the constitution is the counter-revolution

the constitution is about limiting rights, not guaranteeing them…the framers of the document were, in the end, frightened by the polity’s internalization of the jeffersonian ideals of the declaration of independence and the spirit of radical democracy that was abroad…shay’s rebellion was a focus for them…not so much the rebellion itself which was easily suppressed but the aftermath in which the farmers of massachucetts sent their own representatives to the legislature and enacted debt forgiveness and began printing paper money…hamilton was outraged and had a tendency to drone on about it by name in the federalist papers…madison was more circumspect, however, when he speaks of protecting the rights of the minority ( read elite ) from “an interested and overbearing majority”, shay’s was on his mind…so how did they go about limiting the polity’s actual influence? they created a government of and by special interest in which the individual was scarcely recognized with the government as an allegedly neutral umpire…that may have been the intention, however, since wealth is power and power has always controlled the government the government has almost always ( let’s call the social legislation in the wake of the great depression an anomaly) made decisions that favored wealth…nothing too complex to grasp in that…the system reaps two fundamental benefits from this system ( and makes refinements as they go ) first, since the only way the individual can find a hearing on issues that are of import to them is through belonging to an interest group much of the time and energy that they might utilize in resistance to the systemic structures as a whole is expended in the internecine debates over what the “special interest” any given group actually is and how it should be presented to the government and to public opinion at large…after wearying battles over whether migrants should be termed “illegal aliens” or “undocumented workers” there is little energy left to question why we are having this debate in the first place…secondly, this leaves special interest groups “branded” …sugar tax vs. nanny state…prochoice/prolife…gun control/nra…coke/pepsi…ford/chevy…and struggling with one another for both public approval and for government attention ( which boils down to who gives them the most money usually )…more energy and animus that might be aimed at the system as a concept used in dividing ourselves to their benefit…alas humans are tribal…we like to be with people who look ;like us…talk like us…eat the same sorts of foods…call it culture…i doubt we will ever reach an easy, comfortable consensus…realistically we could aim for some tolerance…understanding that the tribal ways of others are as important to them as ours are to ourselves…get to know someone from a different tribe…you might find that human nature has at least as many universals as differences ( do they love their children? bet most do) and once we accomplish that difficult but rewarding task just maybe we can begin to see we’ve been played and that things don’t really have to be as they are.

at the very point of decadence

“we select a single bit of ground as the natural center of the historical system, and make it the central sun. from it all events of history receive their real light; from it their importance is judged in perspective.”---ozzie Spengler. decline of the west___________ ozzie tells us all history is a matter of perspective…subjective…you cannot take the historian out of the history and the holy grail of historians, primary sources, are usually written by someone who was involved in the described events…someone with a perspective…and, quite possibly , an agenda…objectivity in history is a much rarer commodity than historians would lead you to believe…why you can find a “factual history” to support any viewpoint…all history is revisionist too…as wolgang shivelbusch rightly points out, the losers never go away…they lay low and retrench…harden attitudes…mythologize explanations for failure…and as time goes on begin to revise history…hans nossack started the revision of the bombing war in euurope..but he wrote in german and was not published in English until recently…w.g.sebald was among the first to point out that not everyone killed in an air raid in Germany was a nazi and jorg friedrich has written a damning portrait of churchill and “bomber” harris as perpetrators of terrorist tactics in pursuit of the defeat of a no less criminal regime…both sides deliberately targeted civilian populations in the name of some greater good…real or imagined…the upshot is everyone in a war commits war crimes…the winners just don’t go to trial…there have been winners and losers here too…politically and economically and they haven’t disappeared either…the north/south disconnect is the most obvious one…and the one the most ink and actual blood has been spilled over…and the losers there did not disappear…even though there is a remarkable movement afoot to sanitize history and remove all traces of the short lived southern nation hood...orwell’s “memory hole” alive and still in the never ending business of revision…there are other , less clear, divisions around…some years ago there was a book by joel garreau titled the nine nations of north America…which isn’t a bad starting point but I sat down with a relief map of the united states and a red pen and came up with fourteen…and now that California is set to vote on whether or not to divide itself into the fifty-first and second states in November ozzie’s view that there is a life cycle to nations and that they all decline and expire may seem to be born out…in these trumpist times ( when the republican national committee is demanding loyalty oaths to der fur hair ) the social connection that is nationhood seems to be unplugging itself…the disconnect is palpable, the poles are moving farther apart, and there seems to be a conscious effort to distort and muddy the waters…no firm grip on events…so we stumble from seizure to seizure seeming to accept what orwell called “catastrophic gradualism” ...things relentlessly and unstoppably moving from bad to worse in increments…orwell argued against that acceptance and Isaiah berlin maintained there was no “historical inevitability” in direct opposition to ozzie…i would probably agree with the two former over the latter…but how to tell when no one has the vaguest idea of who is in possession of the facts, who is distorting, and who just doesn’t know…well…no one does…not even those who purport to know…so…act where you can on what you see around you…help people who obviously need it…say something when you see an injustice…and get off your dead ass and vote ( where and when the powers that be allow it …i vote in every election so I am not purged )..an individual vote doesn’t really mean much…in general my votes go to losers anyway… the point is the politicians among us hate it when a lot of people vote…it makes things a lot less predictable and those rat fucks depend on our habitual apathy ( or voting patterns ) to get their way…no you won’t change the world…or maybe even stop califronia from self-destructing…you might make some gop senator think twice before declaring allegiance to the fur hair prinzip…there is no inevitable….( by the by…hitler stole the whole deal from georg von schonerer…there is no originality in politics...again...just a dependence on the habitual behaviors of the polity )

it's not a conspiracy...just pursuit of wealth

it is the eighth of june and, barring any unexpected action by the whores in congress, the internet as we know it dies monday...which may not be a bad thing in terms of local shopping and an end to hours of wasted time...it will still be an adjustment...my internet provider...

which is frontier communications ( a gross misnomer which i will endeavor to explain in a moment ) has, since the beginning of the year, been involved in what they are calling a "network upgrade project"...

"interruption or slowdown of service" they nailed...the "brief" part seems suspect from this end...i could, at one time, stream two screens of netflix and upload photos and blog to my heart's content...no more...even with one screen streaming my upload speed takes a mighty hit ( when i go to speed test.net the test has been failing to complete when it comes to upload speed..i consistently get an error message and no results) and i am left cooling my heels while a tortoise like upload ensues

my community"s part of this "upgrade" was scheduled to be finished by march thirty-first (sixty-nine days ago )...this somehow seems unlikely since the website has not shown it a s complete yet...i have tried to contact frontier..when i click on the "chat" icon on the site the icon vanishes and, unless waiting around fro quarter of an hour for someone to appear is not long enough, nothing in terms of communication ensues...remarkably i cannot get them on the phone either...this strikes me as evasion since i always could before...so what's up? is the "upgrade' a separation of the service into slow and fast lanes use of which depends on the stipend frontier gets from me? i have been accused of paranoia at times ( although the source of those accusations always struck me as being dogmatic responses to criticisms from someone who lacked adequate arguments to justify a position pre-selected for them by the hegemonic culture ) and there will be some who view this as another episode...i am inclined to think the pursuit of wealth in this consequentialist system will easily override any pathetic ( in the eyes of the subjectivist ) altruism or belief in any sort of equality of access...many will be left behind...i may be one...this may be the end of the fugitive

a primer

!.) to represent the interests and expand the prerogatives of those sectors of the polity with the most leverage in terms of wealth and/or influence over the opinions of the polity at large, whether they be individuals in possession of vast fortunes or powerful lobbies representing the needs and desires of an interested and overbearing segment of the population. _______ 2.) to enact, affirm, and enforce large swathes of legislation specifically written in arcane and convoluted language that legalize and lend a fatuous ethical base to the above mention special interests and prerogatives.

what can we afford?

altruism and mercantile capitalism are in opposition to and in in conflict with on another...i have known this for some time...even at its best capitalism is extractive and consequentialist......there is never enough in terms of acquisition or wealth...the assessment of "worth" in its ethos boils down to what you have in terms of wealth and power...the acquisition of that wealth and power are the ethical good...the means of their acquisition are secondary...what economists ( those academic justifiers of greed ) would term an "external"...i have known this intellectually for decades...the process is plain to see...historically it was evident in the "gilded age" of "robber barons" in the late 19th century ( carnegie was a "good" baron...he only extracted wealth from the public and salved his conscience with philanthropy[even if that too was mostly aimed at wealth...how many workers went to carnegie hall to an event?] while his hatchet man henery frick did the dirty work..jay gould was a "robber baron" because he extracted wealth from stockholders through market manipulations...that distinction carries through to this era...trump is president...bernie madoff is in the slammer ) and has again been more evident in public policy and political behavior since the reagan administration...all of which is a logical extension of the hamiltonian system of government for and by special interests instituted in 1789...which has evolved into a system where even full-time employment ( when it can be found ) does not pay enough to meet even basic necessities..i was aware of this downward spiral simply be observing new hires at the now defunct corporation i worked for..the starting wage was above the minimum wage of the state of indiana ( the mississippi of the mid-west ) but it was nothing near what could be termed a "living wage"...debt penury seems to be the state the reagan-clinton-bush-obama-trumpist cadre want the public at large to live in...debt creates new money and ( ask them ) there can never be enough of that...searching for health care insurance under the grossly misnamed "affordable health care act" has coalesced these thoughts into a sharper focus...without delving deeply into the details lets just say it was far cheaper to cobra my present union-based insurance...i have long thought that the terms "capitalist" and "entrepreneur" were synonyms for "grifter" and "charlatan"...people trying to sell me things i don't need by creating a desire through fear...those i can resist...the legislative imperative for health insurance backed by a coercive government tax agency i cannot...legislatively enforced extraction...no wonder people are angry...greed has been in control of the legislative process since at least 1789...this is an intensification and, with the judiciary joining in, the rights of workers are under direct threat while their obligations under the system increase as the late empire falters...what next? debtor's prison? ( as an aside, in 2001 [ the latest year i could find figures for on short notice ] prison labor in the united states produced $583.5 million in goods, $388 million of which were purchased by the department of defense...all produced on an hourly wage scale of between $0.23 to $1.15...technically not slavery...not publicized much either )...this is not likely to improve as climate and political ( they are linked despite the deniers...for a start let me suggest "environment, scarcity, and violence" by thomas homer-dixon...a rational voice...which is why he is obscure ) conditions deteriorate...dust off ozzie spengler for some bed time reading.

fear-based acquiescence

i have taken to refusing to scroll down the feed when i log on to facebook these days simply because there is nothing constructive in doing so…the feed is chock full of loud, contentious, abrasive, and relentless posturing over issues that may or may not be of concern…in large part it is not any sort of calm, reasoned debate…rather it is mostly an appeal to emotion…and the emotion it appeals to most is fear…from both sides of the political spectrum there are posting that are fear based…from “they are going to take our guns” to “amazon is selling facial recognition technology to the government so there will be no anonymity in public…well, for the nonce, no one is taking anyone’s guns unless there is a legal reason ( don’t wave a .45 at your neighbor...they frown on that ) and there is no such thing as privacy or anonymity in public anymore…have you actually looked around for cameras in public spaces recently? They are everywhere and those are just the ones you can see…we are all observed and have been for some time…this will only continue…but back to the fear –based business…all propaganda ( and hence advertising ) are designed to create anxiety…to push emotional buttons and create a state of unease that neutralized resistance to the message…weary acceptance of whatever is on offer is a successful sale if enthusiastic approval is not obtainable…I am inclined to think that an equal portion of this is designed to bludgeon me into apathy…to so overload me that I turn away ( which, actually, I have in part by refusing to scroll down the feed...there is another facet to that reaction however ) retreat in to happier thoughts which then allows the purveyors of this emotional assault free to frame the debate and exert greater control over immediate events ( variables increase, probably exponentially, as the event horizon moves farther into the future…human cognition is limited…no one knows they are simply trying to bullshit you into believing they do )…neo-cons or liberal, there are those who want to engender apathy and acquiescence …there are a godawful lot of people out there who want to manipulate my thinking…whether into cowering agreement or apathy doesn’t seem to matter…in their pursuit of power or money ( although, near as I can tell, they are fungible commodities…either is a gateway to the other )…refusing to scroll the feed does not indicate retreat or surrender however…there are other sources of information…and while none are truly objective ( mostly because there isn’t a truly objective human ) they are more balanced than the neatly packaged propaganda facebook keeps churning out…the issue there is finding them and then perusing them which tales more time than being spoon fed by the feed but will weave you more intact intellectually and in a better position to judge events and act…and acting on your perceptions is what it is about…don’t let them beat you into a position od acceptance…fuck quietism.

unions

in the wake of the recent supreme court decision putting yet another nail in organized labor's coffin i read an article that pinned the blame for the loses in membership on unions themselves...while unions are far from perfect ( and we will get into some firsthand examples from my decades as a union member down the road here...with some important distinctions...all unions are not equal ) and may have some responsibility in their problems, they have surely been aided and abetted in those losses by politicians...new deal or no new deal, unions have never been very popular with the business ( and hence government ) elite...and they were opposed to them despite the fact that they never represented a majority of american workers...even so they have been perceived as a threat to the status quo and active opposition to them goes well back beyond reagan and patco...part of organized labor's problem is who union leadership supports...the deomocratic party receives the majority of union pac's funds....something like 90% last time i looked which engenders a two fold problem...first the deomcrats, like all politicians, are cavalier with both campaign promises and the truth..they are unreliable at best in terms of attempting to maintain even a status quo in the labor/management power structures...they are of the elite and class interests will overcome campaign promises without even a struggle...compounding this, in an effort to minimize what they perceived as the dangers of an "interested and overbearing majority" [madison] the framers of the constitution created a government for and by special interests that subverted the individuals political will to that of a more readily predictable, and so controllable, group...energy that may have been directed towards a direct conflict with the government or employers on the part of individuals is expended inside the confines of an interest group as policy is debated and decided...the government increases the predictability of the individual by addressing only issues brought forth by interest groups, forcing individuals into pre-labeled pigeon holes...there is yet a deeper division among workers who are not only defined as deomcrats or republican...but find themselves further divided by issues such as pro choice/pro life, nra/gun control, pro-regulation/laisses faire...creating another layer of contention that diffuses solidarity...the rollback of unions began with their legal recognition under the wagner act of 1935...unions ( and by the way the courts later interpreted the wagner act as guaranteeing the rights of unions, not of workers )gained legal recognition and in so doing became part of the department of labor subject to rules laid down by the national labor relations board...in effect unions were taken "into the system" and left with fewer and fewer options as regulation mounted...the nlrb is controlled by the department of labor and the department of labor is controlled by the government..and the government is controlled by...well..not labor...and one thing not labor loathes is an organized work force with effective methods of protest and leverage in bargaining...so as unions evolved effective strategies such as the uaw's seizure of the fisher body works in flint michigan in late 1936 and early 1937 which forced general motors to negotiate a fair contract the nlrb moved to make sit-down strikes illegal...which they still remain...sympathy strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary site picketing were all made illegal or heavily regulated to the point of being ineffectual...all unions were guilty of in this was seeking legal recognition...the rest they had help with...on a personal level i was a member of a union for more than three decades and found pluses and minuses...the biggest plus was health coverage which came through the union...it was efficient and well run for the most part ( every system has issues ) and i can't fault them in this...the underlying theory of their unionism was a huge sticking point...for myself and more than a few others...we were members of the industrial arm of an old american federation of labor craft union that was mired in business unionism...they were in the business of selling industrial peace in three year bites...and it was a business...they had more in common with management than the bargaining unit and were more like a secondary set of bosses than advocates...when i was in the steelworkers union many years ago we had "grievers" as union reps...in this union the "advocates" were call "business agents"...the focus was clear from the institutional structures...an aversion to taking grievances to arbitration meant that workers' rights were not on the table in any way..we were "semi-skilled", not the skilled "craftsmen" they actually represented...small wonder that when indiana passed a "right to work " law many members opted out of paying dues and became free riders...there was not even a pretense of representation...only union journals and the odd t-shirt or baseball cap in exchange for dues...unions have not done themselves any favors by their behaviors...perceived as a special interest group ( which they are by government fiat ) representing a labor "elite" they have no sympathy among the unrepresented from whom they have been effectively isolated by behavior and government intent...we were dinosaurs...a resurgence may be possible...but not from inside the system.