Unless Something Important Comes Up (originally published at OpEdNews)
I belong to the Alliance for Democracy. It's a wonderful organization that is trying to get, to use an antiquated phrase, power into the hands of the owners of America, the people.
They are one of many organizations who have sponsored the Move To Amend. It's a proposed Constitutional amendment that would specify that when the word "person" or "man" shows up in The Constitution, the reference is to a biological human being and not a global collection of infrastructures, tanks, offices and bathrooms. I highly recommend going to MoveToAmend.org and signing the petition.
Yesterday I received an email from the Alliance for Democracy encouraging me to call my member of Congress and convince her or him to support The DISCLOSE Act. The act would require candidates to disclose the identities of their donors.
While the act itself would be a step forward towards the present, as it seems we've somehow gotten back to the Robber Baron age, it will never pass in any effective form. It probably wouldn't pass at all. However, if it did pass, working together, playing the roles that we've all come to know and love, the Democrats and Republicans would ensure that it would be meaningless.
First of all, I no longer waste my time calling the thespians who make up our representative bodies in Congress. If you aren't convinced that our entire electoral system is nothing more and nothing less than theater, then you haven't been paying attention.
I strongly support the Move To Amend. It's one way to get the money out of our government.
Calling the people who benefit most from our Corporatic form of government and asking them to make changes in the electoral process is a fool's errand.
Secondly, in the documentation that accompanies the fool's errand, the AfD writes, "Democrats and the White House hoped the DISCLOSE Act would be passed to take effect before the mid-terms elections."
If this was true, why should I have to call them? After all, they already "hoped" the DISCLOSE Act would be voted on. During the lame duck session, a session in which Democrats not only still hold a commanding lead in both chambers, passing the bill should be easy. Since most of them have been voted out of office, most of them have nothing to lose by rolling full steam ahead and getting everything that they told the public they wanted passed easily passed.
I've called and written to Senators and Representatives. I live in California and wrote to Ellen Tauscher, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and others. I never spoke to one of my employees, not one. I spoke to staff members who all said the same thing, "Thank you sir, we'll pass that on to"(fill in the blank)."
Did they pass on that I called and said that they should vote against the next request from the White House to fund the War to find weapons of mass destruction; to attack the government that worked with Al Qaeda; to free people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein; to begin growing democracy in the Middle East? Maybe they did. Obviously, the congress people could care less what I, their boss, thought about what they should do.
Did they pass on that I suggested that members of The Regime, the name I use for what was euphemistically called "The Bush Administration", should be impeached, including George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, for committing the very same war crimes for which The Former United States of America has prosecuted others in the past? Maybe they did. Obviously, the congress people care less---well you know the drill.
Even the Move To Amend, which is probably the most substantial action being taken at this time to really make a change in our governing methodology and to which I steer every human being with whom I engage in conversation, even conversation of the most banal kind, is ultimately going to need help from the people who benefit from the present system. We may be able to get enough signatures, we may be able to get two-thirds of the state legislatures to back the amendment, although I wouldn't bet a significant amount of money on that, but we also need two-thirds of Congress to agree as well. That won't ever happen. If we take it to the Supreme Court---we know that the majority of the SCOTUS is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Corporatocracy---we'll never win.
I will never call and beg an employee again in my life, especially one with a D or an R following her or his name.
If we want to get the amendment passed so that people who have real ideas about fair governance can actually be candidates for office, we need to get some of the very wealthy "liberal" people who appear on the media as well as business people like Soros and Buffet, to fork out some money and "buy" fairness into the game. I normally don't agree with fighting fire with fire. If my house is burning down, I don't want a bunch of people showing up with torches.
However, in this political climate, trying to play fair to win is exactly what it appears that Barack Obama is doing and it appears he's failing miserably.
I use the expression "appears" because I don't think it's what he's doing at all. It may happen after a candidate is elected or it may happen before hand, but I'm convinced that, even if a candidate means what he or she says on the campaign trail, they are set down like Peter Finch was set down by Ned Beatty in Network and told how they are going to govern.
If any politician disagrees, I'm convinced that whoever is representing The Corporatocracy in this little meeting will say something like, "You have such beautiful children, Mr. President. You should be grateful. Why just last week I saw a video of what severe burns can do to cute kids like yours."
If you think this explanation is melodramatic, I think you're naïve. Maybe try to recall the name "Silkwood".
Once we get the people to agree with the Move To Amend, we need to turn to them and say, "You call Obama a Socialist. You obviously don't know what Socialism is."
Of course, we're a long way from that happening right now because there isn't a reality TV show called "Dancing With The Amendment".
We need to inform this gullible Beck bait that Socialism is not one of the words that are not allowed to be said on TV. Socialism isn't an insult, it's a plaudit. Top down-the few ruling the many- brain melting television capitalism is the insult. Capitalism encourages a "me" society. That's OK if you're one of the few "mes". If you think there's something called The American Dream that will get you to that class, close your eyes because that's the only kind of dream that will get you there. Socialism encourages a "we" society".
We must stop running away from who we are. When I speak about socialism, I speak about what has successfully been done in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe. I don't think the government should be in charge of producing basketballs.
However, I think the government should get the production of basketballs back in The FUSA and be involved in the welfare of the Americans who do produce basketballs. If those Americans want to organize, the government should do everything in its power to ensure those workers receive that right.
But not this government. Not the people that we're encouraged to call.
The people who play politician today are, for the most part, wealthy before they're elected, they become unbelievably wealthy, if only via the legal perks, after they're elected and they'll be wealthy when they retire and/or are defeated. What incentive do those people have to do what's right for the American citizenry? Consciences? It really seems as if there's a type of lobotomy which is performed in Washington DC, Hartford, Sacramento and other capitol cities which completely and cleanly removes any hint of conscience.
Social is a positive word. Society is a positive word. Sociology is a positive word. We need to not be afraid to say that Socialism is a very positive word.
Any tyrannical government is obviously not good for the citizenry. However, Socialism and tyranny are not synonymous. It's "we" vs. "me".
We can remind people that they didn't mind the "we" society that fought in the Civil War, WWI and II, Korea, the Vietnam War and the fiascos that are still taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. "They're fighting for us" people who hate the word Socialism say. I don't think they're fighting for anyone other than the wealthy.
However, if we were to believe the lies and if we were to believe that they are fighting for "us", why can't the "us" stay intact when there is no war? Why does the "us" become "me"?
No, I will not call someone who not only doesn't want to hear from me, but, chances are, won't know that I ever called. If that person somehow finds out that I called and finds out what I said, the person will proceed to do what they've already planned to do, even before I began writing this article.
Organizations who really want to change America must stop asking people to call their members of Congress. It's a insult and they damn well know it is!
We need to somehow, working against hope, change the financial qualifications needed to run for office and then make sure that we become a society of people who care that every member is treated fairly. We must cease our consumerist climb up the fantasy ladder that will ultimately make us and ours wealthier than anyone needs to be. That is not a sustainable American dream. That's a personal dream and a selfish one at that.
To friendship,
Michael
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” – Lenin
World Conditions and Action Items