arthunter
08-05-2013, 11:24 PM
Excellent article ... makes me want to throw up ... what happened to our country?
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/05-3
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/05-3
View Full Version : Welcome to Post-Constitution America
podfish
08-06-2013, 06:19 PM
Excellent article ... makes me want to throw up ... what happened to our country?
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/05-3 it is a good summary. The big objection I have to the way this guy poses the question - and it's an objection I raise on a lot of posts here - is that it treats these issues as something new and unprecedented. In some ways that doesn't matter, I suppose. Whatever gets people to pay attention. But I'm not really convinced of that. I think it's less likely that trends like are listed in this article will be countered when they're misunderstood. Remember that it was Eisenhower who raised the spectre of the military-industrial complex over fifty years ago. Orwell, mentioned in the article, wrote earlier than that. The names of the malefactors in Andrew Jackson's era escape me, but I bet they were there too. And of course the constitution wouldn't have tried to address similar issues if similar threats didn't exist then. And let's not even try to go over the political climate in Rome two millenia ago.
SO to answer your rhetorical question, not much new has happened to our country. Educating people to see the challenges in their real and complex form seems to be the most important component, since that allows the other important component - influential leaders with some sense of ethics - to have enough support to force changes. "Leaders" isn't really an accurate term, though, because I don't believe that leaders can drag the population behind them; they can only serve as a focus for something that already exists in the community. One of the more interesting changes of the modern interweb era is that such 'leaders' are far more connected to those they represent. The other interesting and dangerous change is that the tools for interacting with the population are so cheap and powerful, that they can be used wholesale where before you needed dudes in jackboots to do equivalent work.
I rarely take issue with the threats many people who post here see; but I think they emerge from a far more complex and disorganized web of forces than can be explained by any coherent conspiracy.
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/05-3 it is a good summary. The big objection I have to the way this guy poses the question - and it's an objection I raise on a lot of posts here - is that it treats these issues as something new and unprecedented. In some ways that doesn't matter, I suppose. Whatever gets people to pay attention. But I'm not really convinced of that. I think it's less likely that trends like are listed in this article will be countered when they're misunderstood. Remember that it was Eisenhower who raised the spectre of the military-industrial complex over fifty years ago. Orwell, mentioned in the article, wrote earlier than that. The names of the malefactors in Andrew Jackson's era escape me, but I bet they were there too. And of course the constitution wouldn't have tried to address similar issues if similar threats didn't exist then. And let's not even try to go over the political climate in Rome two millenia ago.
SO to answer your rhetorical question, not much new has happened to our country. Educating people to see the challenges in their real and complex form seems to be the most important component, since that allows the other important component - influential leaders with some sense of ethics - to have enough support to force changes. "Leaders" isn't really an accurate term, though, because I don't believe that leaders can drag the population behind them; they can only serve as a focus for something that already exists in the community. One of the more interesting changes of the modern interweb era is that such 'leaders' are far more connected to those they represent. The other interesting and dangerous change is that the tools for interacting with the population are so cheap and powerful, that they can be used wholesale where before you needed dudes in jackboots to do equivalent work.
I rarely take issue with the threats many people who post here see; but I think they emerge from a far more complex and disorganized web of forces than can be explained by any coherent conspiracy.
arthunter
08-06-2013, 06:53 PM
A well written rebuttal, podfish, but I have to disagree with it ...
A lot of things have changed in America ... as the author points out, the military has been developed very sophisticated weaponry and surveillance capabilities, and those developments are now being used domestically ... capabilities for constitutional abuse have never been better ...
Also, though injustice would surely have been a part of our past it would have been hidden, now it's right out in the open ... the government has adopted a guilty until proven innocent stance and that reality is permeating our society ... this line seems to sum it up ...
" People may now be convicted based on secret testimony by unnamed persons. "
Hardly constitutional ...
it is a good summary. The big objection I have to the way this guy poses the question -
A lot of things have changed in America ... as the author points out, the military has been developed very sophisticated weaponry and surveillance capabilities, and those developments are now being used domestically ... capabilities for constitutional abuse have never been better ...
Also, though injustice would surely have been a part of our past it would have been hidden, now it's right out in the open ... the government has adopted a guilty until proven innocent stance and that reality is permeating our society ... this line seems to sum it up ...
" People may now be convicted based on secret testimony by unnamed persons. "
Hardly constitutional ...
it is a good summary. The big objection I have to the way this guy poses the question -