NOT-VIOLENT TERROR
75 Climbing Mt. Citheron (VIII)

Imagine that you are going to the theatre tonight. The play you are going to see is some author’s scandalous rewrite of the ancient and famous playwright’s Sophocles play “Oedipus the King”. The reinterpreted and rewritten version is called “Tiresias’ Revenge”. What is Tiresias revenging? Perhaps the “truth”. What is truth? Perhaps what ought to have been done and can be done still.

This is a long play, which is why some readers have compared it to Wagner’s Der Ring des Niebelungen cycle. No music for this one yet though. There will be a long intermission after the second act, when one may have coffee and cake. In the basement cafeteria of the theatre there will be young aides to help those interested to understand parts of the play that they did not understand. If asked, the aides will also explain what is ahead in the fourth and fifth acts. Tip the aides generously.

Imagine that the curtain of the stage is closed. It is still some minutes before the play is about to begin. The audience is in taking seats. The volunteer selling programs is still sitting in in the lobby. The balcony seats are almost filled.

There is movement from behind the stage curtain, then it parts a little, and to the front of the stage steps one of the actors. The actor is holding in his or her hand a mask to indicate that he or she is part of the production. He-she intones: “Ahem… I have an announcement to make. There are some changes in the scenery tonight. You will see one of the scenes twice. I will briefly tell you about the scene, so you know what occurs if we decide to skip through it quickly. Here it is:

“There is a temple. It stands in the mountains, indeed its rear exit stands right over the edge of a cliff. The temple is on the road from ancient Corinth to ancient Thebes. …………..
(to continue, please click on the last link below.)……………………

These blogs tend to be a continuum of an idea or thought, which is why—if you are interested in what you read—you are encouraged to consider reading the previous blog and the blog hereafter.

If you copy this blog for your files, or copy to forward, or otherwise mention its content, please credit the author and http://esoschroniclnes.blogspot.com/ 

Check out block 75 above.
Populist fire as seen from Washington
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012203075.html?wpisrc=newsletter

This to link with blog 75 above.
Important for the Populist front:
This Supreme Court ruling
ought not to go down unchallenged.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2210795920100123

1. That is not Latvia.
2. Don’t you believe in freedom of speech for freely associated groups of individuals? What about the Sierra Club or other NGOs? Why should they have speech rights and corporations not?

To Tom (and anybody else not talking to themselves)—

“The Court’s Blow to Democracy”

Vysu lobu,
/P

A rejoinder from one of them civil rights absolutists on the left side.
Wait a second, not so fast.

I like his idea of outcomes based biases. How often do we embrace decisions that are contrary to our beliefs because they lead to an outcome we want, and/or reject decisions that may be right on principle but lead places that we do not like? This not such a simple issue. Consider the free speech rights of media. Why does a media conglomerate have the right to opine on political topics (FOX?) and someone like Ben & Jerry’s not?

“In the complicated world of the First Amendment, the line between corporations and people is one of the easiest to draw. Unfortunately, it is a line that the Court has just erased.” (Kermit Roosevelt III)

In the context of Blog 75.
Obama goes populist… Is President Zatlers far behind?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/23/AR2010012301010.html?wpisrc=newsletter

P- still confusing a desired outcome with consistency with principle of rule of law. I am not sure if I agree, but if I end up disagreeing with SCOTUS, it will be for reasons of consitutionality, not simply because I agree to the danger of corporations overrunning the politicians (even more).

Tom,

No, I don’t think I’m that confused; Roosevelt is a professor of law and all of these arguments bear on constitutionality. See Firedoglake in reference to a follow-up by the writer you linked to.

Vysu lobu,
/P

JUMBO caveat:  I have not read the SCOTUS opinion.  This is a gut reaction -  I suspect the arguments have addressed my points in much finer legal terms.  But:

Corporations are legal entities - artificial constructs.  Furthermore, they are not a protected category.  Therefore, I have no problem with restricting their political speech, whether they be Evil Arms and Guns, Inc., or Ben and Jerry’s.  So long as speech is equally restricted for both of them.  It is by no means the same as gagging me or my neighbor or the black/handicapped/Jewish guy on the other side of the tracks.

As to why corporations are restricted while an NGO isn’t - because that’s how it was set up and, IMO, should be set up.  All artificial entities, unlike all humans, are NOT created equally.  Their limitations are what we/the government say they are.  They don’t serve the same purposes, they don’t have the same goals - why have equal treatment?

In the context of Blog 75
Liberalism or Democracy?... “Politics far from being a concern of an elite, has become the despised business of a rather dubious class of persons.”—K.S.
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:NrqHEhWNXuYJ:www.rosenoire.org/articles/schmitt.php+Liberalism+or+Democracy?&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk

In the context of Blog 75
Liberalism or Democracy? ... “Politics far from being a concern of an elite, has become the despised business of a rather dubious class of persons.”—K.S.

NOT-VIOLENT TERROR
76 Climbing Mt. Citheron (IX)

There is yet a thirteenth death in “Tiresias’ Revenge”. It is the death of the Sphinx, the chimera of child sacrifice that has been haunting Thebes.

When fleeing Corinth—in order to escape the prediction that he is about to kill his father and marry his mother—and on his way to Thebes, Oedipus meets and kills his father. Sophocles presents the scene as if it is a fated accident. We are told that King Laius and Oedipus meet on the road, but neither of the parties identify themselves, and both try to push each other off the road. The fight over who has the right of way escalates into a deadly fight. In the melee, the captain of Prince Oedipus’ bodyguard kills Laius, the king of Thebes.

After the “victory”, Oedipus continues his journey until he reaches the temple of the Sphinx. The temple is not far from Thebes. The Sphinx, we are told, is plaguing the city of Thebes. The Sphinx will continue to plague Thebes, that is, demand the city to sacrifice its young for its dinner, until someone is brave enough to come before it and answer its ridiculously simple riddle: Who walks in the morning on four, at noon on two, and in the evening on three legs? The answer is “man”, at least this is the answer that everyone in the last two thousand years plus (according to Scaligeri’s chronology) has accepted as being the right answer.
. ………….. (to continue, click on the last link below.)…………

These blogs tend to be a continuum of an idea or thought, which is why—if you are interested in what you read—you are encouraged to consider reading the previous blog and the blog hereafter.

If you copy this blog for your files, or copy to forward, or otherwise mention its content, please credit the author and http://esoschroniclnes.blogspot.com/ 

See Blog 76 above.
To consciously abstain from casting a vote
is more significant than trust positivist lies
and reelect the same old parliamentary lobsters
who have already mangled the nation beyond recognition.
Latvia needs a direct democracy, thus a direct voting system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T1vfsHYiKY