Simon Johnson lectured his latest book 13 Bankers, about the days of the financial crises and the day President Obama spoke with them about not losing their jobs, and getting everything pretty much the same way it was, even after bailed-out.
Before the lecture I looked at a copy, went to the end for the "solutions" part, and it said the solution was in the people's hands. During the lecture, he said the American people were never allowed a national conversation.
I got to the mic during the Q&A, and when done mentioning the convention clause, he replied "careful for what you wish for." The discussion needed to shift, he said. I left off saying that's exactly what a convention is--a shifting of discussion--it's that national discussion we're being denied.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
It's so strange, to have said what I did, and spoken with him afterward, that he wouldn't talk about the convention clause now. Is it conscious or unconscious, such thing as mind control--I don't know--but in the real world, with real human beings, with all we know to be true about political reality: how could anyone deny both the utility and poingancy of the Article V Convention in the face of instituionalized corruption? That's all his book is about, or even his words on Warren: we're dealing with instituitonalized corruption, no one person can do anything about it.
A guy named William Windsor had a "conference" on the Internet yesterday and he said almost 800 people were tuned-in near the end. Of course I got on to talk convention and he pretty much dismissed me, then other guys talked and shot down the convention clause. I got back on, talked another minute, and he replied he hadn't studied the subject much. So, who knows.
I spoke with Tom Morello a couple weeks before Wisconson happened, he went there, got everyone fired up.
How is this happening? People like Simon Johnson or Tom Morello. How can they have not even already looked at the Constitution and found the convention clause themselves, and recognized it for what it is? A task-force assembly of delegates, proposing ideas to the states to consider if any are good enough to go on the Constitution. Do you realize what the idea will need in terms of polticial support to even come close to being ratified? The only thing with any hope of getting ratified today would be some sort of electoral reform.