In The USA: the Next Revolution

[Dayuhan]

Seems to me that the legitimacy of government is determined by the acceptance of the populace, rather than by legal/historical minutiae, and that the US Government since 1861 is legitimate simply because the vast majority of its people have accepted it as legitimate.

Certainly it's possible that changes in the pattern of governance are needed to retain that legitimacy, which is of course usually the case. What those changes ought to be is of course another story. Unfortunately at the moment most of the impetus toward change seems to be coming from the polar left and right, the places least likely to produce any viable proposal for change. The American people are for the most part not getting behind either program, not because they are ignorant sheep but because they perceive, quite correctly, that the political poles have no productive ideas and many destructive ones.

Unfortunately, the center isn't producing much of value either, and that needs to change. Good solutions develop through competition and cooperation in the marketplace of ideas, and that only happens when people listen to the moderate ideas on the other side and consider them. The shouting around the fringes is unproductive noise.

IMO, as always...

[motorfirebox]

Where exactly is it stated that Congress must set a date to reconvene when they adjourn? Every Congress convened by the United States adjourns sine die at the end of its legislative session, so that the next Congress can be formed and start a new session. Even if Congress did adjourn back in 1861 without setting a date to reconvene, a) that doesn't mean they can't reconvene, unless there's some law somewhere stating they can't, and b) even if it did, then a new Congress would have been formed, continuing the governance of the US in full accord with Federal law. No offense, but this bears a suspicious resemblance to hogwash.

[Bob's World]

Seems to me that the legitimacy of government is determined by the acceptance of the populace, rather than by legal/historical minutiae, and that the US Government since 1861 is legitimate simply because the vast majority of its people have accepted it as legitimate.

Certainly it's possible that changes in the pattern of governance are needed to retain that legitimacy, which is of course usually the case. What those changes ought to be is of course another story. Unfortunately at the moment most of the impetus toward change seems to be coming from the polar left and right, the places least likely to produce any viable proposal for change. The American people are for the most part not getting behind either program, not because they are ignorant sheep but because they perceive, quite correctly, that the political poles have no productive ideas and many destructive ones.

Unfortunately, the center isn't producing much of value either, and that needs to change. Good solutions develop through competition and cooperation in the marketplace of ideas, and that only happens when people listen to the moderate ideas on the other side and consider them. The shouting around the fringes is unproductive noise.

IMO, as always...

This is an important point. For purposes of insurgency only one form of "legitimacy" matters, and that is the acceptance of the governed of the right of government to govern them.

What some foreign state or body deems in terms of legalities of any governments legitimacy is completely moot. We tend to put so much weight on our own offical/legal assessment of the governments of others that we lose sight of the fact that such assessments are irrelevant to the liklihood of insurgency or stability either one.

[Dayuhan]

If we're talking about other countries we have to deal with the reality that different components of a populace may have irreconcilably different ideas on what form of governance is acceptable. The US hasn't had that problem since the Civil War; many countries face it today. It's tempting to think that we can play referee to the problems of others, but our understanding of their issues is generally incomplete, we have no real standing to intervene, and all we generally accomplish with the effort is to piss off everyone involved. Better if we focus on our own issues; we've no shortage of them...

[Bob's World]

If we're talking about other countries we have to deal with the reality that different components of a populace may have irreconcilably different ideas on what form of governance is acceptable. The US hasn't had that problem since the Civil War; many countries face it today. It's tempting to think that we can play referee to the problems of others, but our understanding of their issues is generally incomplete, we have no real standing to intervene, and all we generally accomplish with the effort is to piss off everyone involved. Better if we focus on our own issues; we've no shortage of them...

Concur. We have no "Responsibility to Protect" any government or populace one from the other. Sometimes people just need to sort things out; and if they have no legal recourse to such debate they will take it into the streets and it will likely get violent. This is natural. Breaking up or helping one side win such a fight does nothing to address the issues behind the fight. It will occur again later.

We have a very flawed concept currently of what our role in the world is, what our interests truly are, what the real "threats" to our interests are, and what forms of policy and engagement best serve our interests. Interventions to create or protect puppet regimes is no longer a valid COA. We need to evolve, but we are slow in coming to that realization.

Should we encourage the establishment of legal venues for resolution where such deep conflicts exist? Certainly. Finding neutral ground is a tricky thing, but we need to learn to accept more risk in giving up control of outcomes and more flexibility in working with whoever or whatever burbles up to the top.

[slapout9]

Meanwhile at Rebel base Headquarters the great Holy man Obi-Won Ruppert delivers his Holy doctrine of Sacred Economics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbiyCldxG8s


This is a little radical for me but the essential meassage that complex systems collapse is fairly accurate IMO. It is a little boring in places and he is just a little bit full of himself, but he has a pretty large following. What ya'll think ?

[Bob's World]

Meanwhile at Rebel base Headquarters the great Holy man Obi-Won Ruppert delivers his Holy doctrine of Sacred Economics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbiyCldxG8s


This is a little radical for me but the essential meassage that complex systems collapse is fairly accurate IMO. It is a little boring in places and he is just a little bit full of himself, but he has a pretty large following. What ya'll think ?

Are we going to need to re-route 200 yards of the border fence to completely encircle the greater Slapout, Alabama metropolitan area to keep a rein on you?

[slapout9]

Are we going to need to re-route 200 yards of the border fence to completely encircle the greater Slapout, Alabama metropolitan area to keep a rein on you?

I am always willing to accept Guvmint Freebies

Ruppert is essentially correct in that Big Systems Break Down not Up....I think we are going to see a big shift in power down to the States. But as usual I believe the rings always have to final answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w1F1DkxWxo

[slapout9]

Barro is old school-Gailbrath is new school. The only way out is a Strategic Plan vs. some arcane economic theory.



http://www.bloomberg.com/video/75536660/

[slapout9]

Obi-Won Ruppert gets it right this is part 2 of Ruppert's speech just a few days ago. In it he predicts the the Dow would drop around 500 points. It is now down a little over 500 points as I post this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjqUk...eature=related


Where is Luke Skywalker?

[AdamG]

When members of the loose protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street began a march from the financial district to Union Square on Saturday, the participants seemed relatively harmless, even as they were breaking the law by marching in the street without a permit.

But to the New York Police Department, the protesters represented something else: a visible example of lawlessness akin to that which had resulted in destruction and violence at other anticapitalist demonstrations, like the Group of 20 economic summit meeting in London in 2009 and the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle in 1999.

The Police Department’s concerns came up against a perhaps milder reality on Saturday, when their efforts to maintain crowd control suddenly escalated: protesters were corralled by police officers who put up orange mesh netting; the police forcibly arrested some participants; and a deputy inspector used pepper spray on four women who were on the sidewalk, behind the orange netting.

The police’s actions suggested the flip side of a force trained to fight terrorism, in a city whose police commissioner acknowledges the ownership of a gun big enough to take down a plane, but that may appear less nimble in dealing with the likes of the Wall Street protesters. So even as the members of Occupy Wall Street seem unorganized and, at times, uninformed, their continued presence creates a vexing problem for the Police Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/ny...r-threats.html

[AdamG]

As the longtime congressman from Texas stepped onto the stage, the crowd screamed with enthusiasm. The audience's biggest reaction came when he spoke about ending the Federal Reserve. "The country has changed in the last four years, but my message hasn't changed" Paul said. "The country is ripe for a true revolution".

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...or-revolution/

[slapout9]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...or-revolution/

The man has a really big following and can still raise a lot of money....time will tell if it is enough.

[Bill Moore]

Of course a true revolution doesn't mean war, a true revolution is a rejection of the status quo and new ideas. The American Revolution happened before the revolution war begun. The war was a result of the revolution, not "the" revolution.

[slapout9]

Of course a true revolution doesn't mean war, a true revolution is a rejection of the status quo and new ideas. The American Revolution happened before the revolution war begun. The war was a result of the revolution, not "the" revolution.

Exactly!

[slapout9]

Link to max Keiser interview of TV personality Rosanne Barr who has joined the Wall Street protest and is running for President of the USA and prime minister of Israel at the same time


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I4vI...eature=related

[AdamG]

Of course a true revolution doesn't mean war, a true revolution is a rejection of the status quo and new ideas. The American Revolution happened before the revolution war begun. The war was a result of the revolution, not "the" revolution.

Reading music.

(Reuters) - Police reopened the Brooklyn Bridge Saturday evening after more than 700 anti-Wall Street protesters were arrested for blocking traffic lanes and attempting an unauthorized march across the span.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7900BL20111002

Inspired by the events in New York City, protesters begin assembling in several cities across the U.S.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...cross-U.S.html

The ignorance displayed in these interviews knows no bounds. The protesters just don’t get it. They are calling for the government to use force to impose their ideas, all in the name of bringing down corporations who they don’t realize have completely bought off government regulators. Corporations and government enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship – getting one to regulate the other is asinine and only hurts smaller businesses who are legitimately trying to compete in a free market economy that barely exists.
The zeal for totalitarian government amongst some of the “protesters” is shocking. One sign being carried around read, “A government is an entity which holds the monopolistic right to initiate force,” which seems a little ironic when protesters complain about being physically assaulted by police in the same breath.

http://www.infowars.com/occupy-wall-...tion-of-obama/

Actress, comedienne and now author Roseanne Barr shares her solution for dealing with the rich and how the banks could repay the money the U.S. government bailed them out with in 2008.

"Part of my platform is, of course, the guilty must be punished and that we no longer let our children see their guilty leaders getting away with murder. Because it teaches children, you know, that they don't have to have any morals as long as they have guns and are bullies and I don't think that's a good message," Barr told Russia Today (RT).

"I do say that I am in favor of the return of the guillotine and that is for the worst of the worst of the guilty.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...up_wealth.html

[davidbfpo]

Having watched a few videos of the protest and some reporting it struck me from this side of the water that the Wall Street protests are not an accurate gauge of any part of US public opinion. Yes they are a small group, located in a media frenzied city, using an iconic target location and have some media skill, why else leave Wall Street for a bridge away from the location?

In contrast we had the labour union violence in Washington State a few weeks ago, which had far less coverage, but far more potential IMHO as an indicator of US public opinion.

Add in a TV star of course, whose credibility appears to be somewhat low.

Add in an important factor - for law enforcement - the weather. Those protesting will not be around in the rain, nor in a few weeks time. Patience will be rewarded.

[AdamG]

Having watched a few videos of the protest and some reporting it struck me from this side of the water that the Wall Street protests are not an accurate gauge of any part of US public opinion.

They aren't, but they're trying to sway American opinion through 'fact management'. See
http://blog.timparkinson.net/2011/09...and-photoshop/

You know who else blamed the bankers for the ills of a nation?

[Bill Moore]

davidbfpo,

I'm still agnostic on this, but PBS news did some good coverage on this movement this evening.

Take it for what it is worth,

The movement is growing, and is now in several cities and anticipated to grow larger.

The media is only broadcasting the interviews with what I'm calling the lost kids because their dumb comments are sadly news worthy, but there is wide range of protesters, not just young, clueless kids calling for socialism, or even worse not quite sure why they're there.

Since there are no apparent leaders, the collective brain has decided against forming a policy arm, because they want to attract people that are disappointed with government and corporate corruption regardless of their particular grievance. They (whoever they is) believes if they define their protest too early they'll push away possible supporters.

I can see their point, I think that happened to the Tea Party, and while the Tea Party still has a wide following, they lost a lot of followers when the extreme right element of the Republican Party hijacked their movement, and as their views become more extreme they'll continue narrow their support base. I think mainstream Tea Partiers would like to take their movement back, but can't.

Eventually this anti-Wall Street crowd will have to define itself though, and that will be the real test to see if gets legs.

It started off much smaller than they anticipated, but it is growing and growing rapidly. Wednesday is a scheduled march, and if that turns motivates several thousand more supporters to join the movement I think they'll be forced to define their cause, or lose their support. If they swing too far to the left, they'll rapidly lose support (I think).

Regardless, it is interesting to watch from a Small Wars perspective on how discontented elements of our society from a wide range of social classes are mobilized using information technology to facilitate parallel demonstrations from the east to west coasts.

AdamG, how did you know I was a Doors fan?