The Queen can’t name her own successor, get it right.

One of the few good things coming from the Cromwell Regime civil war in England was the Union Constitution. That’s the “British Empire” as represented by the Union Jack flag. Their constitution was much more liberal than that of the US and a hundred years earlier. My apologies, IS more liberal still.

And one part of it is that the succession is decided in Parliament. But there was another (yet another) gaudy news headline on a gossip “news” paper at the checkout line in King Soopers. Stating that QE2 had chosen Prince William to succeed her on the throne.

By the way, all through the time I spent thinking of this and now writing it, I’ve had this Python routine being an obsessive waking dream… “strange ladies lying in puddles distributing swords is no basis for kingship… true executive authority comes by a mandate from The Masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony” and you either know the rest of that or you really should buy the DVD of Monty Python and the Holy Grail and just damned learn it. It is worthwhile. What Mrs Saxe-Goetheberg needs to really do is make a big grand gesture, not the one involving the middle finger nor the brit version which is a backward peace sign…

Instruct the Prime Minister to push a bill in Parliament to dissolve the monarchy, have all her heirs executed and abdicate.  Charlie and Camilla almost got their asses dragged out of their limo and street justice would have prevailed, blue blood would have run in the gutters of London etc…

5 years ago more or less. I was impressed that the London Anarchists had found a neat way to block and defeat “kettling” and that the issue at hand was BessTwo planning a royal pain in the ass I mean “Royal Wedding” which cost the people millions of USD (only in euros) while and at the same time the Tory government which licks her feet was demanding austerity measures for the peasants.

But in return of the original thread, even though the most recognized Hereditary Dictator on earth, she is powerless to name her successor in advance. I don’t know if Will and Kate actually are the sweetest people in the world. Wouldn’t matter. Nobody is actually born to serve under or rule over any other person. It’s that simple.

As for the niceness of any of the Royals, their family has trained their bastard get to be nothing like nice for generations. Nature v Nurture but they sure have a lot of the latter. And it’s almost universally bad. The family has Dracula, Jack the Ripper and the Bush family tagged onto them.

Very ugly indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Royal Wedding: time to tie the knot!

Prince William weds stuck-up 'commoner' Kate MiddletonI LOVE IT! What role should monarchs play in an aspiring-to-egalitarian age? While public demonstrations across North Africa and the Middle East herald an Arab Spring, similar masses in Britain protest bank imposed austerity cuts, each met with repressive force fully sanctioned by their clueless rulers. Democracy is in the air, courtesy of not elections nor representative legislation, but anarchic uprisings. 2011 should commemorate the people’s now clear potential for self-determination, not a celebration of family privilege. It’s time the anti-democratic, unsympathetic, habitually ignoble “royals,” even if mere figureheads, buggered off.

Nonviolence is the refuge of cowards

I say this with the full authority of my own personal experience: nonviolence is for cowards. When push has come to shove, I stepped to the sidewalk but I am so full of admiration for those who stayed in the line of fire. Today much of the world commemorates Bastille Day, France’s unique independence day, because it launched the French Revolution. Not just a revolution for the masses of humanity, but their Enlightenment. Storming the Bastilles was no small transformative event, and the sans-culottes were not led by urgings to keep it nonviolent. The monarchy took heed, as it had for every historic concession, because the citizenry had it scared to death.

Have you changed social inequity by voting in the polls? Have you found justice via protest? Sought, beseeched, was as far as you got. Violent uprising has not lately looking too effective either. But it’s got the track record.

I’m not saying I’m up to the task, but I assure you I have the courage to be nonviolent in spades.

It is a most self-aggrandizing dishonesty that holds nonviolence to be brave. There is nothing easier than to take the path of least resistance. I don’t mean to downplay the audacity to protest, as opposed to conforming, although isn’t sticking to your principles squarly self-indulgent? I claim no credit for failing to bend on matters of principle. In fact, sometimes I feel positively anti-social.

But taken the next step, what’s easier than subjecting yourself to the authority of the sword? Again it’s the principle of not becoming like your abuser, another no-brainer, but no-bravery required.

Standing up for what you believe? Easy-peasy. To the death? Positively cowardly lion.

This is you inner dialog, be honest: I defy your authority, but only so far. I reject your physical oppression, but just kidding. I call for the total destruction of your hierarchy, but only in words, I’m entitled, and you can’t lay a finger on me because I’m playing by the rules.

Hope of getting anywhere: dismal. Modern social movements have only Gandhi and Mandela as purported success stories. But I’ll not insult the elders. The Gandhi and Mandela of our textbooks bear no resemblance to the reality, they are false role-models put forth by fascists who want to blunt every effort to rise against power.

Oh, nonviolence is the higher ideal, sure. Lovely. Browny points for the afterlife. Trickle-up transcendence has as much potential for success as awaiting extraterrestrials or building playing fields for disgraced baseball reincarnates.

Unless power wants to transcend the human experience, and lift all of us with it, mankind is not going anywhere. The only way you’re going to levitate powerful heads is with a guillotine. Dreadfully eighteenth century, but check out the horrific bygone days from which they’re reconstituting torture and feudalism.

You can probably contrive a litany of rationalizations for why it would be beneath you, but imagine picking up a gun and having a go against the overwhelming power of the state. Now that’s terrifying.

Noblesse Oblige gone with Ted Kennedy

Ted, Robert and JackTed Kennedy, last high-born American public servant, exits stage left. The Kennedy brothers set a fine example of how to account for yourself once you have enough money. Today it’s thought sufficient to follow in Rockerfeller’s footsteps: donate the requisite sums to be called a philanthropist, or occupy high offices to entrench the family riches.

We refer to the Kennedy Family as American Royalty, in reality John, Robert and Theodore were not even well-born. They were ordinary kids when Joseph Kennedy built his empire on bootlegging and racketeering. Even ascended, the Kennedys had nothing on the Vanderbilts and the Astors, nor the Carnegies or Morgans.

The Kennedys were dubbed a pop-honorary monarchy with the reign of JFK of Camelot. It was the shortest of dynasties. Youngest brother Ted’s extended preeminence in the Senate stands perhaps as America’s singular example in modern times of a wealthy scion, in more than just appearances, looking after the interests of the common man.

Now Americans like their nobles in their own image. Self-interested hedonists, who shoot for the moon, save Africa one baby at a time, and screw the lesser-fittest with a wink and a grin.

Royal Honours– a Touching Story…

Royal Honours is, in poker, the highest hand you can have.

But now, the British are having a temper tantrum because when Bess II touched Michelle Obama Mrs Obama touched her back.

Liteally, put her hand on her back.

Not her backside.

Not her “bum” which would be any member of her family.

“How dare that PEASANT woman Touch The Monarch?”

This will piss off any Brits in the audience but Waaaaahh waaaahhhh waaahhh…

Quick, somebody call Whine-One-One, we need a Waaaambulance.

Get over it already. Bess isn’t anywhere near godlike or sacred, she’s a Dangerously Inbred Hereditary Dictator from one of the most evil and degenerate families in the WORLD.

She’s reputed to be the wealthiest woman in the world because her Grandma’s Army and Navy went out and robbed other nations on Her Royal Behalf.

The rumor persists that Jack the Ripper might have been her great-uncle.

Why? Because her family is so corrupt and murderous that Jack the Ripper would fit right in, seamlessly integrated.

I mean, Damn, her family is notorious for paying women and men and little kids to “touch’ them.

Probably kept the local Rent-a-Sheep operation in business too.

I almost split my pants laughing when one of our Right Wing commentators made a stupid remark about World War One being caused by …

…wait for it…

Her Cousin Willie.

That’s right, folks, same family.

Her family is responsible for more mass slaughter than the Nazis and the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge COMBINED.

Now it wasn’t ALL a British affair, but the leaders of every monarchy involved in that massive dog fight were cousins to each other.
The top echelons of their Officer’s Corps were Royal Family members as well. Bloodline counts for more than Intelligence, Education, Competence and Valor.

But we, the Other People of the Whole Damned World, should maybe be OUTRAGED! (©®1993-2009 DumFox Noose Nutwerks..) that a Commoner dared to touch her Royal Person…

Kiss my fat brown … knee…

(see, I didn’t say “kiss my arse”)

(you lucky people, you!)

Kuwaiti Freedom…

You remember, GulfWarz One…
“Freeing” Kuwait.

Only thing is, Kuwait has NEVER been free.

They’re a Monarchy, a Hereditary Dictatorship.

The Emirs of Kuwait have always and forever been notorious Despots.

Kind of like the Bush family but with no way to vote them out of power.

Ruling their Petty Fiefdom with an Iron Fist and all the smug arrogance they can muster.

Why is it that the U.S. government has a lot of “friends” like that?

Is it a Birds of a Feather type device?

the short end of the stick

hazelwood tally stick It was one of the greatest heists in history. The scene? London, 1660. The perpetrator? England’s King Charles the II. The loot? All the gold he could con out of the country’s goldsmiths, bankers and businessmen. The tool?
 
A tally stick.

Tally sticks were a brilliant invention, but they were also insidious as they formed the foundation for the fiat currency systems we still have today. One where the root of a currency’s value is in a promise from a faceless institution, and not in the actual value of an object.

Put into use about a thousand years ago, they were a common sense solution for a young gold-and-goods economy where gold was scarce. By the time of the heist they were used in everyday transactions.

Here is how it worked. When a loan was made, the debt was carved in a standard fashion on the surface of a small (preferably hazelwood) stick, and then the stick was split in half through the center of the carving. The longer end of the IOU was given to the purchaser, and its handle was called the “stock” — the root of the word’s use in today’s markets.

Even a mostly illiterate public could read the amount scratched into the wood, and the stick would only fit perfectly with its original other half. That way, when the debtor returned with the money (or goods) owed, the sticks would be matched and the debt would be “tallied.”

In that fundamental use, they worked perfectly. But of course, as is governments’ way, the King was tempted to stretch those bounds.

Charles II ruled at a time when royal power was still based on a divine mandate. His government and institutions — and indeed he himself — saw the king as the Chosen One, which was a real shame for him because it bound him to the laws of Christendom. And Christianity at the time still forbade lending or borrowing with usury (interest). When financing several failing wars against neighboring countries depleted royal coffers, Charles II needed some quick cash to continue living in kingly fashion.

King Charles II turned to the trusted tally and the keen idea of selling his (government) tallies (debt) at a discount. That way he could allow his lenders to profit without charging interest — the basis for government debt being sold at a discount today.

And the King could issue advance tallies for emergency spending, an idea that proved all too tempting. He sold the tallies collected by his Exchequer (tax collector), essentially trading future tax receipts to the country’s goldsmiths (bankers) for quick cash.

The tallies were receipts for taxes to be paid later in the year. This is a crucial part of the story: they weren’t trading on the value of the objects being traded, but on the cost of waiting for a return and the government’s ability to collect taxes and stay honest. If the government is not honest, this is an outright Ponzi scheme, one where new debt issue could theoretically pay for passing bills. For a while.

The King realized that he’d stumbled onto something big. He could wage all the war he wanted and pay his bills with the gold he got for hazelwood. The King spent and spent, and the goldsmiths’ vaults filled up with more and more sticks.

Goldsmiths were handing out certificates for fractional gold reserves and inflating the young economy in a con all their own. And since the King played along with their early building of a banking system, they played along with the sticks-for-gold investment strategy.

Over time, the market got wise to the game. Buyers started attaching larger and larger discounts to the King’s debt to offset the perceived risk in loaning money to the King. The discounts prompted the King to issue even more tallies, promising out more future tax revenues just to meet his short-term spending desires. But remember only the discount was changing here. So the mountain of taxes to be redeemed in order to pay off his debts grew in comparison, soon overwhelming the King’s income.

By the time the whole Ponzi scheme came to an end, the King’s sticks were trading at a 10% discount (to put that into perspective, short-term T-Bills are currently trading with discounts of one-tenth of one percent or less). The payments on his newer issues trading at that discount soon outmatched all the Kingdom’s tax revenues, effectively bankrupting his Exchequer and threatening to put the monarchy in the poorhouse.

So with the stroke of a pen, the King simply declared those debts illegal and ceased payment.

With that single stroke he stole most of England’s gold — having already spent it — and forced the young economy to fall flat on its face. The King’s various creditors ended up on “the short end of the stick” and all credit in the country evaporated very nearly overnight.

Pretty scary, huh? I’m glad such a thing could never happen today.

The Thai Monarchist mob

Thai kingWe have been watching from afar the activities of the Thai Monarchist mob as they have occupied Bangkok’s airport and received the complicit support of the Thai military, which refused to disperse them. This has been no ‘people’s protest’ at all but rather a Right Wing mob, all comparable to the one the US mobilized recently in Eastern Bolivia to try to divide Bolivia into two parts and remove Evo Morales from power there.

‘Dissolution of the ruling People Power Party (PPP) will heal none of the basic rifts between Bangkok’s royalist elite and middle classes, who despise ousted and exiled leader Thaksin Shinawatra, and the urban poor and rural masses who love him and continue to vote his allies into office.’ (taken from the Reuter’s report Thai protesters lift airport siege

Around the world not all mobilizations are for the people from the people at all. In Colombia, the Right Wing death squad government, too, was able to mobilize millions of common citizens into the streets in support of their corrupt government fairly recently. Unfortunately this Thai mob is mobilizing people in support of a Monarchy and the King, and there can be nothing more reactionary in this day and time than that.

More from Reuters below…

“WE’LL BE BACK”

The PAD, led by a group of royalist businessmen, academics and activists, formally marked the end of the occupation by singing the king’s anthem. Ominously, the PAD protesters vow to return if they see Thaksin allies getting near power again.

“I am sad that we are going,” said Ranatip, 48, an unemployed office assistant. “But I am ready to fight for my king and my country. I will come back as soon as I am needed.”

These people are sick. They are united in wanting to keep Thailand’s poor as poor as they can make them. Thailand’s class divisions and caste system isn’t quite as horrible as India’s but it is still pretty damn bad.

Tibetans forced to pass Monarchy to son of old King

namgyel wangch‘In a massive, whitewashed fort-cum-monastery, King Jigme Khesar Namgyel had the crown, mounted with a raven and adorned with skulls, placed on his head by his retiring father.’ Coronation in the Dragon Kingdom Yes, those Buddhists sure have grand respect for the dignity of human life (an ALL life, it is said by many), do they not? Nothing else quite like using human skulls in your political ceremonies!

OK, I know that with all of the Hollywood style entertainment, and the liberal State Department enlightenment here in our noble USA, most Americans are absolutely totally unaware of the reality that Tibetans already have their own country, Bhutan, and are not merely a ‘nation’ stolen by China. If you go to the link to the news report of the coronation of the new king their, you will briefly be given some small tidbit of information about the Tibetans, and how they have genocidally acted towards the Nepalese in their feudal country. Not a pretty story, and one that runs counter to the doggerel passed on about Tibet as US disinformation and antiChinese propaganda.

We wish all the peoples there in Tibet, China, Nepal, and Bhutan the best, and the best would be if India, Britain, and the US were kept completely out of their region altogether. Certainly that will not happen with the Dalai Lama, Tibetan God King, misinforming the world population about Tibet by way of the international corporate media. However, with a healthy dose of scepticism, one can get more info than that being spoon-fed to the naive and not so innocent.

House of Bush, House of Saud

‘The Angry Arab’ and Craig Unger, author of the book ‘House of Bush, House of Saud’ team up for a great radio program about the Saud family and Saudi Arabia, the American government’s favorite Arab oil whore. Sell the oil cheap for foreign benefit, make a sweetheart deal for one’s own relatives, shaft the Arab people as a whole. So much for the US bringing democracy to the Arabs. What the US corporations and government want is for Arabs to bring cheap oil to America, peacefully or by force. The main Arab ally of the US is a brutal monarchy based on a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy. Check the program out- almost an hour long.

The US & Britain are profoundly undemocratic forces in the world today

If it is not enough to give Israel the free reign and financial aid to terrorize Palestianians and steal their lands at will, the US and Britain also try to disrupt and tear up the governance the Palestinians try to arrange for themselves.

For years they made demons out of Arafat and Fatah, but today the US & its allies are politically supporting Fatah by trying to force new Palestinian elections early and pumping money into Fatah and its leader Abbas, so that this group will be able to buy the new elections at will and destroy their opposition, Hamas. The US and Britain are profoundly undemocratic forces in the world today, though this in effect is nothing new, and this is just the most recent example of this. Our corporate government leaders no more support democracy in placxes like Palestine and Iraq, than they do in our own workplaces if we try to organize unions.

We can go back to the US’s coup against Allende where Washington DC installed Pinochet into power. We can go also to examine Algeria, where in 1991 the US and Europe supported a military coup after the elections were won by an Islamic coalition. Subsequently, several hundred thousand were slaughtered down, and repression there continues to this day. Hardly an incentive for Muslim groups looking for national independence and liberation to take a peaceful course of action, as opposed to crashing planes into the Pentagon and elsewhere.

We can also see today, the US and its allies pushing to keep an undemocratic and unpopular Lebanese government in power. One that opened the gates to a foreign power (Israel) to wage war once again inside Lebanon against the majority sector of that country’s population. We can see it in the US and European’s support for the fraudulent and unpopular president just installed in Mexico, that provoked the largest demonstrations in the history of that country. And we can see it in the longterm US and Brit support for the Saudi Arabian monarchy, the Musharraf dictatorship in Pakistan, and the repressive Egyptian government, that has merely the sheerest of mirages of having any democratic trappings to it.

Everywhere we look, the US and its allies are supporting tyrants and thugs, but can anybody really claim that this is something new? But this latest example of the US and Britain trying to force new elections on the Palestinians, is a new low of sorts, I think. It is forcing upon the Palestinians the type of factional violence that the US and Britain have already forced upon Afghanistan and Iraq. Could the Nazis themselves have taken this strategy of fomenting inter factional fighting to a form more detrimental to its victims?

Princess Diana and the end of civility

Princess Diana on Dodi Fayed's yacht a week before her deathThe Queen is the first film to be made about the woman who has presided over England for half a century. The story deals with the days following Princess Di’s fatal crash in 1997 and the personal challenge her death might have posed for the monarchy’s public relations. The same period saw Prime Minister Tony Blair’s ascendancy to power. The story gives Blair credit, where the queen appeared to faulter, for recognizing Diana as being the “People’s Princess.” And then some.

Asked about his fawning depiction of Tony Blair as man of the hour, director Stephen Frears thought it “a mark of my incredible maturity” to cast Blair in the light of his glory days, this at a time when Blair and his government have fallen irrecoverably, adding that “it’s preposterous that he’s not in jail.” In the interview Frears also makes light of whether Queen Elizabeth II is possibly really as bright as her character portrayed by Hellen Mirren. The Queen celebrates the resolve of royal blood facing a crisis. Elizabeth is both humanized and lionized, by sticking to the stiff upper lip “the world expects of us.” Frears interweaves real news footage of celebrities and the flowers flooding the Buckingham Palace gates, counting the days from Lady Di’s death to the climax when the queen finally makes her long delayed statement.

That’s when Frears lies. He lays the behind the scenes personal anguish which might have explained the dishonor the royals paid to Diana, leading to the Queen’s famous address, but then rewrites the ending. As if Mighty Casey, his vainglorious ambitions thwarted in the minor leagues, stays true to his character that day in Mudville, and now because we can all feel a little sympathy for the self-centered fella, he swings and DOES NOT strike out!!

We all were there when Queen Elizabeth took to the microphone, and no close-ups of a fictional Tony Blair’s tearing eyes, proud of his stalwart sovereign, are going to recast the disgraceful blue-blooded reaction for what it was.

And what of lingering accusations of the royal family being behind Diana’s death? What of the rape tape which Diana posited with a servant for safe-keeping which tells, it’s conjectured because the British press are forbidden to tell us, of Prince Charles interrupted sodomizing a valet. What of Lady Diana being, not even arguably, by the power of her personality, the most powerful woman in the world? But unlike Oprah or Martha Stewart, Diana was a loose cannon championing the cause of AIDs in Africa, and the fight to ban land mines, both subjects the powers that be, certainly in America, did/do not want highlighted.

The Queen‘s smartest character, Tony Blair’s advisor who supposedly coins the term People’s Princess is let to murmur early on, “It wasn’t the press that killed her.” But the subject is dropped there. Instead Blair and his crew seize upon Diana’s death like Mayor Giuliani to 9/11, being seen offering bedside comfort to a traumatized populace, and reaping the accolades. Except director Frears offers nothing behind such scenes. Blair is shown as the earnest surrogate, standing in for his monarch until she can regrasp the helm.

With the ensuing years having shown us Blair’s true colors, what do you think was the more likely scenario? A self-effacing Danny Kaye Pauper Prince or a Rudy Giuliani? I find Frears’ characterization of Blair even more disingenuous, showing Tony living in a modest flat strewn with children’s messes, taking the dinner plates to do the “washing up,” and keeping watch on world events on a television with a Nintendo game atop it. This coming from a “labor” minister who was leading the conservative counter-revolution to restructure the British economy for the elites. Perhaps Frears’ adopted class.

The Queen owes its entire first act to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, the music, the build, the black out of the familiar awful moment, and the protracted montage we needed to absorb the tragedy and understand how it’s changed us.

The great disservice that Stephen Frears does to history, and to all of us because we are still living it, is amplified by the fact that he did get Diana’s death right. Princess Di’s sudden death did change the world, perhaps more than did 9/11. The World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was a comeuppance. If the American people did not see it coming, the world did. That such a terrorist act was bound to happen was attested to the fact that the same people had already tried it and at the very same location.

But Diana’s death marked the end of civility, and people felt it. The third world may have been fit to burst under the weight of its post-colonial oppressors, but a great English civility had prevailed since the days of Ghandi. This was a sense that disagreement could be visceral, but apart from the brutality of the unwashed French or the uncouth Americans, a British sense of decency would rule out. Britain, not long ago the Empire, was where we got the rule of law, our rights, and everyone’s concept of a representational parliament.

The circumstances around Diana’s death would present an incredibly interesting lesson in power usurped from the people; Tony Blair’s arrangement with Rupert Murdoch for starters, instead of showing Blair reacting to the newspapers and coaxing his old queen along. The Queen is a marvelous story of two people facing adversity introspectively. Fine, except those personages were at the center of the unification of global corporate power and could not have been idle participants. As if Frears had made a film about the Titanic and chose to focus on the captain’s preoccupation with feng shui.

The 1990s saw a decline in every aspect of benevolent leadership, and I believe the premature death of Lady Diana was the curtain. It was hard those days after her death to imagine a world without her, and indeed events have proved that we were to face the worst. The turn of the century marked the ascendency of the Neocons, the political face of the globalization overlords. It meant corporate overseers with gloves off, Zionist zealotry unabashed, banks with no limits on their usury, and the world media watchdogs in the hands of the wolves.

The ruling few have their hands bloody in genocides the world over, endless wars, massacres, slavery, epidemics, poverty, famine and reckless abandonment. Before Diana’s death at least I believe they would have been concerned to wash the blood off.

Discovery Channel editorial interest

My first brush with the Discovery Channel came when contemplating which cable stations would be considered kid suitable. The Discovery Channel seemed one of the few obvious shoe-ins. Along with Disney…
 
I remember looking over the kids’ shoulders at some of the Discovery programming. Not necessarily for kids, and not necessarily informative. Make-over shows? Decorating? Are they interested in the Discovery of everything? Crown molding?

After Disney’s Corporation’s unwavering support for the yellow GOP Path to 9/11, it became time to question what Disney is doing, and what might they be feeding our kids?

Remember the disquieting implication of Lion King? Monarchy (and monotheism) as the natural order? Now that odd acculturation is not looking very haphazard.

Running opposite Path to 9/11 was Koppel on Discovery: the Price of Security. If absent the anti-Democrat partisanship, its tone was still very pro-establishment. Marvel at the pyrotechnics, question nothing. Discovery (Only four letters of separation from Disney) is corporate media, after all, and like National Geographic and Disney, considered subliminally above reproach.

Then I saw the new Discovery documentary about Waco. Not the city formally known as Waco, the Mount Carmel inferno now known as “Waco.” This time, Discover the truth: Assault on Waco with everything learned post-1993 reclassified. What up Discovery?

As if the media had not sufficiently contained the story while it happened, soon after they fixed it from any further development with the official verson Ambush in Waco.

After Branch Davidian survivors made their individual ways across the university lecture circuit, another side of the story began to emerge. Incredible government lies were exposed in the 1997 award-winning documentary Waco: the Rules of Engagement. Further disturbing revelations emerged in the 1999 Waco, a New Revelation.

Thirteen years later, under a new administration, with a madman of another sort in Waco, under “the shadow of 9/11” and rationalizations being made for an authoritarian federal dictatorship, the folks at Discovery Channel want to exculpate the original feds-gone-wild? Now that we have an executive branch breaking the law, Discovery Channel wants to revisit past transgressions and make them right?
 
What next? Ruby Ridge: ballistic foster-child making? The Philadelphia Move: fiery urban renewal? Vietnam: should we have killed more of them? Elections 2000-04: benevolent despotism in action?
  When citizens still thought the media could be on their side