Frankly, if you rank the gymnastics moves of our system in their order of difficulty, the con-con is the highest of them all, just above the con-amendment.

I’m befuddled that anyone would call for power to basically surrender and start the whole thing over from scratch when power is doing quite nicely.

Most conventions on constitutions take place AFTER the state fails–either via warfare, rebellion/revolution, or government collapse. Were you paying attention to Honduras? They tried the peaceful con-con via voting. And that got Zelaya where again?

It would be easier to *just* get an amendment stripping corporations of personhood, which would go a long way toward being able to turn this thing around. But you couldn’t get that through legislatures which are basically extensions of corporate Government Relations divisions.

If ou want a constitutional convention, brother/sister, you’d better collapse the state first. That’s about what it would take.

People need to wake the fuck up, and realize that blocking the highway is the least of what needs to be done right now. Individuals are running wrecking balls throughout first world democracies. It isn’t just about the United States. Centralized banks are fleecing the sheep like mad and free, democratic republics are buckling under the debt pressure.

With Obama running up a $12,500,000,000,000 debt and countries like Iceland and Latvia and Greece becoming debtor nations to foreign investment, can we afford Chinese and other corporations to have controlling investments in U.S. soil? Financial rights lay the foundation stones for rights to secure their own investments, and sovereignty will lose out to ownership. It is the standard practice in other nations.

We created these rules and we will lose our own game because there are Benedict Arnolds all throughout the system in the United States. They aren’t to be found in the Tea Party groups or the We Are Change groups, they’re regularly attending Bilderberg groups, and think tank assemblies.

Activism needs to be given the respect it deserves. The right to be inconvenienced by fellow citizens exercising their right to freely assemble on the streets of their own nation. What kind of fascistic existence are you living in when once the government assigned a space of land as freeway, you as a citizen are only entitled to it if you are licensed, in a licensed vehicle, traveling at the proper speed in the proper direction? Sometimes these conventions need to be interrupted, so people are broken out of their automation and into reality.

Whose streets? OUR STREETS!

Democracy is losing and if you can’t even defend the exercising of rights, you are already authoritarian.

It would introduce even more chaos in an already unstable, chaotic mess and it might very well be the PERFECT opportunity for our enemies to seize even more control then they already have, especially since they are so much better organized then we are.

So you bet, I am NOT contemplating a constitutional convention, not even.

A third party would be a far better place to put that kind of energy, IMO, or what about impeaching the Bush Cheney administration? That would be taking the bull by the horns.

They are completely corrupt so investigating their crimes would expose a lot of the people in government that we need to get rid of. Refusing to investigate them is a part of their illegal cover up.

Impeaching Bush and Cheney is a real twofer when combined with elections, since being under indictment for conspiracy to commit treason and war crimes will most likely have a severe dampening effect on voter enthusiasm for incumbents who look to be involved.

I hear it will be a really good year for new candidates. I know I have been Taxed Enough Already when it comes to paying for war. If they can refuse to pay for abortions, I can refuse to pay for war.

http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/franklin.htm

There is a pattern of obstructionism here that goes way beyond trying to bring down our duly elected president (that is treason, BTW). It is a huge cover up, 9/11 is only a small part of it.

So we don’t need a ‘divorce’, what we need is a through investigation and prosecution of treason in the Senate. For some reason US Senators think they are immune from the law, we need to demonstrate to them that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

And we need people outside of it, like me, to agitate and show direction. And, we need to positively communicate with each other.

I agree with that, we need both like two working parts. Like two players on the same team, playing different field positions, but smoothly working together so we can actually control the discourse. The folks on the right are good at this scornfully laugh at our incompetence. Who can blame them? We are incompetent.

Which is where Hedges comes in and points out our incompetence – then blames us for it – showing he has very little heart in typical reporter style.

I was about to rave about how insightful this piece was; it shows what we need to learn in a style that is sympathetic to our way of relating. So of course I found your criticism interesting.

“we don’t need faux progressives that profess change while embracing betrayal.”

Yes we do.

Rejecting the people you disagree with is a sure fire strategy to lose big in politics. What we need from them is to get their agreement, not just to profess change, but to actually do it.

It is a lot easier to do that if you have friends on the inside; you don’t make friends by rejecting them. Disagreement does not need to lead to rejection and it will work a lot better for us in politics if it doesn’t.

We need him, and all the people like him, to be on our side if we are ever going to accomplish what we need to do. That is just a fact of life, so what we need to focus on is how to get them to stop “embracing betrayal.”

That is a very good term for it too. I see it as a battered wife with no options. Yeah she is embracing betrayal. What the fuck other option is there?

We need to focus on articulating that other option. Then she will embrace us.

With all due respect, you weren’t reading my post carefully. My expectations were not mentioned in any of my posts, and I’d prefer that you left it to me to tell you what they are first, just as I’d return the courtesy.

But there’s going down fighting and Going Down Fighting, if you know what I mean. And your focus on the Green Party as an agent of enduring change (or any change, for that matter), is much closer to Belden’s position than to maybe Hedges. It’s an establishment response (play within the general rules of the electoral system, even if outside the duopoly), so wouldn’t that be a bit of reliance on the same machine to solve your problems?