Book: What Would Jefferson Do?

[Pat McCotter]

I am currently reading What Would Jefferson Do? by Thom Hartmann. Chapter 4 is eerie.

[Russell Kanning]

I am the appointed chair of the Democratic Freedom Caucus in NH which is a movement to restore the party that jefferson founded to his ideals.

I think Jefferson would be starting a revolution, if he was alive today.

[lildog]

I am currently reading What Would Jefferson Do? by Thom Hartmann. Chapter 4 is eerie.

You can't leave us hanging like that, what's chapter 4 about????

[Lloyd Danforth]

Does this have something to do with the WWJD bumper stickers that I see all the time?

[Lloyd Danforth]

WWJCD?
Nah!, I'm pretty sure it was WWJD!  See it around churches a lot!

[Dreepa]

WWJCD?
Nah!, I'm pretty sure it was WWJD!? See it around churches a lot!

Lloyd that is What Would Johnny Do?

This is the only pic on the web I could find.

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=WWJD+red+sox&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=ff&oi=froogler

[Lloyd Danforth]

WWJCD?
Nah!, I'm pretty sure it was WWJD!? See it around churches a lot!

Lloyd that is What Would Johnny Do?

This is the only pic on the web I could find.

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=WWJD+red+sox&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=ff&oi=froogler

Thank, I had forgotten about that one

I've always liked:  What Would Jesus Drive?

A Pickup Truck, Silly!  He was a carpenter!


My favorite bumper sticker of all time, I saw on the bridge connecting Detroit with Windsor about a skillion years ago:

'It Takes Leather Balls To Play Rugby'

[Dreepa]

As a former Rugby player.... I like that one.



Give Blood: Play Rugby

[Pat McCotter]

I am currently reading What Would Jefferson Do? by Thom Hartmann. Chapter 4 is eerie.

You can't leave us hanging like that, what's chapter 4 about????

OK, I've scanned it:

WHEN DEMOCRACY FAILED

Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
?SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL (1874-1965),
November 11, 1947

For most of the twentieth century Americans feared the greatest danger to our way of life was communism. We were wrong: fascism was a more potent external menace, and now may be our greatest internal threat. Consider this true story.

The 70th anniversary of February 27, 1933, wasn?t noticed in the United States and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day in 1933. Many commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations against the war in Iraq that had mobilized more millions of citizens all across the world than any in history

The end of democracy started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies that they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation?s leader had not been elected by a majority vote, and many citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn?t have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language?reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state? and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. As a young man, he?d joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn?t know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation?s most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified that it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

?You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history,? he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. ?This fire,? he said, his voice trembling with emotion, ?is the beginning.? He used the occasion??a sign from God,? he called it?to declare a war not on another nation but on a tactic: terrorism. The terrorism his country was suffering from, he said, had to have originated with a group of people of Middle Eastern origin who rationalized their acts using religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranienberg to hold suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national eruption of patriotism, the leader?s flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation?s now popular leader had pushed through legislation?in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it?that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people?s homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.? ?

Sunset provisions and gradual increases in terror

To get his patriotic ?Decree on the Protection of People and State? passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a four-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn?t had time to read the bill before voting on it.

His federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were imprisoned, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public?and there were many?quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police?s batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader?s public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after the attack, at the suggestion of a political adviser, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir up ?racial pride? among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as ?the homeland,? a phrase publicly promoted by Rudolph Hess in a ~ speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl?s famous propaganda movie Triumph of the Will. As hoped, people?s hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sown. Our land was ?the? homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the ?true people,? he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation?s concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it?s of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn?t act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He withdrew his country from the League of Nations in October 1933 and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Anthony Eden of the United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called ?New Christianity.? Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared ?Gott mit uns?? God is with us?and most of them fervently believed it was true.

Creating a new homeland security bureau

Within a year of the attack, the nation?s leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the communication and coordinated administration necessary to deal with the threat, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus considered to be probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome ?intellectuals? and ?liberals.? He proposed a national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader. He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that since the attack, ?radio and press are at our disposal.? Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation?s leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public?s recollection as his Central Security Office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people ?denounced? were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out?a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn?t enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation?s largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by ?suspicious? people of Middle Eastern ancestry He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent arose again within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family?

The lies that convinced the people war was necessary

With his number two man?a master at manipulating the media?the nation?s leader began a campaign to convince the nation that a small, limited war was necessary Another nation was harboring many of the ?suspicious? Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation?s most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe? at first?denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine claimed in the past only by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar?s Rome or Alexander?s Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but finally a deal was struck. Thus Adolf Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, ?Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say: even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators.?

To deal with dissent, at the advice of his politically savvy advisers, Hitler and his ?friends? in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself In times of war, they said, there could be only ?one people, one nation, and one commander in chief? (?Fin Volk, em Reich, em F?hrer?), and so began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself Those questioning him were labeled unpatriotic, ?anti-German,? or ?not good Germans,? and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation?s valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the ?intellectuals and liberals? who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the annexation of Austria was complete and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn?t enough to rouse the populace and suppress dissent. An all-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class?s way of life.

His increasing belligerence aroused concern all over the world, but after meeting with Hitler, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader?s new first-strike doctrine for a second time would bring ?peace for our time.?

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security It was the end of Germany?s first experiment with democracy

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe?s successful flrebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief seizure of Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine?s Man of the Year.

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, and its Schutzstaffel, by its famous agency?s initials: the SS.?

Two nations take two different paths ? in the 1930s

Today as we face financial and political crises, it?s useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity

Germany?s response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society?s richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum-wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced antitrust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and through the WPA (Works Progress Administration) became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is ours once more.?

[Pat McCotter]

So, sue me!

[Pat McCotter]

[mumble mode]Telling me what I can't do. I'll show him what I can't do. Just let me catch him in the alley and we'll just see what I can't do.[/mumble mode]

[Pat McCotter]

What property rights! They're all common property.

[Dreepa]

So, sue me!

do you not respect property rights?

They belong to the 'commons'..

How is it any different then people cutting an pasting from a website?

[Incrementalist]

I've heard Thom Hartmann speak.  He's best known for his investigation into the origins of corporate personhood, but when he starts talking Jefferson, he paints the man as a total left-winger.  Off.  The.  Mark.

[Pat McCotter]

a website is part of the internet commons (social) because it does not charge for access to the content once you access the internet.

a book's content on the other hand is private property via state granted monopoly privilege of enclosing the social commons (copyright) for a limited period of time after which it reverts back to the commons.

the cost of the book that is paid to the author, granted via state privilege (all privileges shift costs) , is a negative externality foisted upon society inorder to eventually enhance the greater common good - that is why state privileges are granted!

Pat has a few years to wait before what was done was not a violation of the private property rights of the author.

I didn't pay for the book, either. I checked it out of the local public library.

BTW, fair use allows me to do it. I only excerpted chapter 4 and I attributed it with title and author a link to Amazon.com. I did not say I wrote it.