us lost people in WTC when Bush sat on his hands. You sure as hell don't know how many of us have ground through the last two decades, watching sick family members get sicker because we couldn't afford proper care. You seem to be working very hard for a "fuck off."

I want you to know that I feel your pain, but you're basically showing that your minds (such as they are) work like the mind (stop laughing! he has one, sort of) of Dubya himself. Mark Crispin Miller showed in The Bush Dyslexicon that Bush is most alert and eloquent when he channels revenge and punishment.

No, Bush is a poor liar, which is why he trips over his words when he's faking empathy, but speaks clearly and even tells jokes with proper timing when he's being a complete asshole, much as Duncan is here by comparing people who want to stop rightwingers from murdering people to rightwingers themselves.

"Executions of Republicans? Bring it on!"

Last time I checked, execution was one of the sentences available for high treason.

"But as far as I'm concerned, the question of vengeance should not really be left up to a bunch of presumably white, educated, middle-class American males."

An inaccurate presumption, one that fully earns the comment you so passionately sought earlier: fuck you.

"Like Bush, you guys evidently take for granted that it will be you who takes the vengeance."

Read the posts above. The only people talking about vengeance are those who created strawmen. And the idea that we've lost nothing is so arrogant that it's hard to imagine how you'd top it.

"You've given the best evidence I could have asked for against your own wisdom and enlightenment."

Yet you managed to, anyway. Not all of us here are white, and not all of us here are making bank off of Bush's crimes. Some of us were calling for Reagan's execution as well.

Of course, Reagan was elected by not a few arrogant, judgmental, so-called liberals who made a lot of presumptions about their fellow citizens. Seems there's no escaping such jackasses, even virtually.

a bunch of presumably white, educated, middle-class American males.

White and male, but no college and surely not middle-class, so, rinse and repeat what NOoC already told you.

Since these crimes have been a bipartisan affair, committed by liberal Democrats as often as by neoconservative Republicans, are those of you jerking off to your violence porn really ready to kneel before an Iraqi woman as she presses the pistol to your neck? To submit meekly as Afghan peasants drop cluster bombs on your city, blowing off the hands of your children? To huddle in the Superdome with thousands of other privileged Americans as Chilean students drag you away one by one to the torture chambers? To rot in a jail cell for Driving While White?

Ah, here's the problem. Duncan obviously thinks this is a typical Democratic party cheerleading site, so he expects us to be shocked at the realization that it's not simply, "Donkeys good! Elephants bad!" Good to see you've spent all of two minutes on this site before, idiot. How about this? Add Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright to the line against the wall; go ahead and dig up LBJ and Truman and hang their moldy bones just for fun. Is that equal opportunity enough?

Still, though, beyond that non-gotcha point, I'm not sure what we're supposed to take away from this. The "violence porn" types are saying, in response to this post, that absolutely nothing will change if you simply ask this administration to pretty please tell us what you did and promise not to do it again, for the good of us all - at least without them having a serious fear of the alternative (and to spell it out for morons like you, no one actually expects this to happen; like the kids say, "Just sayin'"). Somehow this translates into those of us commenting on this blog being equally deserving of punishment from victims of our foreign policy by virtue of our nationality?

Hey, make all the sophist arguments you want about how we're all equally responsible for what gets done in our name (which have been made so many times that I think it's safe to say that they've become vapid cliches designed to give the appearance of somber reflection without doing anything of the sort), but the piddling amount of taxes I've paid don't put me in the same league - hell, the same galaxy - with people who have actually made the plans, given the orders and dropped the bombs.

But okay, I'll happily abandon my family and go get put in jail for tax evasion or trying to physically assault an administration official so that some liberal douchebag thinks well of my purity and authenticity.

Good to see you've spent all of two minutes on this site before,...

Duncan's a semi-regular at ATR. Mike of Angle too.

They're good folk, just being a tad preachy, is all. Where the hell is SteveB to add to the gravitas? :-)

It truly does appear that they empathize more, and *I* wouldn't question it. I, for one, don't need to test everyone that stops by to engage for ideological purity. Their arguments don't offend me or my girlish sensibilities in the least.

When a dominant belief system has a false relationship with reality, and people are either incapable of examining, or unwilling to examine, the actual consequences of their beliefs, cries of defeatism arise when the inconsistencies are cited.

Fair enough. But the more time you spend passionately telling people why their ideas won't work-- while not offering positive ideas of your own-- the more you are apt to be mistaken for defeatist. Of course, I haven't known you very long. Maybe you're full of the positive suggestions most of the time.

(By the way, I was serious when I said that all of the options I gave were real options for me. This includes a defeatist attitude. Not to "defeat in all conflicts", but certainly in terms of feeling like it's possible to meaningfully affect the US's imperialist adventures abroad and slow slide into tyranny at home; if the situation's hopeless, it's hopeless. I haven't embraced defeat yet, but it is tempting sometimes.)

It never fails to amaze me that the celebrated icons of freedom - from Thomas Paine to Nelson Mandela - are magically transformed from dangerous subversives to harmless, avuncular historical figures; sugar-coated heroes made safe for mass consumption. So why don't lefties condemn these and other historical figures for their bloodlust and glorification of violence?

Show me any kind of things that Thomas Paine or Nelson Mandela said which were similar in spirit to "Line the motherfuckers against the wall, and set to auto", and I'll happily shut up and concede your point.

No One of Consequence, thanks for sharing your own Personal Plan to Fix Everything. I found it good food for thought!

But okay, I'll happily abandon my family and go get put in jail for tax evasion or trying to physically assault an administration official so that some liberal douchebag thinks well of my purity and authenticity.
-- Upside Down Flag

Upside Down Flag just won the internet. That is in my sig file NOW.

Upside Down/ N One: Work toward IMPEACHMENT, instead of jerking about executing this or evade that. Kucinich has the paper work done, votes been made, last hump IS PELOSI. Call her 1-202-225-0100.

I'm such an optimist, Quin, that I'll take a big leap of faith here and assume you're capable of extrapolation.

Mandela: "The time comes in the life of any nation when there remains only two choices - submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defense of our people, our future, and our freedom."

Mandela: "Today, the majority of South Africans, black and white, recognise that apartheid has no future. It has to be ended by our own decisive mass action in order to build peace and security. The mass campaign of defiance and other actions of our organisation and people can only culminate in the establishment of democracy. The destruction caused by apartheid on our sub-continent is incalculable. The fabric of family life of millions of my peole has been shattered. Millions are homeless and unemployed. Our economy lies in ruins and our people are embroiled in political strife. Our resort to the armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe, was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid. The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue. We express hope that a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement will be created soon so that there may no longer be the need for armed struggle."

Paine: Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Great Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, "Come, come, we shall be friends again for all this." But examine the passions and feelings of mankind: bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honour, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and can still shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name of husband, father, friend or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.

This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and without which, we should be incapable of discharging the social duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed object. It is not in the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer America, if she do not conquer herself by delay and timidity. The present winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or neglected, the whole continent will partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment which that man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful."

_________________________

When people don't appreciate the magnitude or mechanics of a problem, they are unlikely to appreciate solutions. What they seek is confirmation of their existing beliefs, even if their beliefs are fairy tales. Especially when they're fairy tales. When a proposed solution deviates from expectations - doesn't fit in the flawed paradigm of the person demanding the solution - it is dismissed out of hand.

So, until the nature of a problem is properly understood, comprehending even the simplest solutions is impossible.

Even then, proposing solutions is problematic; not because solutions don't exist, but because a good many of them are in conflict with the law. The propositions themselves are "crimes." Big surprise there. Further, we are, on the whole, a nation of cowed bootlickers content to worship at the altar of authoritarianism, or, at least, submit to it, because we certainly don't have any unity or community to fall back on for support.

We're all on our own, and seem to prefer it that way. At least for now. Until the AC is cut off. Until the food runs out. Until the house is reclaimed by the mortgage company. Until the baby dies from lack of health care. Until the despair and desperation hits us right between the eyes.

If reasonably intelligent people fail to understand the role of Paine and Mandela in the movements they helped lead, or fail to even see why doing so is relevant in the Here & Now, it is because they don't want to. Their stories and thousands more are freely available to any American who cares to take a look.

Few will.

Maybe later.

"Time makes more converts than reason."

No One: What, YOU don't have 25 cents for a phone call? Don't have 30 seconds of time from YOUR BUSY, BUSY day to call and help Mr. Kucinich do a little something that will go a long ways toward saving THIS NATION from further downfall? Don't give a shit about the Good Ole USofA? JUST DON'T WANT GEORGE IMPEACHED 'cause he's a great to have a beer with? Is that it?

How far you've come Mike: gone from eexhorting us to contact someone who will always fundamentally disagree with us to exhorting us to contact someone who will always agree with us. Way to go! And, amazingly enough, no exortations to contact our actual congresspeople, many of whom are the actual problem. And baiting me with right-wing rhetoric: pricelessly stupid. Seriously, though, we need to get the blue dogs out. If only we could get a good candidate in NY. . . What state are you in, Mike? Unless you're in CA, you really are talking bullshit when it comes to Pelosi. If you can't vote them out, they really don't care if you call.

And everything Arvin said.

No One: Wyoming. Sure, call YOUR Congessperson. Sure Pelosi lies, she's a POLITICIAN, YOU NEVER been lied to? She's STILL speaker so ANYONE can call. YOU want me to loan the quarter?

Arvin, thanks for the quotes. But there is a difference between calling for violence because there are no other choices left to adequately defends one's life and liberty, and some of the things which were getting said in here before the dread PC Police (including yours truly) arrived on the scene.

Mandela: "Our resort to the armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe, was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid." Violence is the last resort, but it's only because we tried everything else first to no avail. Purely defensive. Not revenge.

Paine: "I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed object." Perhaps advocating violence, but with a fixed goal which is NOT revenge.

People in here: "two rounds in the back of the head, whild kneeling in their underwear next to holes they themselves dug." "Line the motherfuckers against the wall, and set to auto." (others make appreciative noises.) I don't see how this can be considered equivalent. Wartime prisoner executions are what is being described here, and that's a particular outcome I can only understand desiring, even in jest, if a feeling of revenge is the motive.

Can I extrapolate? Hmm. I know that whenever there is war, justified or not, barbaric things get done by both sides, and executions are probably among the least of them. But Mandela and Paine certainly weren't advocating violence with executions as a goal.

"...barbaric things get done by both sides, and executions are probably among the least of them." Okay, not the LEAST. That was a pretty stupid way to phrase it. But the rest of my point stands.

NOoC: thanks very much, I'm honored.

Gettin' down to bizness - I forgot to address this earlier: But as far as I'm concerned, the question of vengeance should not really be left up to a bunch of presumably white, educated, middle-class American males. It is not even relevant to you.

I fully agree! I would be more than happy to support any plan to subject the entire Bush admin. to extraordinary rendition, so they can all wake up stripped to their skivvies in a dusty Iraqi street with each having a plastic spork for self-defense. Film the whole thing and call it Survivor: Sadr City.

Now, then - Mike, I have to say, I find it incredibly, ironically hilarious to be accused of "jerking" by the guy who makes Don Quixote look like a hard-headed realist. As I told you before, and as I'm sure you know anyway, it doesn't matter how many people call, the Democrats are not going to pursue impeachment less than five months before an election they expect to win. Yes, that's completely realistic! They're going to take all the attention away from their candidate and risk being seen as "vengeful" by the public by pursuing this. Oh, sure, if everyone besides the 25% of dead-enders were to call, we'd have a tidal wave of momentum, etc. I'll go ahead and file this one alongside such classic notions as "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" NA GA HA PEN.

So, again, I have to say: when you know all this full well, but you keep pressing the idea as if it means jack-diddly-shit, you, my friend, are the compulsive wanker here. Let me be clear: go ahead and spend a few hundred in pestering Pelosi's secretary if you enjoy it, whatever gets you through these times. But stop pretending that you're accomplishing anything and quit badgering people who try to tell you to use your time more effectively.

Peoples:

I appreciate that strong emotions are involved here. But whenever possible, please strive to be beautiful to one another.

"Line the motherfuckers against the wall, and set to auto."

I come from one of the backward places of the world.

Didn't realize that this would be such a controversial phrase, because it's been happening out yon for a while (sometimes outside the peripheral view of Samantha Power), and with all the history of it, didn't think it was that unusual frankly.

Big, big fan of "Trial of Socrates" here. Did they (Athenians) take Socrates out back and place one or two in the back of his skull?

Well, sorta.

But why?

Because he was an incorrigible dick that was causing constant social grief, and had no desire to get along with others or plurality. Every time they got rid of some thirtyish tyrants, old Socrates, like our plutocrats, would get on and start feeding the rich about how privileged and entitled they were and how the common folk were a bunch of bozos dragging down Athenian civilization and culture justifying the overthrow of a (sorta) democratic, legitimate government.

So after a series of amnesties (er, T&Rs), the Athenians got fed up of Socrates shit, trumped up a few charges, and did the motherfucker in.

I don't have to go to Paine or Mandela -- if the system has no desire to work with you because they are so ideologically opposed that they refuse, and I mean absolutely refuse, to cooperate/compromise for the greater good (to make progress), then the trip out back becomes necessary.

Arvin likes to point out that it takes multiple generations to undo some of this current bullshit -- and if you got the time or the leisure, one may be inclined to let those generations come and go and assume that the opposing ideology will step aside and see the light of progressive plan.

But others don't have the time for it -- maybe because energy's running out, maybe because climate change, maybe because they believe that the opposing ideology will fight tooth and nail to negate any progress.

Damn straight, Arvin:

"It never fails to amaze me that the celebrated icons of freedom - from Thomas Paine to Nelson Mandela - are magically transformed from dangerous subversives to harmless, avuncular historical figures; sugar-coated heroes made safe for mass consumption."

Regarding South Africa: violence and the threat of more was why the nationalist party agreed to hand over power. Actual Umkhonto we Sizwe actions were but a tiny fraction of that violence.

Labiche, your Socrates analogy leaves me a little bit confused. Hemlock is to Socrates as two bullets in the back of the head is to who, exactly? Maybe you were being ironic, and I'm just not sharp enough to decipher why?

Upside Down: YOU ain't calling so I've accomploshed nothing. Kucinich and the Judicial Committee, that's different. They've accomplished something great. If YOU cannot do some LITTLE thing, like call, to BACK THEM UP, then one can only assume that YOU ARE AGAINST IMPEACHMENT.

Labiche, I understood Socrates very differently than you -- I think the anti-democracy crap is Platonic (god, what a shitty philosopher -- government should be run by the people who think they should run government and by no one else -- what a fucking mind). I think Socrates was unhappy with all governments. Not that it's much support, but wikipedia parallels what I remember from Hum 101. Plato reported that Socrates thought as he did because Plato hated democrats for killing Socrates and because students of revered teachers will tend to insist the were teacher's favorite and thus the essence of the teaching flows through them. Plus, Plato was related to one of the Tyrants. Plato was a complete dick, but Socrates was just annoying. I don't think he deserved death. In fact, it is sickening irony that he defied, and survived, the tyrants but defied and was slaughtered by the democrats.

Even if Socrates was a complete, pro-dictator kinda guy, which I doubt, he'd still be a poor example. All he did was ask really, really, really annoying questions. A better example would be Charles I. Note the VAST differences between them: one, a murderer, slaughterer of men who would take the lands denied him by raising an army if his would-be subjects released him from prison, and the other is an old dude bumming dinners from house to house. There is really, honestly, no comparison.

Bringing this digression back to topic, it should be noted that Charles, like many aristocrats, saw their power as their birthright and would have happily slaughtered anyone with quaint notions of freedom as soon as they let their guard down. These kinds of people will either rule others or be executed -- they refuse to allow for any other eventuality. If I charge you with a knife and you have a gun, I am committing suicide. This is the nature of the execution of an aristocrat; there isn't even a moral challenge to the executioner.

Why kill the aristocrats when you've got a perfectly good Tower of London to chuck 'em in?

Seriously, if you're fighting a civil war and you manage to capture the opposing leader, you're doing well enough that you don't NEED to execute them. There's ways of being merciful, if you so desire, while still depriving them of their wealth and power.

Hemlock, ropes, automatic firing squads, and plenty of bullets, but nobody's got a fucking cell phone it seems. Maybe YOU could Email Pelosi?

Arvin, thanks for the quotes.

You're welcome, Quin.

"some of the things which were getting said in here"

As clear as Tinkerbell's piss: I am responsible for what I say.

Not once did I advocate Revenge!, nor did I present the quotations in that context.

No One of Consequence took the time to provide an articulate explanation of why your (now serial) invocation of Revenge! represents a misinterpretation of what is being said here. Alas, to no avail. The rhetorical appeal of Revenge! is apparently too great to resist.

I can't recall ever advocating Revenge!, and, at this point in the discussion, I can only assume any poster or lurker who believes otherwise is being obtuse for reasons that have nothing to do with me.

For the record, I am also opposed to:

• stripping copper wire from schools
• public financing of sports arenas
• killing creatures for fun
• offshore bank accounts
• shopping at Wal-Mart
• shoddy infrastructure
• swindling the elderly
• the Electoral College
• stickers in my yard
• media consolidation
• high blood pressure
• free speech zones
• Jerry Bruckheimer
• police brutality
• anus bleaching
• payroll taxes
• strip mining
• the drug war
• leg warmers
• bad breath
• toll roads
• xenophobia
• pollution
• tornadoes

Now, where can I collect my Certificate of Moral Clarity? Or did I blow it with offshore bank accounts?

* * * * * * *

Arvin likes to point out that it takes multiple generations to undo some of this current bullshit -- and if you got the time or the leisure, one may be inclined to let those generations come and go and assume that the opposing ideology will step aside and see the light of progressive plan.

Labiche, I have zero expectation that my idealogical adversaries will see any progressive light today, tomorrow or anytime.

When I say generational struggle, I'm referring to one which extends in perpetuity; not just to reconcile our current ailments, but to cultivate a mindfulness about what power is and how it relates to the most basic obligations human beings have toward one another. Eternal vigilance and the like.

Sure, it's idealistic. And unlikely. But, hey, whaddya think I am? A defeatist?

Evolution being a slow-rolling phenomenon in human terms, the odds are great we'll devise a way to destroy ourselves before achieving much of anything worthwhile in terms of enlightenment. I'm enough of a misanthrope it doesn't bother me, yet not so much of one that I'm indifferent to suffering until such a time occurs.

But others don't have the time for it -- maybe because energy's running out, maybe because climate change, maybe because they believe that the opposing ideology will fight tooth and nail to negate any progress.

I'm well aware Power doesn't yield to drum circles and unicorn horns. Or ballot boxes, for that matter. Count me as one who is unlikely to sacrifice myself on behalf of the liberal douchebags who do.

But knock yourself out. If I'm in the neighborhood, I'll solemnly pour out a 40-oz of Stella and smoke a bowl of White Widow graveside (or at the appropriate memorial site). Well, not all forty ounces. I don't know if there is such a thing as a 40-oz Stella, but, if not, they'll get around to it eventually.

If a cake requires sixty minutes in the oven at 325 degrees, baking it for thirty minutes at 650 degrees won't make a tasty dessert. It just wastes time and ingredients. It's hard to begrudge anyone for trying, though.

YES BUT----If YOU use 1300 degrees for 15 minutes YOU MAKE BIOCHAR.

BUT WHAT PHAEDRUS SAY to those damn ole sophists and their "more is better" THEORY,if he saw them today. What could he say? They won!!! Guaranteeya, no thought what so ever of QUALITY in the land-o-greed is gud. WE'VE followed that THEORY mightly, and I wagger nobody to date can match THIS crowd in their furvor in following the philosophy of "GIMMEE", more power, more land more oil, more.

UPDATE: That's the whole nation, U&I, not just the Administration and/or Congress.

I have absolutely no rebuttal to that treatment of Socrates. Personally, I wanted to think of him as a more moral sort, better represented by his philosophical grandson Aristotle than that jackass Plato, but perhaps I had him wrong. At the very least, I am now ambivalent about what occured milennia ago. (Not completely converted -- see below.) And it does make sense, in retrospect: "making the weaker argument the stronger" and "corrupting the youth" are so dead-dumb stupid there's got to be something behind them.

But wait -- do we only know about Socrates' trial through Plato? If so, he could have bullshitted us on the charges as well as on Socrates himself. Did the "making the weaker argument the stronger" charge appear on any other ancient documents? If Plato was the only one remembered, there is a lesson there: always max the propaganda. Socrates was an incredibly effective martyr.

In any event, I was taught that Socrates also counseled against warring with Sparta and, by extention, against advancing the lands Athens controlled, and it was that kind of talk that pissed off the Powers That Be. True? It is possible everyone is right -- he was anti-empire but pro-dictatorship, making him unpalatable to all concerned.

And Quinn, no one here advocated violence with executions as a goal. I'd happily see our aristocracy imprisoned.

But I have a question for everyone who insists on making up strawmen on this site: is the punishment for treason death? If so, why are you INSISTENT -- absolutely insistent -- on our conviction that treason laws should be enforced and not instead hemming and hawing about the death penalty. We didn't set the punishment for treason -- Congress and the Framers did. If you put down your self-aggradizing arguments, who do you end up in disagreement with? I don't think it's us.

WE got have a TRIAL FIRST, who knows they may not be guilty.

NOoC:And Quinn, no one here advocated violence with executions as a goal. I'd happily see our aristocracy imprisoned.

Well I'm happy to hear it. I was just examining the violent locker-room talk in here for what I saw as its hidden implications. Always on the prowl for strawmen, I am. They're the only ones I'm pretty sure I can beat in a fair fight.

is the punishment for treason death? If so, why are you INSISTENT -- absolutely insistent -- on our conviction that treason laws should be enforced and not instead hemming and hawing about the death penalty. We didn't set the punishment for treason -- Congress and the Framers did. If you put down your self-aggradizing arguments, who do you end up in disagreement with? I don't think it's us.

Not sure if you're talking to me here, but if you are-- the kinds of execution fantasies I highlighted above did not indicate a trial for treason had occured. They implied battlefield justice.

Arvin I can't recall ever advocating Revenge!, and, at this point in the discussion, I can only assume any poster or lurker who believes otherwise is being obtuse for reasons that have nothing to do with me.

You didn't. But it seemed to me that you were siding with those who, it seemed to me, were. Though granted nobody was characterizing any statements in here as motivated by revenge in here except for me, so I'll happily admit that maybe it's that maybe it's that my own Idealogical Purity Filter has been screwed in too tight. And without a doubt I'm so far in agreement with my interlocuters in here on just about ALL of the bigger issues. Sometimes it's just fun to argue about the smaller areas where our Venn circles don't yet overlap. Come on, admit it's true. You must be having fun. Otherwise you wouldn't keep on coming back for more!

Though I'm afraid you don't qualify for one of my Certificates of Moral Clarity due to your opposition to legwarmers, which I find sexy. Jennifer Beals, meow. This is an issue of vital importance.

Mike: YES BUT----If YOU use 1300 degrees for 15 minutes YOU MAKE BIOCHAR.

YES!!! Thank you Mike. I KNEW something useful was going to come from this discussion!

Not sure if you're talking to me here, but if you are-- the kinds of execution fantasies I highlighted above did not indicate a trial for treason had occured. They implied battlefield justice.

Which is your problem, not ours. You are struggling with your own mistakes and railing against your own misconceptions -- even now. "Battlefield justice?" WTF is that? If you're at war at someone and you shoot them, that isn't "battlefield justice" -- that's war. And I, for one, DID imply that possibility, since as I pointed out at length -- back to that in a moment -- aristocracies will employ murderous and vast amounts of violence to maintain power.

And your creation of strawmen is, with your companions, all the more vexing because of what you ignore. Like a true internet debator, you ignore six paragraphs and pull out one sentence, then paraphrase it as the target of your intellectual wrath. Frankly, I won't even agree that we implied anything. Despite the limitations of the medium, we were all pretty clear -- especially those of us who are particularly long-winded. You read what you wanted to read and ignored the rest. You know, that stuff that regular, reality-based folk call "context." Just sayin'.

I'm more than a little surprised that this discussion never, ever came back to the ethics of the death penalty -- the only logical place it could go, given the start. Hell, I was even prepping for it with some of my comments (since treason causes my normally black/white views on the issue to become ambivalent, I'm extra-sensitive to criticism on it). Instead, we spent the entire time on this soon-to-die thread talking about stuff in peoples' heads about how they felt about some statements they had cherry-picked. Freakn' bizarre for this site (though not for the net in general).

As long as a TREASONOUS BASTARD get a fair and honest TRIAL first, I got nothing against a hanging.

I guess, just this once, then, I'll make a concerted effort not to cherry-pick. Not making any promises for later, natch. ;-)

Not sure if you're talking to me here, but if you are-- the kinds of execution fantasies I highlighted above did not indicate a trial for treason had occured. They implied battlefield justice.

Which is your problem, not ours. You are struggling with your own mistakes and railing against your own
misconceptions -- even now.

You're right-- I am making mistakes here and there. And trying to take credit when I do so. I unabashedly admit that I don't know everything, I'm probably wrong about far more than I expect right now. I'll even state for the record that I probably know less than most of the people in here, and so I ask that you please be gentle with this slightly dim bulb who is striving to learn how to get a little brighter.

Note that I have conceded points in here which initially I resisted (for instance that T&R Commissions are pointless until the power dynamic radically changes). Please don't make my flexibility out to be a negative thing. It just means I'm still learning as I go along. I accept that I MIGHT be wrong, and my language reflects this.

"Battlefield justice?" WTF is that? If you're at war at someone and you shoot them, that isn't "battlefield justice" -- that's war.

It depends on the context. I mean, it's war either way, obviously, but there's a difference between killing someone who's shooting back at you, or taking them prisoner and then executing them. Corralling people (especially people who you believe have committed crimes-- since that was the context in which this whole conversation started) who have no way of fighting back, no weapons, no trial-- and executing them. THAT's what I was calling "battlefield justice".

Am I just being thick here? Does my distinction seem completely invalid to you? I BELIEVE you when you say you're not interested in revenge. But can you not see the way that the inflammatory statements I've quoted get seen by some of us as implying a wish for revenge? Why else would comments escalate quickly from tarring and feathering to making the perpetrators dig their own graves, except to "give them a taste of their own medicine"?

Well. Taking a step back for a moment. Here I go about to undercut my own arguments again... but... I guess, even if I could somehow manage to get you to believe that my perspective were valid, I also recognize that in the scheme of all the arguments we could be having right now, this question (of whether the two statements which I found objectionable really WERE objectionable) is a pretty miniscule one. So when you say--

Instead, we spent the entire time on this soon-to-die thread talking about stuff in peoples' heads about how they felt about some statements they had cherry-picked. Freakn' bizarre for this site (though not for the net in general).

--I guess I understand. I'm sorry if I've gotten you and others feeling like they were spinning their wheels with me here. Like I mentioned before, I'm kind of new to delving into these comment threads. I've enjoyed a lot of what I've read, and learned some things too. I was having fun; but maybe I was in the minority.

So I'll let this whole argument about what does or doesn't constitute underlying revenge motives go. It ain't no big thing. It's not like you guys kept at it once I popped in and voiced my grievance.

Just one more part you wrote which I want to address, the bit about cherry-picking:

And your creation of strawmen is, with your companions, all the more vexing because of what you ignore. Like a true internet debator, you ignore six paragraphs and pull out one sentence, then paraphrase it as the target of your intellectual wrath.

I don't agree. I think this is a problem of differing perceptions.

From your perspective: I desperately scan your writing for something to attack you with, then cherry-pick meaningless tidbits.

From my perspective: I read your writing, find it very interesting, agree with almost everything, and then bring up the smaller points which I find some cause for disagreement.

Frankly, I won't even agree that we implied anything.

Oh come now. Unless you're writing mathematical proofs or something, there's always reading between the lines to be done.

Despite the limitations of the medium, we were all pretty clear -- especially those of us who are particularly long-winded. You read what you wanted to read and ignored the rest. You know, that stuff that regular, reality-based folk call "context." Just sayin'.

I did read it all, and I didn't ignore you. Like I said, we just had different perceptions of why I didn't bring up what I didn't bring up. You may not have known how much of what you wrote I actually agreed with.

And by the way, I appreciate how much effort has gone into everybody's long-winded writing. Not that "long" always = "good", but I've really been enjoying it. When the bile doesn't get too spicy in here, I think there's a lot of writing talent on show, actually.

Me, I'll try to keep the comments short-winded from here on out. I'm not sure I'm somebody with enough worthwhile to say, yet. Give me a few years to mature; in the mean time, please be patient with me.

I'm more than a little surprised that this discussion never, ever came back to the ethics of the death penalty -- the only logical place it could go, given the start. Hell, I was even prepping for it with some of my comments (since treason causes my normally black/white views on the issue to become ambivalent, I'm extra-sensitive to criticism on it).

Then I'm sorry we never went there. I'd be interested in hearing your views. I'm conflicted about it as well. I agree with Mike's last comment; but I can't help feeling wrong about it, somehow, at the same time.

Quin: Battlefield Justice? Why bother working toward that? George and Dick have ALREADY handed YOU that on a silver platter.