.jpg) |
| USian object d'art, 2013. Originally this was to have been one of three illustrations to an essay on the role of old equipment in the evolution of new photographic methodology and aesthetics, but an unwelcome political interruption delayed that project for another week. Rolleicord III, Kodak TMax100 in D-76. Photograph by Loren Bliss copyright 2013. (Click on image to view it full size.) |
A CHAIN LETTER touting a
constitutional convention was emailed me by a well-meaning Leftist
relative and compelled an immediate answer, forcing me to spend the
entire afternoon sifting through the reeking contents of the
political Dumpster I am trying desperately to abandon.
The above image – new work with the
old Rolleicord – is thus eerily appropriate to what follows. But it
nevertheless infuriates me how the useless-yet-still-reflexive ethics
of my murdered journalism career again triumphed over aesthetics that
are very much alive, forcing me to set aside a half-finished essay
about photography, a piece that was far more emotionally true than
anything political could ever be now that any “change we can
believe in” has been proven the biggest Big Lie in USian history.
Hence instead of the anticipated
pleasure of an afternoon of psychological healing, there was its
exact opposite: a seven-hour submersion in the depressing methodology
of investigative reporting culminating in yet another encounter with
the utter hopelessness that should by now be the political default
position of any genuinely thoughtful USian citizen.
The chain letter that ruined my
afternoon is entitled “35 States So Far” and is reproduced here:
What follows is the note by which I
replied to my relative and everyone else on the chain letter's
mailing list. (Links are not embedded because my email system does
not allow it, and because I was unwilling to spend the time revising
the text to accommodate embedding.)
Though in my entire journalism career I
wrote or edited no more than a half-dozen reports about the various
calls for a constitutional convention, the common theme all these
stories shared was how – given the savagely reactionary majority
that rules the old Confederacy and nearly all the inland states –such an event would undoubtedly mean
total nullification of the Bill of Rights. Unions, abortion,
contraception, marriage equality, academic freedom and religious
liberty would all be swept away in the name of a new nation under
god, the United Christian States of America. Those of us who refused
to bow to the theocratic sword would be punished – tortured and
slain – as demanded by Biblical law.
Meanwhile the so-called progressives of
the coastal cities would have fought for their own agenda – chiefly
the forcible, zero-tolerance disarmament of the entire civilian
population and the end of any civilian right to self defense. And –
yes – the theocrats would certainly allow the progressives this one
triumph as part of what would no doubt be labeled “the Grand
Christian Bargain.” Indeed the imposition of mandatory pacifism –
that is, compulsory victimhood – is already a plank in many
theocratic Christian platforms.
Thus the nation that emerged from the
convention would look religiously more like Iran or some territory
controlled by the Taliban than the (former) United States.
Politically – with the federal government shut down by the
“goddamn-the-gummint” reactionaries – the new nation would soon
resemble Somalia...or what miasma of states-rights anarchy and Ku
Klux chaos the South would have become had the Confederates won.
For those who doubt this prognosis,
here are some selected links, the result of six hours of reasearch.
The first three links urge the convening of a constitutional
convention. Two of them are from the far Right; their significance is
in their viciously oppressive demands. The third of these links is
from a Leftist source that focuses on a constitutional convention as
the sole means of repealing the Citizens United decision. But –
given that a major progressive goal is forcible civilian disarmament
– its absence from the rationale is itself indicative.
The next link opposes a constitutional
convention, but is included here because its pro-convention readers
state an unapologetic assertion of theocratic intent: “Glory be! A
second call for a Constituional (sic) Congress is due and needed.
Changes would clarify there is no seperation (sic) of Church and
State as our U.S. Constitution clearly sets forth.”
These three links below summarize the
arguments against a constitutional convention. The first two are from
hard-Right sources but are nevertheless well reasoned and eloquently
presented. The third is from a nominally hard-Left website, but its
arguments are very weak, no doubt because demanding a convention has
shifted from the Rightist cause it was c. 1960-2008 to the Leftist
cause it has since become.)
The last two links are for those who
scoff at the magnitude of the theocratic threat. Though Theocracy
Watch errs in attributing the threat exclusively to the Republicans –
as Jeff Sharlet reveals in The Family: the Secret
Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, Hillary Clinton
is as much a theocrat as Sam Brownback – the Theocracy Watch
collection of data is nevertheless without peer. As for Catholic
Watch, that documents how the Roman Catholic Church, by acquisition
of hospitals and clinics, is methodically nullifying reproductive
rights throughout the United States.
LB/23 May 2013
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment