And now ...

back by popular demand, it's ...


... Bush falling down drunk at the Olympics!

Check out the onlookers. Some aren't sure whether to be horrified or to laugh. One is looking at Bush's pants as if he wet 'em. Laura is decamping as fast as her Ferragamos can take her. Her face says it all: "See ya; wouldn't wanna be ya!"

Nice to know our country is being represented with such dignity abroad ....

*************************************************************

"Pro-life" according to Sarah Palin:
"thou shalt not kill" only applies to fetuses;
everything else is target practice.

*************************************************************

Drill, Drill, Drill:
Nightmares about Sarah Palin
by Even Ensler, author of The Vagina Monologues

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/drill-drill-drill_b_124829.html

I am having Sarah Palin nightmares. I dreamt last night that she was a member of a club where they rode snowmobiles and wore the claws of drowned and starved polar bears around their necks. I have a particular thing for Polar Bears. Maybe it's their snowy whiteness or their bigness or the fact that they live in the arctic or that I have never seen one in person or touched one. Maybe it is the fact that they live so comfortably on ice. Whatever it is, I need the polar bears.

I don't like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and solidarity of Feminists.

But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which for me is part of one story -- connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.

I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the most dangerous choices of my lifetime, and should this country chose those candidates the fall-out may be so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never recover. But what is equally disturbing is the impact that duo would have on the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this is not a joke. In my lifetime I have seen the clownish, the inept, the bizarre be elected to the presidency with regularity.

Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as a metaphor. In her world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or evolves. She does not believe in global warming. The melting of the arctic, the storms that are destroying our cities, the pollution and rise of cancers, are all part of God's plan. She is fighting to take the polar bears off the endangered species list. The earth, in Palin's view, is here to be taken and plundered. The wolves and the bears are here to be shot and plundered. The oil is here to be taken and plundered. Iraq is here to be taken and plundered. As she said herself of the Iraqi war, "It was a task from God."

Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion. She does not believe women who are raped and incested and ripped open against their will should have a right to determine whether they have their rapist's baby or not.

She obviously does not believe in sex education or birth control. I imagine her daughter was practicing abstinence and we know how many babies that makes.

Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference. This is a woman who could and might very well be the next president of the United States. She would govern one of the most diverse populations on the earth.

Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air.

Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right. But when God and Guns come together in the public sector, when war is declared in God's name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever tried to be.

I write to my sisters. I write because I believe we hold this election in our hands. This vote is a vote that will determine the future not just of the U.S., but of the planet. It will determine whether we create policies to save the earth or make it forever uninhabitable for humans. It will determine whether we move towards dialogue and diplomacy in the world or whether we escalate violence through invasion, undermining and attack. It will determine whether we go for oil, strip mining, coal burning or invest our money in alternatives that will free us from dependency and destruction. It will determine if money gets spent on education and healthcare or whether we build more and more methods of killing. It will determine whether America is a free open tolerant society or a closed place of fear, fundamentalism and aggression.

If the Polar Bears don't move you to go and do everything in your power to get Obama elected then consider the chant that filled the hall after Palin spoke at the RNC, "Drill Drill Drill." I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. I think of military exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt, ambiguity or dissent. I think of pain.

Do we want a future of drilling? More holes in the ozone, in the floor of the sea, more holes in our thinking, in the trust between nations and peoples, more holes in the fabric of this precious thing we call life?

*****
Alaska's Women Reject Palin

Daily Kos delivers for you:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/14/103042/902/965/597033

*****
A Letter from a Concerned Citizen to NBC:
Why Does Tom Brokaw Let Republicans Get Away with Lying During Campaign Season?

Why does Tom Brokaw support a fascist America?

When John McCain's supporters lie on TV, the public needs journalists to step in and correct the record. Unfortunately, NBC's Tom Brokaw let Rudy Giuliani get away with lying this Sunday on Meet the Press.

Here's the issue: John McCain's campaign is trying to undermine an ongoing investigation of Sarah Palin in Alaska. This legislative investigation into abuse of power could threaten McCain's portrayal of Palin as a reformer.

Giuliani repeated the McCain campaign's talking point that Democrats are running a partisan investigation. But Republicans control the Alaska Legislature! And the investigation was authorized with a bipartisan 12-0 vote ("Palin under investigation," KOLD TV, September 2, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=28496&id=13847-1005254-ZaVOuzx&t=3). Brokaw let Giuliani lie and then never corrected the record for viewers.

I can only conclude from this that Tom Brokaw supports the McCain-Palin ticket, which will continue or expand Bush's fascist regime. I look forward to hearing why Mr. Brokaw thinks that fascism is good for America.

*************************************************************

When one American asks for help from the government,
we frown and call it "socialism."
When corporations demand bail-outs from the government,
we applaud and call it "sound business practice."

*************************************************************

They Arrest Journalists, Don't They?

This month's blog post practically wrote itself. You see, I watch/listen to “Democracy Now!” with Amy Goodman every morning for alternative news. Amy Goodman's headquarters are in New York City. She doesn't often leave the DN! recording studios. But she did cover the Democratic and Republican National Conventions to report back to her audience.

First, Amy Goodman went to the DNC. There, she reported on the arrests of destructive protesters (I can't help wondering if some were provocateurs) and the unseemly pay-for-influence atmosphere of the convention. This was evidenced by the press being locked out of “private” parties for lobbyists and delegates, so that the media were prevented from reporting back to us which of our public servants are being purchased by what corporations. While it was clear that neither media nor protesters were welcome at the DNC, the police officers did not target the peaceful protesters. Instead, the police rather civilly -- if coolly -- made do with verbal warnings and barring entry.

Far worse, however, was the behavior of the authorities at the Republican National Convention. They swarmed the protests and made hundreds of false arrests -- often brutal. Their behavior was reprehensible. The RNC set a new record for squelching Americans' First Amendment rights: not only were peaceful protesters arrested, but "authorities" also arrested the journalists, apparently just for covering the protests. Amy Goodman was arrested simply for talking to the police and asking them about two of the show's producers -- Nicole Salazar and Sharif Abdel Kouddous -- who had been swept up in the dragnets. On hearing of the arrests of her colleagues, Amy literally ran from the convention floor to where they were being detained. And there was our own Amy Goodman, all disheveled, confused, concerned for her fellow DN! journalists, trying to reason with these huge crowd-control goons who were unidentified and outfitted to the teeth in full riot gear (which leads me to suspect they were Blackwater). She wasn't armed, and she clearly wasn't a threat to them. Nonetheless, they twisted her arm and hauled her off just for questioning them! It was a nightmare to watch. Burning tears fell to the keyboard. You see, I can't think of a more gentle person than Amy Goodman. She witnessed the 9/11 tragedy from her offices, yet she reports on the news in the most unbiased way every day. What more can we ask for in a news reporter?

You can watch the “peace” officers roughing up Nicole Salazar and Amy Goodman for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjyvkR0bGQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jreRSEQ_yg

I personally watched these videos and found them to be deeply disturbing -- chilling. Is this really what our democracy has come to -- storm troopers throwing protestors and reporters alike to the ground just for exercising First Amendment rights? Locking up those who dissent in "free speech zones" well out of range of convention delegates? Whatever happened to representative government by, of, and for the people, or letting Us the People demand redress for wrongdoing from the government that we pay for with our taxes?

And why on earth are these so-called "peace" officers, the Secret Service, and Blackwater and other "private" security stripping hand-cuffed journalists of their press credentials without issuing receipts? The way I hear'd it, that's called STEALING. And its sole purpose was to intimidate the reporters and keep them from doing their jobs at the RNC!

Here are the personal accounts of "Democracy Now!" producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, who were charged with felony riot (even though they were reporting, not protesting):

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/2/amy_goodman_two_democracy_now_producers

AMY GOODMAN: More than 280 people were arrested here in St. Paul on Monday, the opening day of the Republican National Convention. Among them were several journalists covering the protests in the streets, including three of us at Democracy Now! I was detained trying to question police officers about the arrests of Democracy Now! producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. Nicole and Sharif were covering a police crackdown on a street protest against the Republican National Convention.

Nicole’s camera captured her arrest and assault by the officers.

NICOLE SALAZAR: Watch out! Watch out! Press!

POLICE OFFICER: Get out of here! Move!

NICOLE SALAZAR: Where are we supposed to go? Where are we supposed to go?

POLICE OFFICER: Get out of here!

NICOLE SALAZAR: Dude, I can’t see! Ow! Press! Press! Press!

POLICE OFFICER: Get down! Get down on your face! On your face!

NICOLE SALAZAR: I’m on my face!

POLICE OFFICER: Get down on your face!

NICOLE SALAZAR: Ow! Press! Press!


AMY GOODMAN: Shortly after, I arrived and was arrested while questioning the officers about Sharif and Nicole’s arrest.

DENIS MOYNIHAN: Release the accredited journalists!

AMY GOODMAN: Where’s the reporters? Sir?

POLICE OFFICER: Ma’am, get back to the sidewalk.

DENIS MOYNIHAN: Release the accredited journalists now!

AMY GOODMAN: Sir, just one second. I was just running from the convention floor.

DENIS MOYNIHAN: You are violating my constitutional rights. You are violating their constitutional rights.

POLICE OFFICER: Sidewalk now!

AMY GOODMAN: Sir, I want to talk to your superior—

POLICE OFFICER: Arrest her?

AMY GOODMAN: Do not arrest me!

POLICE OFFICER: You’re under arrest.

POLICE OFFICER: Hold it right there. You’re under arrest. Stay right there. Back up. Back up.

POLICE OFFICER: Everybody, you cross this line, you’ll be under arrest, so don’t do it.

CROWD: Let her go!

DENIS MOYNIHAN: Amy, we are going to get you out of here very soon.

AMY GOODMAN: This is outrageous.

DENIS MOYNIHAN: Yes, we have people working on it.

AMY GOODMAN: Nicole has a bloody nose. And I think that Sergeant McKinty said he—they won’t put me on [inaudible] if Nicole’s not there.


AMY GOODMAN: Before I arrived, Democracy Now! producer Mike Burke spoke to Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher about Nicole and Sharif’s arrest. Fletcher was also questioned by a journalist seeking the release of his colleague, Associated Press photographer Matt Rourke.

AP JOURNALIST: …get his gear or get him out?

SHERIFF BOB FLETCHER: Yeah, well, we can talk – I mean, after everything—look, I couldn’t tell you which one he is, and obviously there’s three different mobile field [inaudible].

MIKE BURKE: We have two journalists in there, as well. I’m from the national radio and TV show Democracy Now!

SHERIFF BOB FLETCHER: I don’t doubt you are, and I want to help you in any way we can. But—

MIKE BURKE: One of them, you can see. She—Nicole Salazar is sitting right there.

Are there any protections for journalists who are covering [inaudible]?

SHERIFF BOB FLETCHER: Yeah, I think it will all sort out, if, in fact, there was a journalist in the middle of there.

MIKE BURKE: She’s been covering—we just came from Denver. We covered the Democratic convention.

SHERIFF BOB FLETCHER: I’m sure that we’ll be able to work it all out.

MIKE BURKE: I know, but she’s being detained right now.

SHERIFF BOB FLETCHER: She is, that’s right. And the Minneapolis police officers have detained her, and so I can’t undetain her.

MIKE BURKE: I mean, you are the sheriff?

SHERIFF BOB FLETCHER: I am, and once you get to the jail, it’ll be under my control. Right now it’s under the Minneapolis Police Department.

MIKE BURKE: What jail is she being taken to?

SHERIFF BOB FLETCHER: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center. It’s right over here. 425 Grove.

MIKE BURKE: OK. And how long do you think she’ll be detained for?

SHERIFF BOB FLETCHER: It all depends on the nature of the charge, etc. It could be anywhere from a couple hours to a day and a half.

MIKE BURKE: Now, if the charge is riot, what is that?

SHERIFF BOB FLETCHER: Generally, we…


AMY GOODMAN: Most of the arrests took place within hours of a 10,000-strong peace march organized by the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War. After the rally ended, several splinter groups broke off for spontaneous actions in the streets of St. Paul.

While most protesters demonstrated peacefully, some engaged in property damage, slashing car tires, throwing bottles, tipping trash bins and breaking windows of cars and buildings. One of the broken windows came in the building that houses Saint Paul Neighborhood Network—that’s SPNN —where Democracy Now! is broadcasting from this week.

But police used harsh tactics, including chemical irritants, to disperse everyone, even those protesters who remained peaceful. Officers in riot gear fired teargas, pepper spray, rubber bullets in a series of standoffs around the downtown St. Paul area.

Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar were covering one of those standoffs before their arrest. They were released last night but now face pending charges on suspicion of committing a felony riot. It’s called “PC riot,” probable cause riot. I’ve been charged with obstruction of legal process and interference with a, quote, “peace” officer. Overall, police say some 120 people face pending charges.

Sharif and Nicole join me now here in St. Paul. Welcome to Democracy Now! I don’t think we expected to be in jail last night, but Nicole, let’s start with you. That was very dramatic footage. Explain what happened. This was actually just outside SPNN, Saint Paul Neighborhood Network, public access TV offices here on Jackson and 7th in downtown St. Paul.

NICOLE SALAZAR: Well, basically, Sharif and I had been out that morning filming the antiwar protest, which was mostly peaceful. We were out for three hours, four hours filming that. Eventually, we left the main protest. We went back to the office. We were going to digitize our tapes.

And then, from the offices, which, like you said, are here in SPNN, we saw that there was some activity down on the street, so we grabbed our camera. Basically, what we saw then was just police in riot gear moving down the street. We didn’t see any crowds. So I grabbed my camera, and I ran out the door and just basically followed the police.

I saw that they were preparing to put on teargas masks, and I was just filming them. Shortly after, Sharif came down, and, you know, he brought my press pass down and put that around my neck. So we followed the crowd for a few blocks, and very quickly we saw that there were police coming from all directions. There were police on horseback. There were police on bicycles. And there were police officers in riot gear.

So, that moment that you saw, that was after we had moved into an intersection where police were coming from three different directions. They were telling us to move back, and that’s what we were trying to do. That’s what I was trying to do in the video. I was trying to move back, but I was in a parking lot, and I wasn’t able to get back. And one—

AMY GOODMAN: A car was behind you, a parked car?

NICOLE SALAZAR: Cars were behind me. We were in a parking lot. And, you know, I was telling them that “I’m press. I’m press. Please, you know, don’t—you know, let me pass.” But I couldn’t turn around. And I tried to move in between the—between two cars, and instead of, you know, letting me pass and following the crowd, they instead came right after me and slammed me into the car, at which point I think my camera came back and hit me in the face. And two cops were also behind me, and they pushed me through that row of cars into the next area of the parking lot and slammed me to the ground and said, “Get your face on the ground! Get your face on the ground!” And I was, you know, at that point—

AMY GOODMAN: So you were on your stomach, on your face, on the ground.

NICOLE SALAZAR: I was on my stomach on the ground. And one of the officers, I think he was trying to grab me. He was trying to drag me. He was grabbing my leg. And another officer put his boot on my back and was pressing me to the ground.

AMY GOODMAN: And he was pulling you with your leg, the other officer.

NICOLE SALAZAR: He was trying to pull me. They weren’t very well coordinated, I guess, because one of them was, you know, pushing me to the ground with his foot, and I was stomped on, so I had to stay where I was, but the other one was pulling on my leg.

AMY GOODMAN: So if he was dragging you, and they told you, “Put your face”—we heard him say, “Put your face on the ground,” then they would drag your face along the ground.

NICOLE SALAZAR: I guess so. I was trying—I was trying to keep my face up, because I kept trying to tell them I’m press and show them my pass. And I had my camera in my hand, and I was trying to protect that.

AMY GOODMAN: We heard you shouting, “Press! Press!”

NICOLE SALAZAR: Right. So I guess they were, you know, trying to drag me and get me into this area, and I was surrounded by maybe five or six cops at that point. And eventually, I just had to, you know, acquiesce, and I just laid there and put my head on the ground. And I could see that my nose was bleeding onto the pavement.

AMY GOODMAN: Were there medics around?

NICOLE SALAZAR: Shortly thereafter, a medic did come over, and, you know, he asked me if my teeth were hurting, what had happened. And I was like, “You saw what happened. You know these police officers knocked me down.” And he, you know, wiped my face with a towel. But I kept just saying, “I’m with the press. I’m with Democracy Now!” You know, “I want to be released.”

AMY GOODMAN: Had they handcuffed you by now?

NICOLE SALAZAR: Yes, they had put me in those plastic cuffs, and my hands were behind my back. And my camera was, you know, two feet away from my face, lying on the ground. And I think shortly thereafter one officer came over and picked up the camera and took out the battery. And at that point I was worried that they were going to take my tape, but I don’t think—I mean, they didn’t, because now we have the tape, but he did take the battery out, I guess so the camera wouldn’t be recording.

AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, where were you when all of this was happening?

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, I was with Nicole the entire time while we were following the protesters and the cops in the streets. And Nicole gave a very good description of what happened. But basically, it seemed like the police were—they formed a perpendicular line and were pushing back most of the protesters, and on a perpendicular street were doing the same, and basically corralled everyone on that parking lot, which is on Jackson between 7th and 9th. And once they had most people in the parking lot, they just rushed it.

AMY GOODMAN: So it was like a pincer move, where they came in from all directions.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Exactly.

AMY GOODMAN: You couldn’t escape.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And they kept—

AMY GOODMAN: You asked one of the police officers, by the way, Nicole, how can you get out?

NICOLE SALAZAR: Right, right.

AMY GOODMAN: And what did he say?

NICOLE SALAZAR: He didn’t—he didn’t respond to me. I just said, “How can I get out?” because I was moving backwards into those cars, and I said, you know, “Where am I supposed to go?” And at that point, they just, you know, totally rushed me and knocked me down.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And, I mean, this isn’t like a, you know, a conversation you’re having with just a person. This is a cop in full riot gear. These are pretty big guys, generally, and they’re screaming at you to move.

And so, what happened was, they rushed the parking lot. Everyone in the parking lot was subject to arrest. They just rushed in. And Nicole very bravely was there filming the protesters. And you see that she gets tackled down very violently.

I was just on the outskirts of that, and I saw what had happened. So I ran in. I was holding a microphone. So I held it, you know, above my head with my left hand high to pose no threat. I held—I had a Democracy Now! press pass, as well as an RNC press pass, which gave me access to inside the convention, which is a hard one to get. You know, you have to get vetted through your Social Security number to get that one, so it’s a higher-degree press pass, as well. Anyway, I was holding my Democracy Now! one and screaming, “She’s press! She’s my co-worker! Let her go!”

And then, when I was doing that, three—two or three police officers tackled me. They threw me very violently against a wall. Then they threw me to the ground. I was kicked in the chest several times. A police officer ground his knee into my back. And I was handcuffed with plastic handcuffs. And I was also, the entire time, telling them, “I’m media. I’m press. I’m credentialed. I’m an accredited journalist.” But there was no—that didn’t seem to matter at all.

I looked over, saw Nicole on the floor on her stomach with her hands cuffed behind her back. I yelled over to her, and I saw her face was completely bloodied. This entire time, I kept telling them to let us go.

There was a photographer right next to me who was also taken down pretty violently. He was screaming he was press, as well. He had credentials. He kept saying he was a photographer for the New York Post. And quite funnily, he said, “For Christ’s sake, it’s a Republican paper!” But that didn’t seem to matter.

And then, that was it. You know, we were—we slowly got processed. We all got pushed over to the other wall opposite. They lined us up. I kept asking for them to bring Nicole to me, but they refused. And then I looked up, and I saw you walking towards me in handcuffs.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I had gotten the call—I was—I had just been interviewing someone in the Alaska delegation on the floor of the convention at the Xcel Energy Center and making my way over to Minnesota, where we are now, the Minnesota delegation. And as I was talking to someone, I got the call from Mike Burke, from Mike, who was also on the scene, said, “I believe that Sharif and Nicole have just been arrested.” So I was with Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films. We were filming delegate interviews. I had just talked to a veteran from Virginia.

We raced out and just ran down the street. I even stopped a police officer. I said, “Get me to that site. Our reporters have been arrested.” But he didn’t comply. But we were running as fast as we could, and the police had blocked off different areas of St. Paul, so we had to even run more of a detour. We kept running down the street. Finally, we made our way. I had, of course, my credentials flying, because you have the top security credential to be on the convention floor, then our Democracy Now! credential.

Finally, I made it to the police line, where the police in riot gear were lined up. I asked to speak to a commanding officer. They immediately grabbed me. I said, “Sir, I just want to speak to a commanding officer. My reporters are inside.” They’ve got their ID. I mean, we’ve done this in New York, as well, when there is confusion about a reporter. They immediately grabbed me, handcuffed me—and as you haven’t quite talked about, those plastic handcuffs cut right into your wrist, and they make those tight—pushed me to the ground.

I kept demanding—I saw you across the way, Sharif. I was looking for you, Nicole. They said you were bloodied. I demanded to be able to see you. I couldn’t find you. I demanded to be brought over to Sharif. I did go over to be with Sharif. They took my picture. They put the big white plaque under me with all my information, and an officer stands there with the picture. I kept demanding to see the reporters asking why we were being arrested. They finally—when they put me into the police wagon, they said that Nicole, you would be there. You were one of the first arrested. And that’s where I saw you with your Democracy Now! credentials hanging around your neck.

And then we were brought off to the jail. That’s where we were separated. They have these—those who are charged with misdemeanor are put in the—they have these pens inside the police garage. So I was brought there.

As I came in and I was speaking to the corrections officers, who did identify themselves—I kept asking every officer to identify themselves—a St. Paul cop behind them kept screaming, “Shut up! You, shut up!” And I asked—I said, “I want to know what your name is or your badge.” “Shut up! Shut up!” he said, I think to the chagrin of the corrections officers. One of the head guys in the jail came over and said, “He’s not ours. We can’t force him to identify himself. Our policy is that they identify themselves.” And stayed there for several hours.

Ultimately, they released me, interference with, I think they said, the judicial process or with a peace officer. They had—I thought you were going to come in with me, but they said you were brought to jail. So where were you, Nicole?

NICOLE SALAZAR: Well, first of all, one thing that you just left out from the paddy wagon that I just want to recall is when you and I were both banging on the glass, and we said, you know, “We’re press! We’re press!” Their response to that was, you know, to tell each other the two people in there were not being cooperative. So I just wanted to—

AMY GOODMAN: That’s right. He said, “We’ve got to get out of here, because two people are getting increasingly uncooperative.”

I also said to an officer, “I demand to see Nicole Salazar, because her face is bloodied.” And he said, “Listen, I’ve been knifed in my life.” I said, “Yes, but we’re not responsible for that, though I’m sorry that that happened to you. But this happened because of you, sir.”

NICOLE SALAZAR: Right. So then, in the prison, after I came out of the wagon—I came after, right after you—there was one officer who was videotaping all of us coming down off the stairs. And I asked him for his badge number, and he said he didn’t have a badge. And I asked him for his name, and he wouldn’t give it to me.

But I saw you go through the double doors, and, you know, I was thinking I would be right behind you. But when I got inside the main area of the prison, I didn’t see you. You know, instead, they sort of search you, just, you know, a regular search. And then they make you go through a metal detector. And at that point I was put into a cell, which I later measured to be about nine by eleven paces. And I was in there with seventeen other—seventeen protesters who had been also arrested that day. Some of them were still soaked with, you know, pepper spray, and their skin was burning, and they were asking for a nurse. But in the time that I was in there with them, they didn’t get to see anybody.

AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, where were you put?

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: I was taken to prison, as well. But I think one thing that was left out also in the story, and I think this happened to you, as well, Amy, was that while we were standing waiting to be processed and put on the bus, I was standing there with three credentials around my neck: my Democracy Now! press pass, which has my picture; the RNC press one, which gets you inside the convention; and a separate one, which I was supposed to put on Nicole, but I never actually did, was a limited RNC press one. A man walked up to me, who was not in uniform of St. Paul or Minneapolis police—I was later told he was Secret Service—came up and looked at my RNC press badge, said, “What is this?” I said, “It’s my pass to get inside the Xcel Center.” He said, “Well, you won’t be needing that to go—you’re not going to be going inside the convention center today,” and took it and walked off. I immediately protested. I said, “I want this around my neck to prove I’m an accredited journalist to go inside the convention center.” And he said, “You won’t be needing it today,” walked off.

I asked my arresting officer, who incidentally was not my arresting officer—they just assigned some guy to take the picture of me and process me—he said, “I don’t know who that guy is. He looks like Secret Service.” I said, “Well, why don’t you acknowledge that this was taken, witness it somehow?” And he refused to do so. And I believe they did the same to you. They took that pass off your neck.

AMY GOODMAN: Right. The Secret Service came up, and they—he ripped it off of my neck.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: And I said, “That is my pass. I want a receipt that you have taken that.” But of course, they didn’t give it.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And then, once I was put on the bus, as well—and just to reiterate what you were saying, while I was being arrested, I was, you know, slammed violently. I got scratches on my elbow and bruises on my chest and back. But the most painful part of it was these plastic handcuffs. They were extremely tight. Getting onto the bus, I asked one of the officers, I said, “Can you just cut these off and put on new ones?” because you can’t loosen those. And his response to that was to grab them and tighten them. So it was very painful on the way. I actually still don’t have feeling in part of my hand. So—

AMY GOODMAN: The same with mine. In fact, when they took mine off and put on new ones, they also were tighter.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: And they kept saying they’re not tight. And I kept saying, “No, they’re digging in.”

And so, I think the other major issue is the level of harassment of the press, and we’re seeing it increasingly. Of course, we just came out of Saturday, where we raced from the airport, got a text that I-Witness Video, which did such a remarkable job as the New York Police Department will also admit, documenting what happened in 2004 at the RNC, the I-Witness Video collective was in a house in St. Paul. They just arrived, beginning to organize their week of documenting what was happening here. And there was a preemptive raid in the house. They didn’t even have a warrant for this house. They had a warrant for the house next door. And the police moved in, and we documented all of that. I have to say, when I was inside the jail next to the pens, I asked one of the St. Paul cops what he thought about these preemptive raids. He said, “Awesome! Awesome!”

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, that’s another thing. And I said—I kept saying—they kept asking me, “What are you doing here? Why are you here?” I said, “We’re press. We’re here to bear witness to what’s going on, and that’s why we’re in the streets.” And he kept saying, “Oh, you should use a telescopic lens,” or, “You know, when it gets rowdy, you should just stay behind the corner.” I said, “No, that’s not what we’re here to do. You need to respect the fact that we’re media. If someone’s carrying a camera, you don’t tackle them to the floor.” And this is respected widely in most of the world, but there seems to have been, in this country, a violation of that separation, and media are treated very badly, frankly. And this—it seems to be getting worse, especially in this RNC, with these preemptive raids, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: And what they call these, quote, “national security events.” Well, I’m very glad you’re out of jail. Nicole went to the hospital last night. Nicole Salazar and Sharif Abdel Kouddous, for being there, doing your job. Sharif?

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: I’d just like to thank all the producers here who helped us while we were inside, putting out the word to all the media—they were constantly doing interviews, they put out a press release—and just to thank everyone who called in. Apparently the jail got many, many calls, they said over a thousand, and I’m sure that helped secure our release. We both have pending felony charges and were released that night. So, just a big thank you to everyone.

AMY GOODMAN: One of those who weighed in was Congress member Keith Ellison of Minneapolis. He’s going to join us in a minute, and then we’re going to talk about what happened in New Orleans. Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, thanks so much for doing your job.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Thank you, Amy.

NICOLE SALAZAR: Thanks, Amy.

*****
And now ... we break with our coverage of RNC news to bring you this timely reminder that, thanks to the Bush junta, Americans can now enjoy fascism without (obvious) dictatorship ...

The End of America:
Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot
by Naomi Wolf

Here are some reviews of this important book:

This latest offering from best-selling author Wolf, The Beauty Myth, is a harbinger of an age that may finally see the patriarchal realm of political discourse usurped. Here is Wolf’s compellingly and cogently argued political argument for civil rights, not women’s rights. She contributes this call to action to a canon that from Plato and Aristotle to Hobbes and Locke and forward, with a few exceptions (e.g., Hannah Arendt), has been largely populated by men. Wolf’s work is actually closer to the agitated, passionate polemics of Emma Goldman than the ponderous, philosophical musings of Arendt. Readers will appreciate her energy and urgency as she warns we are living through a dangerous "fascist shift” brought about by the Bush administration. Her chapters outline the “Ten Steps to Fascism” citing historical corollaries (as well as the pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm), with headings like “Invoke an External and Internal Threat,” “Establish Secret Prisons,” and “Target Key Individuals.” In other words, fascism can exist without dictatorship. Her book’s publication through a small press in Vermont that is committed to “the politics and practice of sustainable living” rather than through a large trade house is itself a political act. Highly recommended for all collections.
—Theresa Kintz, Wilkes Univ., Wilkes-Barre, PA

"One of the most important books that's been written, certainly in the last decade or two, and perhaps in my lifetime."
—Thom Hartmann, best-selling author and host of The Thom Hartmann Radio Program

“Naomi Wolf ’s End of America is a vivid, urgent, mandatory wake-up call that addresses momentous issues of tyranny, democracy, and survival.”
—Blanche Wiesen Cook, author of the three-volume Eleanor Roosevelt

"Naomi Wolf sounds the alarm for all American patriots. We must come together as a nation and recommit ourselves to the fundamental American idea that no president, whether Democrat or Republican, will ever be given unchecked power."
—Wes Boyd, co-founder, MoveOn.org

“The framers of our Constitution fully understood that it can happen here. Patriots like Madison, Paine, and Franklin would certainly applaud Naomi Wolf and recognize her as a sister in their struggle.”
—Mark Crispin Miller, author of Fooled Again

“You will be shocked and disturbed by this book. Most Americans reject outright any comparison of post 9/11 America with the fascism and totalitarianism of Nazi Germany or Pinochet’s Chile. Sadly, the parallels and similarities, what Wolf calls the ‘echoes’ between those societies and America today, are all too compelling.”
—Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights

We now return to our scheduled RNC coverage.

*****
Amy Goodman Offers Her Observations about Both Conventions

ST. PAUL, Minn.—Government crackdowns on journalists are a true threat to democracy. As the Republican National Convention meets in St. Paul, Minn., this week, police are systematically targeting journalists. I was arrested with my two colleagues, “Democracy Now!” producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, while reporting on the first day of the RNC. I have been wrongly charged with a misdemeanor. My co-workers, who were simply reporting, may be charged with felony riot.

The Democratic and Republican national conventions have become very expensive and protracted acts of political theater, essentially four-day-long advertisements for the major presidential candidates. Outside the fences, they have become major gatherings for grass-roots movements—for people to come, amidst the banners, bunting, flags and confetti, to express the rights enumerated in the Constitution’s First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Behind all the patriotic hyperbole that accompanies the conventions, and the thousands of journalists and media workers who arrive to cover the staged events, there are serious violations of the basic right of freedom of the press. Here on the streets of St. Paul, the press is free to report on the official proceedings of the RNC, but not to report on the police violence and mass arrests directed at those who have come to petition their government, to protest.

It was Labor Day, and there was an anti-war march, with a huge turnout, with local families, students, veterans and people from around the country gathered to oppose the war. The protesters greatly outnumbered the Republican delegates.

There was a positive, festive feeling, coupled with a growing anxiety about the course that Hurricane Gustav was taking, and whether New Orleans would be devastated anew. Later in the day, there was a splinter march. The police—clad in full body armor, with helmets, face shields, batons and canisters of pepper spray—charged. They forced marchers, onlookers and working journalists into a nearby parking lot, then surrounded the people and began handcuffing them.

Nicole was videotaping. Her tape of her own violent arrest is chilling. Police in riot gear charged her, yelling, “Get down on your face.” You hear her voice, clearly and repeatedly announcing “Press! Press! Where are we supposed to go?” She was trapped between parked cars. The camera drops to the pavement amidst Nicole’s screams of pain. Her face was smashed into the pavement, and she was bleeding from the nose, with the heavy officer with a boot or knee on her back. Another officer was pulling on her leg. Sharif was thrown up against the wall and kicked in the chest, and he was bleeding from his arm.

I was at the Xcel Center on the convention floor, interviewing delegates. I had just made it to the Minnesota delegation when I got a call on my cell phone with news that Sharif and Nicole were being bloody arrested, in every sense. Filmmaker Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films and I raced on foot to the scene. Out of breath, we arrived at the parking lot. I went up to the line of riot police and asked to speak to a commanding officer, saying that they had arrested accredited journalists.

Within seconds, they grabbed me, pulled me behind the police line and forcibly twisted my arms behind my back and handcuffed me, the rigid plastic cuffs digging into my wrists. I saw Sharif, his arm bloody, his credentials hanging from his neck. I repeated we were accredited journalists, whereupon a Secret Service agent came over and ripped my convention credential from my neck. I was taken to the St. Paul police garage where cages were set up for protesters. I was charged with obstruction of a peace officer. Nicole and Sharif were taken to jail, facing riot charges.

The attack on and arrest of me and the “Democracy Now!” producers was not an isolated event. A video group called I-Witness Video was raided two days earlier. Another video documentary group, the Glass Bead Collective, was detained, with its computers and video cameras confiscated. On Wednesday, I-Witness Video was again raided, forced out of its office location. When I asked St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington how reporters are to operate in this atmosphere, he suggested, “By embedding reporters in our mobile field force.”

On Monday night, hours after we were arrested, after much public outcry, Nicole, Sharif and I were released. That was our Labor Day. It’s all in a day’s work.

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2008/9/3/amy_goodmans_new_column_why_we_were_falsely_arrested

Amy Goodman also speaks about the arrests on NOW:

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2008/9/8/amy_goodman_interviewd_for_now_on_pbs_about_rnc_arrests

*************************************************************

Here is a 2002 estimate of America's religious demographics:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (http://www.sacred-destinations.com/reference/religious-affiliation-by-country.htm)

Of the over 80% of us who think "W" stands for "Worst," how can it possibly be that, suddenly, over 50% of us support the McCain-Palin ticket? Is it really a matter of religion? Are that many of us really Christian fundamentalist extremists, or are the pollsters pulling our legs--softening us up for yet another stolen election?

*************************************************************

Look What We Didn’t See Coming...

September 6-10, 2001: Suspicious trading occurs on American and United (UAL), the two airlines used in the 9/11 attacks. Between 6 and 7 September, The Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put option contracts [a speculation that the stock will go down] in UAL versus 396 call options [a speculation that stock will go up]. Holders of the put options would have netted a profit of $5 million once the carrier's share price dived after September 11. On 10 September, more trading in Chicago saw the purchase of 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. No other airlines saw such trading in their put options. One analyst says: "I saw put-call numbers higher than I've ever seen in 10 years of following the markets, particularly the options markets." [San Francisco Chronicle], 9/19/01

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/19/BU184559.DTL
http://cjonline.com/stories/091901/ter_tradingacts.shtml
http://web.archive.org/web/20020215082158/http://cjonline.com/stories/091901/ter_tradingacts.shtml

"To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also emerged that the firm used to buy many of the "put" options ... on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by ‘Buzzy’ Krongard, now executive director of the CIA." [Independent], 10/14/01

Buzzy? Scooter? Cookie? Rusty? (Foggo), Duke?…What is it with these freaks? Does this train ever stop running? NOW do ya think RICO applies to these hideously corrupt creeps? What’s amazing is that both Buzzy and Cookie are acting as though this matters, at least publicly… for the time being…November 16th, 2007.

The brother of embattled State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard quit as an adviser to Blackwater Worldwide on Friday, two days after the relationship with the security contractor was sharply criticized by a congressional oversight committee. Erik Prince, Blackwater’s top executive, said the conflict-of-interest questions raised by the connection prompted Alvin ‘Buzzy’ Krongard to submit his resignation.*

*Thought I’d throw this last paragraph into the mess. Looks like Howard (who probably goes by the name of Fuzzy) quit as an advisor to Blackwater Worldwide. You must read Blackwater; it’s a good read.

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=99402
http://web.archive.org/web/20011014112049/

Dot Calm asks, "Why didn't this cause a storm of media attention and further investigation?"

Okay, who’s making with the funny questions? We no longer have investigative reporting in this country! Remember?

*****
So Much for Transparency in Government ...

"The White House is missing as many as 225 days of e-mail dating back to 2003 and there is little if any likelihood a recovery effort will be completed by the time the Bush administration leaves office, according to an internal White House draft document obtained by the Associated Press."

Dot Calm remarks, "This may be true but it is still a worthy task. Don’‘t feel that it is too late to do anything about these missing e-mails. This administration brings them up from time to time in the hope we will be convinced the e-mails are gone. Ask a good software engineer if he or she can find them. Why, I’ll bet that finding them is just a fun challenge to any one of them!"

*****
The Preamble to the Constitution

The first paragraph of the Constitution provides the context -- the "why" of the document.

The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Style and Arrangement.” This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order.

On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Governor Morris. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Governor Morris.

The newly minted document began with a grand flourish -- the Preamble, the Constitution's raison d'etre (reason for existing). It holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done. Its words are familiar to us today, but because of time and context, the words are not always easy to follow. Following is an examination of each sentence in the Preamble and explanation for today's audience.

We the People of the United States

The Framers were an elite group -- among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king -- it was created by the people.

in Order to form a more perfect Union

The Framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best they could have, up to now. They were striving for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but now, less than ten years into that experiment, cracks were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.

establish Justice

Injustice, unfairness of laws and in trade, was of great concern to the people of 1787. People looked forward to a nation with a level playing field, where courts were established with uniformity and where trade within and outside the borders of the country would be fair and unmolested. Today, we enjoy a system of justice that is one of the fairest in the world. It has not always been so -- only through great struggle can we now say that every citizen has the opportunity for a fair trial and for equal treatment, and even today there still exists discrimination. But we still strive for the justice that the Framers wrote about.

insure domestic Tranquility

One of the events that caused the Convention to be held was the revolt of Massachusetts farmers known as Shays' Rebellion. The taking up of arms by war veterans revolting against the state government was a shock to the system. The keeping of the peace was on everyone's mind, and the maintenance of tranquility at home was a prime concern. The framers hoped that the new powers given the federal government would prevent any such rebellions in the future.

provide for the common defense

The new nation was fearful of attack from all sides -- and no one state was really capable of fending off an attack from land or sea by itself. With a wary eye on Britain and Spain, and ever-watchful for Indian attack, not one of the United States could go it alone. They needed each other to survive in the harsh world of international politics of the 18th century.

promote the general Welfare

This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it -- the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare -- to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Hand in hand with the general welfare, the framers looked forward to the blessings of liberty -- something they had all fought hard for just a decade before. They were very concerned that they were creating a nation that would resemble something of a paradise for liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy, where citizens could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of a king. And more than for themselves, they wanted to be sure that the future generations of Americans would enjoy the same.

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

The final clause of the Preamble is almost anti-climatic, but it is important for a few reasons -- it finishes the "We, the people" thought, saying what we the people are actually doing; it gives us a name for this document, and it restates the name of the nation adopting the Constitution. That the Constitution is "ordained" reminds us of the higher power involved here -- not just of a single person or of a king, but of the people themselves. That it is "established" reminds us that it replaces that which came before -- the United States under the Articles (a point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the time).

And the moron in the Oval Office felt that he knew better than our forefathers and totally ignored our Constitution to his peril (or ours). Those Americans who know better totally ignored him.

*************************************************************

The fact that McCain can't remember how many mansions he owns proves how elitist and divorced from economic reality he truly is.

Like so many other truly fortunate Americans, I, Dot Calm, don’t own any McMansions...I only own, with the bank, this humble abode.

*************************************************************

The Federalist Papers

Federalist Paper No. 15

The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution. They consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. The essays were signed PUBLIUS. The authors of some papers are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote fifty two, James Madison wrote twenty eight, and John Jay contributed the remaining five. The Federalist Papers remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution. The following one is attributed to Alexander Hamilton. It is titled, "The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union For the Independent Journal."

To the People of the State of New York:

IN THE course of the preceding papers, I have endeavored, my fellow-citizens, to place before you, in a clear and convincing light, the importance of Union to your political safety and happiness. I have unfolded to you a complication of dangers to which you would be exposed, should you permit that sacred knot which binds the people of America together be severed or dissolved by ambition or by avarice, by jealousy or by misrepresentation. In the sequel of the inquiry through which I propose to accompany you, the truths intended to be inculcated will receive further confirmation from facts and arguments hitherto unnoticed. If the road over which you will still have to pass should in some places appear to you tedious or irksome, you will recollect that you are in quest of information on a subject the most momentous which can engage the attention of a free people, that the field through which you have to travel is in itself spacious, and that the difficulties of the journey have been unnecessarily increased by the mazes with which sophistry has beset the way. It will be my aim to remove the obstacles from your progress in as compendious a manner as it can be done, without sacrificing utility to despatch.

In pursuance of the plan which I have laid down for the discussion of the subject, the point next in order to be examined is the "insufficiency of the present Confederation to the preservation of the Union." It may perhaps be asked what need there is of reasoning or proof to illustrate a position which is not either controverted or doubted, to which the understandings and feelings of all classes of men assent, and which in substance is admitted by the opponents as well as by the friends of the new Constitution. It must in truth be acknowledged that, however these may differ in other respects, they in general appear to harmonize in this sentiment, at least, that there are material imperfections in our national system, and that something is necessary to be done to rescue us from impending anarchy. The facts that support this opinion are no longer objects of speculation. They have forced themselves upon the sensibility of the people at large, and have at length extorted from those, whose mistaken policy has had the principal share in precipitating the extremity at which we are arrived, a reluctant confession of the reality of those defects in the scheme of our federal government, which have been long pointed out and regretted by the intelligent friends of the Union.

We may indeed with propriety be said to have reached almost the last stage of national humiliation. There is scarcely anything that can wound the pride or degrade the character of an independent nation which we do not experience. Are there engagements to the performance of which we are held by every tie respectable among men? These are the subjects of constant and unblushing violation. Do we owe debts to foreigners and to our own citizens contracted in a time of imminent peril for the preservation of our political existence? These remain without any proper or satisfactory provision for their discharge. Have we valuable territories and important posts in the possession of a foreign power which, by express stipulations, ought long since to have been surrendered? These are still retained, to the prejudice of our interests, not less than of our rights. Are we in a condition to resent or to repel the aggression? We have neither troops, nor treasury, nor government (I mean for the Union). Are we even in a condition to remonstrate with dignity? The just imputations on our own faith, in respect to the same treaty, ought first to be removed. Are we entitled by nature and compact to a free participation in the navigation of the Mississippi? Spain excludes us from it. Is public credit an indispensable resource in time of public danger? We seem to have abandoned its cause as desperate and irretrievable. Is commerce of importance to national wealth? Ours is at the lowest point of declension. Is respectability in the eyes of foreign powers a safeguard against foreign encroachments? The imbecility of our government even forbids them to treat with us. Our ambassadors abroad are the mere pageants of mimic sovereignty. Is a violent and unnatural decrease in the value of land a symptom of national distress? The price of improved land in most parts of the country is much lower than can be accounted for by the quantity of waste land at market, and can only be fully explained by that want of private and public confidence, which are so alarmingly prevalent among all ranks, and which have a direct tendency to depreciate property of every kind. Is private credit the friend and patron of industry? That most useful kind which relates to borrowing and lending is reduced within the narrowest limits, and this still more from an opinion of insecurity than from the scarcity of money. To shorten an enumeration of particulars which can afford neither pleasure nor instruction, it may in general be demanded, what indication is there of national disorder, poverty, and insignificance that could befall a community so peculiarly blessed with natural advantages as we are, which does not form a part of the dark catalogue of our public misfortunes?

This is the melancholy situation to which we have been brought by those very maxims and councils which would now deter us from adopting the proposed Constitution; and which, not content with having conducted us to the brink of a precipice, seem resolved to plunge us into the abyss that awaits us below. Here, my countrymen, impelled by every motive that ought to influence an enlightened people, let us make a firm stand for our safety, our tranquillity, our dignity, our reputation. Let us at last break the fatal charm which has too long seduced us from the paths of felicity and prosperity.

It is true, as has been before observed that facts, too stubborn to be resisted, have produced a species of general assent to the abstract proposition that there exist material defects in our national system; but the usefulness of the concession, on the part of the old adversaries of federal measures, is destroyed by a strenuous opposition to a remedy, upon the only principles that can give it a chance of success. While they admit that the government of the United States is destitute of energy, they contend against conferring upon it those powers which are requisite to supply that energy. They seem still to aim at things repugnant and irreconcilable; at an augmentation of federal authority, without a diminution of State authority; at sovereignty in the Union, and complete independence in the members. They still, in fine, seem to cherish with blind devotion the political monster of an imperium in imperio. This renders a full display of the principal defects of the Confederation necessary, in order to show that the evils we experience do not proceed from minute or partial imperfections, but from fundamental errors in the structure of the building, which cannot be amended otherwise than by an alteration in the first principles and main pillars of the fabric.

The great and radical vice in the construction of the existing Confederation is in the principle of LEGISLATION for STATES or GOVERNMENTS, in their CORPORATE or COLLECTIVE CAPACITIES, and as contradistinguished from the INDIVIDUALS of which they consist. Though this principle does not run through all the powers delegated to the Union, yet it pervades and governs those on which the efficacy of the rest depends. Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States has an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either, by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. The consequence of this is, that though in theory their resolutions concerning those objects are laws, constitutionally binding on the members of the Union, yet in practice they are mere recommendations which the States observe or disregard at their option.

It is a singular instance of the capriciousness of the human mind, that after all the admonitions we have had from experience on this head, there should still be found men who object to the new Constitution, for deviating from a principle which has been found the bane of the old, and which is in itself evidently incompatible with the idea of GOVERNMENT; a principle, in short, which, if it is to be executed at all, must substitute the violent and sanguinary agency of the sword to the mild influence of the magistracy.

There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good faith of the parties. Compacts of this kind exist among all civilized nations, subject to the usual vicissitudes of peace and war, of observance and non-observance, as the interests or passions of the contracting powers dictate. In the early part of the present century there was an epidemical rage in Europe for this species of compacts, from which the politicians of the times fondly hoped for benefits which were never realized. With a view to establishing the equilibrium of power and the peace of that part of the world, all the resources of negotiation were exhausted, and triple and quadruple alliances were formed; but they were scarcely formed before they were broken, giving an instructive but afflicting lesson to mankind, how little dependence is to be placed on treaties which have no other sanction than the obligations of good faith, and which oppose general considerations of peace and justice to the impulse of any immediate interest or passion.

If the particular States in this country are disposed to stand in a similar relation to each other, and to drop the project of a general DISCRETIONARY SUPERINTENDENCE, the scheme would indeed be pernicious, and would entail upon us all the mischiefs which have been enumerated under the first head; but it would have the merit of being, at least, consistent and practicable Abandoning all views towards a confederate government, this would bring us to a simple alliance offensive and defensive; and would place us in a situation to be alternate friends and enemies of each other, as our mutual jealousies and rivalships, nourished by the intrigues of foreign nations, should prescribe to us.

But if we are unwilling to be placed in this perilous situation; if we still will adhere to the design of a national government, or, which is the same thing, of a superintending power, under the direction of a common council, we must resolve to incorporate into our plan those ingredients which may be considered as forming the characteristic difference between a league and a government; we must extend the authority of the Union to the persons of the citizens, --the only proper objects of government.

Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms. The first kind can evidently apply only to men; the last kind must of necessity, be employed against bodies politic, or communities, or States. It is evident that there is no process of a court by which the observance of the laws can, in the last resort, be enforced. Sentences may be denounced against them for violations of their duty; but these sentences can only be carried into execution by the sword. In an association where the general authority is confined to the collective bodies of the communities, that compose it, every breach of the laws must involve a state of war; and military execution must become the only instrument of civil obedience. Such a state of things can certainly not deserve the name of government, nor would any prudent man choose to commit his happiness to it.

There was a time when we were told that breaches, by the States, of the regulations of the federal authority were not to be expected; that a sense of common interest would preside over the conduct of the respective members, and would beget a full compliance with all the constitutional requisitions of the Union. This language, at the present day, would appear as wild as a great part of what we now hear from the same quarter will be thought, when we shall have received further lessons from that best oracle of wisdom, experience. It at all times betrayed an ignorance of the true springs by which human conduct is actuated, and belied the original inducements to the establishment of civil power. Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint. Has it been found that bodies of men act with more rectitude or greater disinterestedness than individuals? The contrary of this has been inferred by all accurate observers of the conduct of mankind; and the inference is founded upon obvious reasons. Regard to reputation has a less active influence, when the infamy of a bad action is to be divided among a number than when it is to fall singly upon one. A spirit of faction, which is apt to mingle its poison in the deliberations of all bodies of men, will often hurry the persons of whom they are composed into improprieties and excesses, for which they would blush in a private capacity.

In addition to all this, there is, in the nature of sovereign power, an impatience of control, that disposes those who are invested with the exercise of it, to look with an evil eye upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its operations. From this spirit it happens, that in every political association which is formed upon the principle of uniting in a common interest a number of lesser sovereignties, there will be found a kind of eccentric tendency in the subordinate or inferior orbs, by the operation of which there will be a perpetual effort in each to fly off from the common centre. This tendency is not difficult to be accounted for. It has its origin in the love of power. Power controlled or abridged is almost always the rival and enemy of that power by which it is controlled or abridged. This simple proposition will teach us how little reason there is to expect, that the persons intrusted with the administration of the affairs of the particular members of a confederacy will at all times be ready, with perfect good-humor, and an unbiased regard to the public weal, to execute the resolutions or decrees of the general authority. The reverse of this results from the constitution of human nature.

If, therefore, the measures of the Confederacy cannot be executed without the intervention of the particular administrations, there will be little prospect of their being executed at all. The rulers of the respective members, whether they have a constitutional right to do it or not, will undertake to judge of the propriety of the measures themselves. They will consider the conformity of the thing proposed or required to their immediate interests or aims; the momentary conveniences or inconveniences that would attend its adoption. All this will be done; and in a spirit of interested and suspicious scrutiny, without that knowledge of national circumstances and reasons of state, which is essential to a right judgment, and with that strong predilection in favor of local objects, which can hardly fail to mislead the decision. The same process must be repeated in every member of which the body is constituted; and the execution of the plans, framed by the councils of the whole, will always fluctuate on the discretion of the ill-informed and prejudiced opinion of every part. Those who have been conversant in the proceedings of popular assemblies; who have seen how difficult it often is, where there is no exterior pressure of circumstances, to bring them to harmonious resolutions on important points, will readily conceive how impossible it must be to induce a number of such assemblies, deliberating at a distance from each other, at different times, and under different impressions, long to co-operate in the same views and pursuits.

In our case, the concurrence of thirteen distinct sovereign wills is requisite, under the Confederation, to the complete execution of every important measure that proceeds from the Union. It has happened as was to have been foreseen. The measures of the Union have not been executed; the delinquencies of the States have, step by step, matured themselves to an extreme, which has, at length, arrested all the wheels of the national government, and brought them to an awful stand. Congress at this time scarcely possess the means of keeping up the forms of administration, till the States can have time to agree upon a more substantial substitute for the present shadow of a federal government. Things did not come to this desperate extremity at once. The causes which have been specified produced at first only unequal and disproportionate degrees of compliance with the requisitions of the Union. The greater deficiencies of some States furnished the pretext of example and the temptation of interest to the complying, or to the least delinquent States. Why should we do more in proportion than those who are embarked with us in the same political voyage? Why should we consent to bear more than our proper share of the common burden? These were suggestions which human selfishness could not withstand, and which even speculative men, who looked forward to remote consequences, could not, without hesitation, combat. Each State, yielding to the persuasive voice of immediate interest or convenience, has successively withdrawn its support, till the frail and tottering edifice seems ready to fall upon our heads, and to crush us beneath its ruins.

PUBLIUS