Decisions made for short-term profits, but which have great risk for the long-term future of the company. When that risk hits later on, its the taxpayers that are told that we have to bear the costs.
Sound familiar? It should, because its pretty much the shape of American 'free-market' capitalism these days.
And just like everything else we've seen, such bailouts can only work in the short term and are destined for long-term failure.
Lets take a brief look back at the American auto industry. In recent years, they've made their profits, such as they were, from selling big gas-guzzling SUV's. Lots of people tried to point out the flaws in this. They had awful fuel economy. This meant we imported more oil, which meant the balance of payments deficits for our country got worse. Also, by burning such huge amounts of fuel, they were awful for the environment and contributed to global warming.
But the big three American auto companies didn't care. They were looking at the short term profits quarter by quarter, and this is where they were making their money. So, they kept churning out more and more SUVs.
The people who were talking about Peak Oil were pointing out the problems with this. They'd always predicted that as we started to reach the peak zone, and its a long gentle curve, not like the peak of a triangle, that what you would see would be strong oscillations in the price of oil. It would go up sharply as people started to panic of oil running out and speculators moved into the market. It could just as easily drop quickly when people adjusted to the high prices and economies went into recession and demand drops.
So, the first time this happens, when the price of gas spikes up to $4 a gallon in the US and the economy starts to tank, the big three auto companies take a big hit. Even thought they should have seen this day coming, they weren't ready for it. At least not in the terms that you'd expect in a free market business. Toyota is selling their Hybrid Prius' as fast as they can make them, and none of the big three American companies have a product that can compete.
In a competitive free market, this is how these companies would be expected to compete. To be looking ahead and making sure that they have products that would be attractive to potential customers. Businesses that fail to do that would go out of business.
So, now we all about how a collapse in the auto industry would be a disaster. We are told that we can't let them fail. Sound familiar? We were told the same about the wall street giants a couple of months ago. But now, lets ask this question. Did the big three auto-companies count on this all along? Perhaps they did think that they were ready for the future. Its just that in early 21st century America, the smart way to be ready for the future is not to pay engineers to develop attractive products, but instead to make large political contributions. That way, when times get rough, the politicians bought with those contributions will act to bail out your company.
Here's the really ironic part of this. Just exactly who is going to bail out the big three is left vague in our corporate media. Its not even directly referred to as the government very often. And there's this bizarre discussion in parts of the news as to whether the money should come from TARP funds or from last year's energy bill.
But the key thing to know is that the person who will be bailing out the auto industry is you. Its your money as taxpayers that they want. Or, perhaps its more accurate to look at your children and grand children and know that they are the ones expected to bail out these companies. Because we don't have the money today to do this, so its more money we have to borrow. Its more debt we have to incur. Your children and grand children will be paying it off for a long time to come.
There's one group of people to whom this must sound quite strange. Funny how you don't see them on the corporate TV channels. I'm referring to the American workers who've been laid off by these same big-three auto companies. The big-three auto companies were perfectly willing to tell these tax payers to go get stuff when they thought that moving their jobs overseas would make a few more dollars of profit on the corporate bottom line. And now they have to come back to these same tax payers and ask them for the money to save the stock price of their companies.
Nope, you don't see too many interviews with laid-off auto workers asking how they feel about their tax dollars about to be given to the same auto companies that told them they were no longer neccessary.
The problem is that America is deep in debt. At all levels ... personal debt, corporate debt, government debt. At some levels, we've reached the point where we can't borrow any more. The values of our homes have fallen, so we can't borrow against that any more. Credit cards are maxed out. Our jobs are either disappearing or in danger. Corporations can't borrow anymore either. So, the one credit card that hasn't been maxed out yet is government debt. Right now everyone is trying to pay their monthly bills off that credit card.
In terms of personal finance, we'd all understand what that means. If our finances are in such a bad shape that we have to be paying our monthly bills off of the one last credit card that isn't maxed out, any sensible person would know that a crash is at hand. But, that little bit of wisdom never makes it onto the corporate TV news. There we just hear about how we just have to give another $25 billion away to one more group of business people who made bad decisions that let to short term profits but a long term crash.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, November 17, 2008
Friday, November 07, 2008
CommonDreams Refugees
The comments on the post below have told me a couple of things.
1) There are actually people who read this site. At least occaisionally. Wow!
2) Anyone who is critical of Obama and the Democrats is being booted off of the CommonDreams website.
The latter makes me thing that people need a place to gather and discuss. Its better if we gather together and stay in touch. While the forums at CommonDreams used to be a place to do this, it seems apparent that the new Democratic censorship is going to make this hard to do there.
I don't know if this site is the place to do that. But, I'm willing to help where I can. CD refugees are welcome to comment here. I'd also be willing to open up the posting privlidges here to allow others to write here if they are interested.
And one thing that could certainly be done is if CommonDreams refugees want to post links or email to stay in touch, this thread could be a place to do that.
But, I'm also thinking maybe its time for a new site. I might try to get something started. Maybe have links to articles on other sites, but with the ability to comment freely on that site. So, for instance it could have a link to an interesting article on CommonDreams, but then it could also allow a free and uncensored discussion of that article.
If anyone is interested, leave a comment below. Not only about my ideas, but with your own.
1) There are actually people who read this site. At least occaisionally. Wow!
2) Anyone who is critical of Obama and the Democrats is being booted off of the CommonDreams website.
The latter makes me thing that people need a place to gather and discuss. Its better if we gather together and stay in touch. While the forums at CommonDreams used to be a place to do this, it seems apparent that the new Democratic censorship is going to make this hard to do there.
I don't know if this site is the place to do that. But, I'm willing to help where I can. CD refugees are welcome to comment here. I'd also be willing to open up the posting privlidges here to allow others to write here if they are interested.
And one thing that could certainly be done is if CommonDreams refugees want to post links or email to stay in touch, this thread could be a place to do that.
But, I'm also thinking maybe its time for a new site. I might try to get something started. Maybe have links to articles on other sites, but with the ability to comment freely on that site. So, for instance it could have a link to an interesting article on CommonDreams, but then it could also allow a free and uncensored discussion of that article.
If anyone is interested, leave a comment below. Not only about my ideas, but with your own.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
A new era of Democratic censorship
Its amazing how if you scratch a Democrat, under the fake out outer covering, they act just like a Republican. I dared to post some comments on the CommonDreams site that tried to point out that everything might not be as rosy as the Obamabots are saying it is in the glow of their victory. They tended to point out that Obama still supported the wars, was pushing the wall street bailout, and generally hadn't really promised anything 'progressive' during the campaign. And that he won the campaign with record amounts of corporate money in his accounts, topping the amounts Bush had run on.
Do that on a Democratic site like Common Dreams, and that gets you blocked and banned these days. The Democrats are as intolerant of dissent as the Republicans. That's going to be one of the interesting things to watch in the coming months, as all the 'progressives' start to wake up to that fact. Especially since the Democrats and Obama won't be enacting a progressive agenda and won't be following a 'progressive' foreign policy. When the true progressives start to raise their voices. When they try to do exactly what the Democrats said during the campaign that they should do and try to 'hold the Democrats feet to the fire.', when that colides with the little fact that the Democrats are as intolerent of dissent as the Republicans, then it will start to get interesting.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
No issues
Watching CNN, at least for what I can take before the mute button gets pressed again. And I noticed something about their coverage. They are going into great depth about voters where they live and what their demographics are and who is voting for Obama and who is voting for McCain.
If you want to know that in S.Carolina, black voters went 96% to Obama and white voters went 72% to McCain, CNN will tell you all about that. If you want county by county breakdowns in Indiana of how many voted for Bush last time and how many are voting for McCain this time, CNN will tell you all about that.
But, I've been watching for probably an hour and half now, and I haven't heard any discussion of issues. The words 'war' or 'antiwar' are not mentioned. The word 'bailout' hasn't come up once. Wouldn't it be interesting to know how voters who oppose the war are splitting? Or how the minority who supports the war is voting? Wouldn't it be interesting to know how many voters are telling the exit pollsters they opposed the wall street bailout and how the voters who are upset over that are voting?
Of course, there's no difference in reality between Obama and McCain on these issues. So, mainly you'd be seeing the effects of the campaign propaganda. Even though McCain and Obama would follow the same basic course in our middle eastern wars, the two campaigns have tried to use different propaganda to create the illusion of a difference here. The same with the wall street bailout. So, it would be interesting to see the numbers on issues like this.
I'd imagine CNN will show that eventually. At least they usually do. But they are spending a lot of time on what I'd call 'identity politics'. That's telling, because it tells you a lot about an American election. Its not about choosing the course of the nation. Because both candidates will steer close to the same course. So, the election has to be about something else. There has to something to hype or to talk about. The people have to feel that they are deciding something. So, instead we see that blacks are supposed to vote for Obama and rural whites are supposed to vote for McCain. And, I'd suspect if you asked members of either group in person the question of why, the answer that would come back would be more about their identity instead of their policies.
If you want to know that in S.Carolina, black voters went 96% to Obama and white voters went 72% to McCain, CNN will tell you all about that. If you want county by county breakdowns in Indiana of how many voted for Bush last time and how many are voting for McCain this time, CNN will tell you all about that.
But, I've been watching for probably an hour and half now, and I haven't heard any discussion of issues. The words 'war' or 'antiwar' are not mentioned. The word 'bailout' hasn't come up once. Wouldn't it be interesting to know how voters who oppose the war are splitting? Or how the minority who supports the war is voting? Wouldn't it be interesting to know how many voters are telling the exit pollsters they opposed the wall street bailout and how the voters who are upset over that are voting?
Of course, there's no difference in reality between Obama and McCain on these issues. So, mainly you'd be seeing the effects of the campaign propaganda. Even though McCain and Obama would follow the same basic course in our middle eastern wars, the two campaigns have tried to use different propaganda to create the illusion of a difference here. The same with the wall street bailout. So, it would be interesting to see the numbers on issues like this.
I'd imagine CNN will show that eventually. At least they usually do. But they are spending a lot of time on what I'd call 'identity politics'. That's telling, because it tells you a lot about an American election. Its not about choosing the course of the nation. Because both candidates will steer close to the same course. So, the election has to be about something else. There has to something to hype or to talk about. The people have to feel that they are deciding something. So, instead we see that blacks are supposed to vote for Obama and rural whites are supposed to vote for McCain. And, I'd suspect if you asked members of either group in person the question of why, the answer that would come back would be more about their identity instead of their policies.
Election results from ....
They say sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. The richest company in the world, the company that rakes in obscene profits every quarter, these are the people telling you who just won the election.
The next President of the United States, brought to you by ExxonMobile. Of course he is.
In the United States of America, we have an election system that is deliberately designed such that money plays a huge role in determining who can and can not win. ExxonMobile makes huge profits every quarter. So, this picture is just so fitting. The choice of the next President brought to you by the company that makes record profits. Yes he is.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Progressives. Those who oppose the wars. Now is the time to act.
To all who oppose the war. To all who really call themselves 'progressives'. This is the time to act.
We can see the course of this election. Obama and the Democrats win this in a landslide. That's the big course of things and its set and its already in motion.
We are going to see an Obama administration with the Democrats in control of Congress. We also know that the Democrats won't want to listen to us. That they'll still want to continue the wars. That they won't want to prosecute the Bush criminals. That they'll want to give our money to their rich friends on Wall Street. That they'll want to call us 'idiot liberals' and ban us from the room. We know this from the Democrats. We have seen this from them over the last few years.
How do we make an Obama administration respect us and listen to what we want? We keep hearing that we have to be the ones to 'pressure' an Obama administration. How do we do that?
The only language they understand is political power. We need to show it. We need to have every Democratic Representative or Senator looking at the combined Nader\McKinney vote in their district or state and saying 'holy cow!'. The more votes we put on the board right now, the more we get their attention and the more respect we get. By putting votes on the board right now, we show real political power.
Its a safe vote. Obama wins this in a landslide. The Democrats win this in a landslide. The states 'in play' are traditional Republicans ones like Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina. To even think about winning, McCain has to sweep every state where he's even within shouting distance of Obama, and then maybe even one or two more. Obama and the Democrats have this one in a lock.
Spread the word. Now is the time. If there was ever a moment to vote your conscious and vote for an alternative to the corporate parties, it is this election. Its a safe vote. Obama wins big regardless. The key point for right now is that actually, the closer we make this, the better it is for us. If the Democrats are holding their breath on election night saying 'oh my gawd!' while they watch the numbers roll in with state after state they thought was solidly in their win column instead becoming razor thin with big vote totals for Nader and McKinney, then that's great for us. We want to give them a heart attack. That's the only way they'll take us seriously.
Do you want to really stop these wars? Then vote your conscience. Register a political earthquake the Democrats can't help but feel.
Do you really want to protect the environment? Do you really want to turn the tide seriously back against global warming? Then vote your conscience. Register a political earthquake the Democrats can't help but feel.
We want every congressional Democrat looking ahead to the 2010 elections while seeing a strong Nader\McKinney vote in their districts. We want each of them shuddering at what the prospects of an angry, progressive, antiwar, third party campaign in 2010 in their districts would do to their congressional careers. Do you want to really change things? That's how to do it.
Now is the time. This is the election. This is the moment to act.
We can see the course of this election. Obama and the Democrats win this in a landslide. That's the big course of things and its set and its already in motion.
We are going to see an Obama administration with the Democrats in control of Congress. We also know that the Democrats won't want to listen to us. That they'll still want to continue the wars. That they won't want to prosecute the Bush criminals. That they'll want to give our money to their rich friends on Wall Street. That they'll want to call us 'idiot liberals' and ban us from the room. We know this from the Democrats. We have seen this from them over the last few years.
How do we make an Obama administration respect us and listen to what we want? We keep hearing that we have to be the ones to 'pressure' an Obama administration. How do we do that?
The only language they understand is political power. We need to show it. We need to have every Democratic Representative or Senator looking at the combined Nader\McKinney vote in their district or state and saying 'holy cow!'. The more votes we put on the board right now, the more we get their attention and the more respect we get. By putting votes on the board right now, we show real political power.
Its a safe vote. Obama wins this in a landslide. The Democrats win this in a landslide. The states 'in play' are traditional Republicans ones like Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina. To even think about winning, McCain has to sweep every state where he's even within shouting distance of Obama, and then maybe even one or two more. Obama and the Democrats have this one in a lock.
Spread the word. Now is the time. If there was ever a moment to vote your conscious and vote for an alternative to the corporate parties, it is this election. Its a safe vote. Obama wins big regardless. The key point for right now is that actually, the closer we make this, the better it is for us. If the Democrats are holding their breath on election night saying 'oh my gawd!' while they watch the numbers roll in with state after state they thought was solidly in their win column instead becoming razor thin with big vote totals for Nader and McKinney, then that's great for us. We want to give them a heart attack. That's the only way they'll take us seriously.
Do you want to really stop these wars? Then vote your conscience. Register a political earthquake the Democrats can't help but feel.
Do you really want to protect the environment? Do you really want to turn the tide seriously back against global warming? Then vote your conscience. Register a political earthquake the Democrats can't help but feel.
We want every congressional Democrat looking ahead to the 2010 elections while seeing a strong Nader\McKinney vote in their districts. We want each of them shuddering at what the prospects of an angry, progressive, antiwar, third party campaign in 2010 in their districts would do to their congressional careers. Do you want to really change things? That's how to do it.
Now is the time. This is the election. This is the moment to act.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Police attack journalists at RNC
Democracy Now! has video on today's show of the police attacking their journalists trying to cover the police riot at the RNC peace march.
Nicole Salazar being arrested for filming police at RNC.
Amy Goodman's arrest for daring to asking what's happening to her reporters.
Nicole Salazar being arrested for filming police at RNC.
Amy Goodman's arrest for daring to asking what's happening to her reporters.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Transcript of Obama's speech
I can tell I'll be writing a bit about Obama's acceptance speech. So, to be fair, here's a link to the transcript.
Obama's acceptance speech to the 2008 Democratic Convention
And since there are so many attempts to try to tie Obama to FDR, here is also a link to FDR's famous speech in 1932. If you read both, the contrast is striking. FDR used his speech to lay out the specifics of the New Deal to Americans. In doing so, he created a mandate for what he wanted to do once he took office.
FDR's acceptance speech to the 1932 Democratic convention
Obama's acceptance speech to the 2008 Democratic Convention
And since there are so many attempts to try to tie Obama to FDR, here is also a link to FDR's famous speech in 1932. If you read both, the contrast is striking. FDR used his speech to lay out the specifics of the New Deal to Americans. In doing so, he created a mandate for what he wanted to do once he took office.
FDR's acceptance speech to the 1932 Democratic convention
Thursday, August 28, 2008
A political strategy for dealing with the Democratic Party.
Today, the left appears powerless. The Democratic Party has moved to the right side of center-right. And in doing so it treats the votes of the left as something it can take for granted. And it treats the left with outright contempt, referring to them as 'idiot liberals' when they don't realize there's a camera pointed at them.
But the situation is not hopeless. In fact, the political position of the left is actually quite strong.
The balance between Democrats and Republicans in the country is quite close. The last two Presidential elections have hinged on the results of just one state (Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004). This means changing the outcome of just one state, and not only the one that finally decided the race, can change the outcome of the entire election. Changing the outcome of just a few Senate race, or a handful of House races can change which party holds the majority in those bodies.
What this means is that the Democrats can not afford to lose anywhere. Each party is struggling to hold on to what its got, and then win just a little more than last time from the other. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any margin of error. And this is what gives the left power.
What the left needs to do is to attack the Democrats precisely where it hurts. Pick the races that are going to be close, and then throw concentrated efforts into third party races in those districts. And make it personal. When running against a Democratic incumbent, make it absolutely crystal clear that this campaign is being mounted precisely to defeat them for the actions they've taken while in office. Make it clear that this Democrat is going down because he supported the war, or because he supported telecom immunity.
The goal is to show political strength. That is the problem the left has today. It has shown no political strength at all in decades. Since the 1970's, it has mostly just meekly supported whatever candidate the Democrats had in the race. The Nader campaign of 2000 is the one exception to this on the national stage. And the reverberations of that can still be felt.
The Democrats will never take the left seriously until they know we can hurt them. That has to be the goal. The inflicting of pain on the Democratic party. Make it expressly clear that they've lost the say the Presidency precisely because the left was so mad with them because they wouldn't end the war. Make it completely clear that they've lost the majority in the Senate because they wouldn't oppose or prosecute the Bush administration crimes. Make it precisely clear to the Democrats that they've lost this election because they lost the support of the left.
The first reaction of most people to this would be, 'oh my gawd, that means the Republicans will be elected!' And, yes it does. But stop and think a bit more about that. First there's the very real question of just how much better the Democrats are than the Republicans. But even conceding that the Republicans can at times be worse than the Democrats, lets continue to think this through.
What's going to happen fairly early on in the next election cycle? The Democrats are going to come to the left and try to get the left not to do that to them again. Aha! Now that the left has shown that it can exercise some political power, it gets treated like a player in the game. Now the left is sitting at the table negotiating with the Democrats. And both sides of the table know that the left can defeat the Democratic dreams of power in the next election if it chooses to. So, what do you want to ask for? Because now by defeating those Democrats in the last election, you now get to ask for almost anything. And the Democrats will want to give it to you.
I know what I'd ask for. I'd try to get political reforms to open up the system. All the stuff the 3rd parties have talked of for ages. Instant run-off voting, campaign reform, election systems reform. Long term, that gets more for the left in terms of getting into a chance to really hold political power than a 'win' on any one issue. But, with lives at stake, I'd say getting an end to our wars from such a negotiation wouldn't be a bad thing either.
From where we sit today, its hard to picture the Democrats giving any of that to the left. But remember, after defeating their dreams of power in one election, they are going to know we can do it again in the next. We will literally hold their chance at political power in our hands. We can ask for anything we want, and suddenly the Democrats will be trying to find a way to give it to us.
So, while it may seem counter-intuitive, the real path towards change in this country lies with defeating the Democrats. It does not lie in helping the Democrats win, that only leads to more of today's status quo. The key to obtaining real change in this country lies in doing everything we can to defeat the Democrats.
And besides, we'd get to have some fun doing it. We'd get to support candidates who really do believe in our views. We'd get to run campaigns that really matter, and that are right in the thick of the action. And we'd get to retire from politics a few Democrats who really need retiring. Another benefit from this, we get to hone our own campaign skills by working with tough campaigns in tough races. Not only would that be fun. And not only would it be fun to get to dance on the Democrats graves for a change, but that's yet another way in which the left would come out of such a strategy stronger politically.
But the situation is not hopeless. In fact, the political position of the left is actually quite strong.
The balance between Democrats and Republicans in the country is quite close. The last two Presidential elections have hinged on the results of just one state (Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004). This means changing the outcome of just one state, and not only the one that finally decided the race, can change the outcome of the entire election. Changing the outcome of just a few Senate race, or a handful of House races can change which party holds the majority in those bodies.
What this means is that the Democrats can not afford to lose anywhere. Each party is struggling to hold on to what its got, and then win just a little more than last time from the other. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any margin of error. And this is what gives the left power.
What the left needs to do is to attack the Democrats precisely where it hurts. Pick the races that are going to be close, and then throw concentrated efforts into third party races in those districts. And make it personal. When running against a Democratic incumbent, make it absolutely crystal clear that this campaign is being mounted precisely to defeat them for the actions they've taken while in office. Make it clear that this Democrat is going down because he supported the war, or because he supported telecom immunity.
The goal is to show political strength. That is the problem the left has today. It has shown no political strength at all in decades. Since the 1970's, it has mostly just meekly supported whatever candidate the Democrats had in the race. The Nader campaign of 2000 is the one exception to this on the national stage. And the reverberations of that can still be felt.
The Democrats will never take the left seriously until they know we can hurt them. That has to be the goal. The inflicting of pain on the Democratic party. Make it expressly clear that they've lost the say the Presidency precisely because the left was so mad with them because they wouldn't end the war. Make it completely clear that they've lost the majority in the Senate because they wouldn't oppose or prosecute the Bush administration crimes. Make it precisely clear to the Democrats that they've lost this election because they lost the support of the left.
The first reaction of most people to this would be, 'oh my gawd, that means the Republicans will be elected!' And, yes it does. But stop and think a bit more about that. First there's the very real question of just how much better the Democrats are than the Republicans. But even conceding that the Republicans can at times be worse than the Democrats, lets continue to think this through.
What's going to happen fairly early on in the next election cycle? The Democrats are going to come to the left and try to get the left not to do that to them again. Aha! Now that the left has shown that it can exercise some political power, it gets treated like a player in the game. Now the left is sitting at the table negotiating with the Democrats. And both sides of the table know that the left can defeat the Democratic dreams of power in the next election if it chooses to. So, what do you want to ask for? Because now by defeating those Democrats in the last election, you now get to ask for almost anything. And the Democrats will want to give it to you.
I know what I'd ask for. I'd try to get political reforms to open up the system. All the stuff the 3rd parties have talked of for ages. Instant run-off voting, campaign reform, election systems reform. Long term, that gets more for the left in terms of getting into a chance to really hold political power than a 'win' on any one issue. But, with lives at stake, I'd say getting an end to our wars from such a negotiation wouldn't be a bad thing either.
From where we sit today, its hard to picture the Democrats giving any of that to the left. But remember, after defeating their dreams of power in one election, they are going to know we can do it again in the next. We will literally hold their chance at political power in our hands. We can ask for anything we want, and suddenly the Democrats will be trying to find a way to give it to us.
So, while it may seem counter-intuitive, the real path towards change in this country lies with defeating the Democrats. It does not lie in helping the Democrats win, that only leads to more of today's status quo. The key to obtaining real change in this country lies in doing everything we can to defeat the Democrats.
And besides, we'd get to have some fun doing it. We'd get to support candidates who really do believe in our views. We'd get to run campaigns that really matter, and that are right in the thick of the action. And we'd get to retire from politics a few Democrats who really need retiring. Another benefit from this, we get to hone our own campaign skills by working with tough campaigns in tough races. Not only would that be fun. And not only would it be fun to get to dance on the Democrats graves for a change, but that's yet another way in which the left would come out of such a strategy stronger politically.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Democrats against democracy
Well, the one thing that is clear this week in Denver is that we no longer live in a democracy.
How could it possibly be a democracy, when the people are forbidden to talk with their political representatives? And that is clearly the message delivered by the surveillance cameras and the helicopters and the amazing numbers of police in riot gear. Our representatives have no interest in what we say, and they want us pushed as far away from them as possible. Our representatives don't want their lives interrupted by even a faint squeak of protest, thus the riot police have orders to keep any protesters out of sight.
And, as I occasionally watch bits and pieces of this farce of a political convention, that is also the clear message. What is the role of a delegate at a modern political convention? Apparently the role of a delegate is to wear funny hats. Apparently the role of a delegate is to dance in the aisles. Apparently the role of a delegate is to attend expensive parties from which the public is banned. Apparently the role of a delegate is to provide a backdrop to a giant photo opportunity. Or just to be the live studio audience for the television infomercial.
One of the problems is that I am old enough to remember when it was different. To remember when a political convention was the gathering of a party. To remember when delegates at times had more important duties than the wearing of funny hats. I am old enough to remember when a party used to gather and debate its platform, and the planks that made it up. To remember when it was the members of the party, gathered together once every four years in a convention, that decided such questions for the party.
At this convention, there is no room left for quaint notions of democracy. The candidate has of course long been decided before the convention. Even the quaint notion of letting the convention have a say in who is the vice presidential candidate has long been discarded as well. Note very carefully the way the vice president is decided before the convention even begins. Note carefully that the vote of the delegates is now just such a formality that the results can be announced a week in advance. I suppose there might still be the farce of a vote. Where each delegation chair will make some cute little line about their state before the formality of rubber stamping the decision of the party leaders. But this has become meaningless ritual. The real notion of democracy that used to underlie it is dead and gone.
That is very representative of today's farce of democracy. Decisions are made at the highest levels. At best the people might occasionally be asked to rubber stamp that decision. Another meaningless ritual that has lost all its real meaning.
Think for a moment about the farce we've seen in meaningless ritual of the primaries. At the surface, it at least looks like democracy. Voters going to computers to indicate their choice for the next candidate. But what choice were voters really given? Because, by now its surely obvious that at least one of the candidates was lying during the campaigns.
Stop and think a minute about what we've seen. The primaries began with one clear Democratic front runner. Hillary Clinton was running for a third term of the Clinton administration. The problem of course was that way too many members of the Democratic Party knew exactly what this meant. In the corporate media, the corruption of the first two Clinton terms is now described as Bill Clinton's famous problems in keeping the zipper of his pants closed. But that was never the true corruption of the Clinton years. The true corruption of the Clinton years was the way the Clinton's sold the services of the Presidency to the highest bidder. There was little that was out of bounds. They happily sold off America's economic strength. The trade agreements of the Clinton years were the death knell to the notion that America would build anything real and of value. Our manufacturing capability was sold off for a short term bump in the corporate balance sheet. Today's economic problems all trace back to that. We are a nation of debtors who don't produce anything of real value any more. All of our trade deficits, the falling dollar, the bubbles in the speculative markets, they all stem from this basic problem.
The Clintons were willing to sell anything. Our manufacturing base, our democracy, our freedoms. It was the 1996 Clinton\Gore campaign that tore the giant loopholes in the post-Watergate political reforms that tried to limit the role of money in an election. It was the 1996 Clinton\Gore campaigns that opened the door to the hundreds of millions of dollars that have flowed into first the Bush campaigns and now the Obama campaign. The Obama campaign has raised over $400 million dollars so far. And despite the mythology spread by the campaign, this hasn't come in $20 bills from concerned college students. Instead, that is corporate money that is flowing in through the giant loopholes that the Clinton's ripped in our campaign finance laws.
This was the problem the Democratic front runner had at the start of the primaries. Way too many members of the Democratic party knew exactly what another Clinton Administration would mean. They knew it would be what the rest of the world would call either a center-right or a pure right-wing government. That beyond a couple of litmus test issues like abortion, that a third Clinton term would mean yet another government of the money, by the money and for the money. A big portion of the Democratic party wanted something different.
Thus evolved the farce of the primaries where it appeared that the party would indeed be able to choose something different. A slick new candidate was presented, one who spoke of hope and change. Sure, he was awfully vague on what that meant. But he looked good and he looked different. He used the words 'hope' and 'change' so often that they became associated with his name. The candidate made noises that if elected he would indeed make changes to America's foreign policy and to its economic policy. He said he'd be willing to talk with our enemies, instead of just bombing them. He said he'd be willing to renegotiate the trade deals that have so crippled our economy and sent so many of our good paying jobs overseas.
So, the members of the Democratic party, in primary after primary across the nation, made the choice to go with this new candidate. They rejected the corporatism of the Clintons and instead decided to send their party and their nation in a different direction.
The only problem was, it was all a giant fraud. As soon as Barack Obama had the nomination in hand, he immediately started telling everyone that his entire primary campaign had been a giant lie. Suddenly the idea of changing our foreign policy was off the table. He would only talk to our enemies if his preconditions were met. Or do deliver ultimatums that precede the usual bombings. He pledged to ally his foreign policy with the same right-wing goals of the Cuban terrorists in Florida. And to make certain that America's interests were secondary to that of Israel.
The candidate's pledge to renegotiate trade deals like NAFTA were then dismissed as the overheated rhetoric of the campaign. And most telling, the same old crew of advisers and party hacks that had characterized the Clinton years suddenly coalesced around the new candidate. While the members of the Democratic party had voted for change, suddenly it was revealed that no change was possible. It was revealed that an Obama administration would look amazingly like what a Hillary Clinton administration would have looked like.
This is today's Democratic Party. Its primaries are a fraud, and its political convention is a farce. Today's Democratic party treats its members as people to be lied to and manipulated. Today's Democratic Party relegates its delegates to the role of dancing in the aisles wearing funny hats while the next speaker for the TV infomercial gets ready in the back room.
And if no democracy is allowed inside the party, there is certainly none allowed outside. What is perfectly clear today is that there is one thing that the Democrats are willing to fight, and that is democracy. A Democratic Party that constantly shocks its members by its unwillingness to fight its Republican opposition shows that it has no problems at all fighting the people of this country who still want democracy. A party that seems spineless instead morphs into a vicious attack dog should words like 'Nader' or 'Green Party' be mentioned in their presence. A Democratic Party that is unwilling to use the political or legal process to fight to defend its own votes in rigged elections suddenly is willing to go to great lengths to fight say the petition signatures that might put an independent or Green party candidate on the ballot. A Democratic Party that is too cowardly to fight the Republicans unleashes the riot police on any citizens who might dare to try to march in the streets in protest.
Yes, there is one thing that is certainly clear here in Denver this week. The one thing the Democratic Party certainly hates is democracy. From its lying candidates in its rigged primary campaigns, to its delegating the delegates to the role of mere extras, to the attacks on any who dare protest, the message of the Democratic Party in this area is quite clear. Democracy is not allowed.
All decisions are to be made at the highest levels. And they are to be made by politicians who refuse to even to talk to the people any more. If the people of this country say they want these wars to end, the leaders of the Democratic Party instead promise to expand the wars. If the people of this country say they want national health insurance like every other civilized western country, the leaders of the Democratic party respond with proposals to make it a crime not to buy corporate health insurance. If the people of this country say they want the laws upheld and political criminals prosecuted, the leaders of the Democratic Party respond by taking impeachment off the table and by promising not to prosecute the criminals of the current regime after they leave office.
Yes, the one thing that is most certainly clear this week in Denver is that the Democratic Party opposes the very idea of democracy. From the fact that its primaries were a fraud because of the dishonesty of its candidates, to its turning its convention from a democratic event to a corporate sponsored infomercial to its sending the riot police out to deal with any dissent, its all too clear we are on our own.
If you still believe in America. If you still believe in democracy. If you still believe in a free country, where our freedoms are protected by the rule of law and a series of checks and balances between branches of the government. If you still believe in the Bill of Rights, and its guarantees that we would be free of a government spying on its citizens and its guarantees of a chance of political expression, then its all too clear that today's Democratic Party is a part of the problem. Its all too clear that this Democratic Party has sold its soul to AT&T and its other corporate sponsors. If you want democracy in America, its all too clear that the Democratic Party is not the answer. In fact, the clear message from the riot police being ordered into the streets by the local Democratic mayor is that the Democratic Party is the enemy of democracy.
And the real puzzle of the week is why the American people seem willing to accept this?
How could it possibly be a democracy, when the people are forbidden to talk with their political representatives? And that is clearly the message delivered by the surveillance cameras and the helicopters and the amazing numbers of police in riot gear. Our representatives have no interest in what we say, and they want us pushed as far away from them as possible. Our representatives don't want their lives interrupted by even a faint squeak of protest, thus the riot police have orders to keep any protesters out of sight.
And, as I occasionally watch bits and pieces of this farce of a political convention, that is also the clear message. What is the role of a delegate at a modern political convention? Apparently the role of a delegate is to wear funny hats. Apparently the role of a delegate is to dance in the aisles. Apparently the role of a delegate is to attend expensive parties from which the public is banned. Apparently the role of a delegate is to provide a backdrop to a giant photo opportunity. Or just to be the live studio audience for the television infomercial.
One of the problems is that I am old enough to remember when it was different. To remember when a political convention was the gathering of a party. To remember when delegates at times had more important duties than the wearing of funny hats. I am old enough to remember when a party used to gather and debate its platform, and the planks that made it up. To remember when it was the members of the party, gathered together once every four years in a convention, that decided such questions for the party.
At this convention, there is no room left for quaint notions of democracy. The candidate has of course long been decided before the convention. Even the quaint notion of letting the convention have a say in who is the vice presidential candidate has long been discarded as well. Note very carefully the way the vice president is decided before the convention even begins. Note carefully that the vote of the delegates is now just such a formality that the results can be announced a week in advance. I suppose there might still be the farce of a vote. Where each delegation chair will make some cute little line about their state before the formality of rubber stamping the decision of the party leaders. But this has become meaningless ritual. The real notion of democracy that used to underlie it is dead and gone.
That is very representative of today's farce of democracy. Decisions are made at the highest levels. At best the people might occasionally be asked to rubber stamp that decision. Another meaningless ritual that has lost all its real meaning.
Think for a moment about the farce we've seen in meaningless ritual of the primaries. At the surface, it at least looks like democracy. Voters going to computers to indicate their choice for the next candidate. But what choice were voters really given? Because, by now its surely obvious that at least one of the candidates was lying during the campaigns.
Stop and think a minute about what we've seen. The primaries began with one clear Democratic front runner. Hillary Clinton was running for a third term of the Clinton administration. The problem of course was that way too many members of the Democratic Party knew exactly what this meant. In the corporate media, the corruption of the first two Clinton terms is now described as Bill Clinton's famous problems in keeping the zipper of his pants closed. But that was never the true corruption of the Clinton years. The true corruption of the Clinton years was the way the Clinton's sold the services of the Presidency to the highest bidder. There was little that was out of bounds. They happily sold off America's economic strength. The trade agreements of the Clinton years were the death knell to the notion that America would build anything real and of value. Our manufacturing capability was sold off for a short term bump in the corporate balance sheet. Today's economic problems all trace back to that. We are a nation of debtors who don't produce anything of real value any more. All of our trade deficits, the falling dollar, the bubbles in the speculative markets, they all stem from this basic problem.
The Clintons were willing to sell anything. Our manufacturing base, our democracy, our freedoms. It was the 1996 Clinton\Gore campaign that tore the giant loopholes in the post-Watergate political reforms that tried to limit the role of money in an election. It was the 1996 Clinton\Gore campaigns that opened the door to the hundreds of millions of dollars that have flowed into first the Bush campaigns and now the Obama campaign. The Obama campaign has raised over $400 million dollars so far. And despite the mythology spread by the campaign, this hasn't come in $20 bills from concerned college students. Instead, that is corporate money that is flowing in through the giant loopholes that the Clinton's ripped in our campaign finance laws.
This was the problem the Democratic front runner had at the start of the primaries. Way too many members of the Democratic party knew exactly what another Clinton Administration would mean. They knew it would be what the rest of the world would call either a center-right or a pure right-wing government. That beyond a couple of litmus test issues like abortion, that a third Clinton term would mean yet another government of the money, by the money and for the money. A big portion of the Democratic party wanted something different.
Thus evolved the farce of the primaries where it appeared that the party would indeed be able to choose something different. A slick new candidate was presented, one who spoke of hope and change. Sure, he was awfully vague on what that meant. But he looked good and he looked different. He used the words 'hope' and 'change' so often that they became associated with his name. The candidate made noises that if elected he would indeed make changes to America's foreign policy and to its economic policy. He said he'd be willing to talk with our enemies, instead of just bombing them. He said he'd be willing to renegotiate the trade deals that have so crippled our economy and sent so many of our good paying jobs overseas.
So, the members of the Democratic party, in primary after primary across the nation, made the choice to go with this new candidate. They rejected the corporatism of the Clintons and instead decided to send their party and their nation in a different direction.
The only problem was, it was all a giant fraud. As soon as Barack Obama had the nomination in hand, he immediately started telling everyone that his entire primary campaign had been a giant lie. Suddenly the idea of changing our foreign policy was off the table. He would only talk to our enemies if his preconditions were met. Or do deliver ultimatums that precede the usual bombings. He pledged to ally his foreign policy with the same right-wing goals of the Cuban terrorists in Florida. And to make certain that America's interests were secondary to that of Israel.
The candidate's pledge to renegotiate trade deals like NAFTA were then dismissed as the overheated rhetoric of the campaign. And most telling, the same old crew of advisers and party hacks that had characterized the Clinton years suddenly coalesced around the new candidate. While the members of the Democratic party had voted for change, suddenly it was revealed that no change was possible. It was revealed that an Obama administration would look amazingly like what a Hillary Clinton administration would have looked like.
This is today's Democratic Party. Its primaries are a fraud, and its political convention is a farce. Today's Democratic party treats its members as people to be lied to and manipulated. Today's Democratic Party relegates its delegates to the role of dancing in the aisles wearing funny hats while the next speaker for the TV infomercial gets ready in the back room.
And if no democracy is allowed inside the party, there is certainly none allowed outside. What is perfectly clear today is that there is one thing that the Democrats are willing to fight, and that is democracy. A Democratic Party that constantly shocks its members by its unwillingness to fight its Republican opposition shows that it has no problems at all fighting the people of this country who still want democracy. A party that seems spineless instead morphs into a vicious attack dog should words like 'Nader' or 'Green Party' be mentioned in their presence. A Democratic Party that is unwilling to use the political or legal process to fight to defend its own votes in rigged elections suddenly is willing to go to great lengths to fight say the petition signatures that might put an independent or Green party candidate on the ballot. A Democratic Party that is too cowardly to fight the Republicans unleashes the riot police on any citizens who might dare to try to march in the streets in protest.
Yes, there is one thing that is certainly clear here in Denver this week. The one thing the Democratic Party certainly hates is democracy. From its lying candidates in its rigged primary campaigns, to its delegating the delegates to the role of mere extras, to the attacks on any who dare protest, the message of the Democratic Party in this area is quite clear. Democracy is not allowed.
All decisions are to be made at the highest levels. And they are to be made by politicians who refuse to even to talk to the people any more. If the people of this country say they want these wars to end, the leaders of the Democratic Party instead promise to expand the wars. If the people of this country say they want national health insurance like every other civilized western country, the leaders of the Democratic party respond with proposals to make it a crime not to buy corporate health insurance. If the people of this country say they want the laws upheld and political criminals prosecuted, the leaders of the Democratic Party respond by taking impeachment off the table and by promising not to prosecute the criminals of the current regime after they leave office.
Yes, the one thing that is most certainly clear this week in Denver is that the Democratic Party opposes the very idea of democracy. From the fact that its primaries were a fraud because of the dishonesty of its candidates, to its turning its convention from a democratic event to a corporate sponsored infomercial to its sending the riot police out to deal with any dissent, its all too clear we are on our own.
If you still believe in America. If you still believe in democracy. If you still believe in a free country, where our freedoms are protected by the rule of law and a series of checks and balances between branches of the government. If you still believe in the Bill of Rights, and its guarantees that we would be free of a government spying on its citizens and its guarantees of a chance of political expression, then its all too clear that today's Democratic Party is a part of the problem. Its all too clear that this Democratic Party has sold its soul to AT&T and its other corporate sponsors. If you want democracy in America, its all too clear that the Democratic Party is not the answer. In fact, the clear message from the riot police being ordered into the streets by the local Democratic mayor is that the Democratic Party is the enemy of democracy.
And the real puzzle of the week is why the American people seem willing to accept this?
Monday, August 18, 2008
Candidates for Sale
There's an important article up on Rollingstone.com. Candidates for Sale by MATT TAIBBI
Its an important look at the money being raised by both the big corporate candidates. And what they've already done and are likely to do for that money.
What is it, some 70% of Americans say America is 'on the wrong track'? The key thing is to realize that if either Obama or McCain wins the election, we'll stay on that wrong track.
Its an important look at the money being raised by both the big corporate candidates. And what they've already done and are likely to do for that money.
What is it, some 70% of Americans say America is 'on the wrong track'? The key thing is to realize that if either Obama or McCain wins the election, we'll stay on that wrong track.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Throw the dog a bone
There is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. When the Republicans create a policy, it entirely favors the rich and business. When the Democrats create a policy, it also favors the rich and business. But, the Democrats will also throw a bone off to the whichever economic class they want to troll for votes. It used to be the working class, but for the last 30 years or so that has switched to the middle class.
For the rich and for businesses, this means there really is a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. With the Democrats they win, but they win bigger with the Republicans. The Republicans will give them the whole meal, while the Democrats toss a bone off to the middle class. Thus, whenever possible the rich and the business community will prefer to have Republicans. They want that last bone.
At first glance, it would seem that the reverse is true for the middle class. After all, the middle class gets nothing under Republican rule, but does get a bone or two from the Democrats. By this logic, the middle class should vote Democrat.
But that supposes that the fact that the rich and businesses will get the lion's share of the benefits no matter what is an unchangeable rule of the world. Here's where we reach the true irony of how the rich and the business community scream the words 'anti-American' at anyone who opposes them. Because the very basic founding concept of America is that 'all people are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights'. Because America is supposed to be the country with a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people.'
In a government of the people, by the people and for the people, decisions should be made for the benefit of all the people. Not just for the benefit of an elite group at the top, but for all the people. In a true democracy, the elite few at the top should have relatively less power because of the simple fact that they should get out voted whenever anything that is proposed that would benefit only them. Those that get caled 'anti-American' are usually being criticized for promoting what America really stood for in the first place.
Now lets look at that bone again. Is it really worth it? Because what America has given up to get that measly little bone was control over the whole meal. What America has lost is a democracy which governs to the benefit of all people. Instead, trade policy is set to benefit a few at a cost to everyone else. Wars are fought to benefit a few at a cost to everyone else.
In today's political system, we now have two parties representing the rich and the business community. What we need is to build a political movement that will represent everyone else. When we do that, the real choice will be clear. And the days when Americans only settled for a measly bone will seem unbelievable in retrospect.
For the rich and for businesses, this means there really is a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. With the Democrats they win, but they win bigger with the Republicans. The Republicans will give them the whole meal, while the Democrats toss a bone off to the middle class. Thus, whenever possible the rich and the business community will prefer to have Republicans. They want that last bone.
At first glance, it would seem that the reverse is true for the middle class. After all, the middle class gets nothing under Republican rule, but does get a bone or two from the Democrats. By this logic, the middle class should vote Democrat.
But that supposes that the fact that the rich and businesses will get the lion's share of the benefits no matter what is an unchangeable rule of the world. Here's where we reach the true irony of how the rich and the business community scream the words 'anti-American' at anyone who opposes them. Because the very basic founding concept of America is that 'all people are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights'. Because America is supposed to be the country with a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people.'
In a government of the people, by the people and for the people, decisions should be made for the benefit of all the people. Not just for the benefit of an elite group at the top, but for all the people. In a true democracy, the elite few at the top should have relatively less power because of the simple fact that they should get out voted whenever anything that is proposed that would benefit only them. Those that get caled 'anti-American' are usually being criticized for promoting what America really stood for in the first place.
Now lets look at that bone again. Is it really worth it? Because what America has given up to get that measly little bone was control over the whole meal. What America has lost is a democracy which governs to the benefit of all people. Instead, trade policy is set to benefit a few at a cost to everyone else. Wars are fought to benefit a few at a cost to everyone else.
In today's political system, we now have two parties representing the rich and the business community. What we need is to build a political movement that will represent everyone else. When we do that, the real choice will be clear. And the days when Americans only settled for a measly bone will seem unbelievable in retrospect.
What kind of extremists will we be?
"This is horseshit" by Cindy Sheehan
Love that quote. Probably need to put it up on the website somewhere. Maybe right next to the George Carlin line. :)
That's Cindy Sheehan in the article referenced above. Go to her campaign website on that is linked over on the right side of this page to donate or volunteer.
Actually, I'd say its a cornerstone of the American political system, at least as it was designed by the writers of the Constitution, for a candidate to say "This is horseshit." That's the nature of a democratic and free society. The very strength of a democratic and free society is that someone can run for elected office saying "This is horseshit!".
If we restrict that in the quise of proper language and proper behavior, we've lost something. In fact we've lost something vital. Because it is vital that our political system be able to look at horseshit and call horseshit by its proper name.
When we see a political leader, like Ms. Nancy Pelosi, who is leading the country into war, torture, police-state spying, horrible deficits on a useless military, we need to have candidates who can stand up and call anti-American horseshit by its proper name. In fact its critical that someone stand up and say "This is horseshit!"
And especially when a political leader, like Ms. Nancy Pelosi, breaks the solemn oath of office that she gave to 'protect and defend the Constitution of the United States', and does so for only grass political gain, it is critical that someone stand up and say "This is horseshit!"
All of our American freedoms are based on the principle of a government divided into three separate and co-equal branches which all provide checks and balances against each other. The writers of the Constitution knew that there was a danger of one branch getting out of control and seizing too much power for itself. Especially the Executive Branch. These were people who had just fought a bloody and nasty revolution for nearly a decade to get themselves out from under a tyrant who had done just that. So, they were very careful to try to design for America a political system that would try to prevent the need to ever do that again.
Yet today, we see Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats destroying that system. And they are doing so purely for their own political interests. They are doing so for the small, crass motive of more political power for themselves and their party. America be damned is what they are saying. The Constitution be damned is what they are saying. If they think it increases the chances of a Democrat victory in the next election, they'll gladly toss it all away.
By the time the Democrats took the majority of Congress in early 2007, there was already a long record of abuses and usurpations by this current administration that demanded a serious investigation into whether impeachable offenses had been committed. The war in Iraq is one. Signing statements are another. Traveling around the world kidnapping people and disappearing them into secret prisons would be on the list. As well as torturing the people in those prisons. Unconstitutional, warrantless spying on the American people would be on that list.
Any one of these would certainly be a 'high crime' and worthy of impeachment. And each of these Democratic Congresspeople stood up and took an oath to 'protect and defend the constitution of the United States'. Given that oath, beginning an impeachment investigation would seem to be a mandatory and neccessary FIRST act of that new Congress.
Instead, the Democrats have violated that oath. They are destroying the structure of checks and balances the founders envisioned as neccessary to keep us free. And they've done so for only the crass political reason of trying to sieze power for themselves in the next election. At no point have the Democrats refuted all of the arguments leading towards impeachment. Instead they only talk about politics.
When Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid took impeachment 'off the table' long before the last election, they didn't do so for legal or constitutional reasons. They did it for political reasons. When they've consistently ignored the evidence that demands impeachment, they did so for political reasons.
If there is anything that should make almost all of the current Congressional Democrats declared unfit for office, it is this violation of a sacred oath and the abandonment of this sacred duty. They've declared themselves to be anti-American. They've made it clear that they would destroy America and its Constitution in order to obtain high political office. And that should be a clear sign that they shouldn't be given even the responsibilities of a local dog catcher.
There should be more than one of us saying, "This is horseshit!"
It is not if we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists will we be -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
Love that quote. Probably need to put it up on the website somewhere. Maybe right next to the George Carlin line. :)
You know, I don't care if it's not proper for a Congressional candidate to say: "horseshit." I don't care if it is not a good "tactic" to get kicked out of a Congressional non-impeachment hearing that was just a bunch of horseshit anyway.
If people can't see how this nation is teetering on the precipice of financial ruin and dragging the rest of this planet down with us as we destroy our ecology, too…and if people don't realize how desperate our situation is, then I must say, that's horseshit!
That's Cindy Sheehan in the article referenced above. Go to her campaign website on that is linked over on the right side of this page to donate or volunteer.
Actually, I'd say its a cornerstone of the American political system, at least as it was designed by the writers of the Constitution, for a candidate to say "This is horseshit." That's the nature of a democratic and free society. The very strength of a democratic and free society is that someone can run for elected office saying "This is horseshit!".
If we restrict that in the quise of proper language and proper behavior, we've lost something. In fact we've lost something vital. Because it is vital that our political system be able to look at horseshit and call horseshit by its proper name.
When we see a political leader, like Ms. Nancy Pelosi, who is leading the country into war, torture, police-state spying, horrible deficits on a useless military, we need to have candidates who can stand up and call anti-American horseshit by its proper name. In fact its critical that someone stand up and say "This is horseshit!"
And especially when a political leader, like Ms. Nancy Pelosi, breaks the solemn oath of office that she gave to 'protect and defend the Constitution of the United States', and does so for only grass political gain, it is critical that someone stand up and say "This is horseshit!"
All of our American freedoms are based on the principle of a government divided into three separate and co-equal branches which all provide checks and balances against each other. The writers of the Constitution knew that there was a danger of one branch getting out of control and seizing too much power for itself. Especially the Executive Branch. These were people who had just fought a bloody and nasty revolution for nearly a decade to get themselves out from under a tyrant who had done just that. So, they were very careful to try to design for America a political system that would try to prevent the need to ever do that again.
Yet today, we see Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats destroying that system. And they are doing so purely for their own political interests. They are doing so for the small, crass motive of more political power for themselves and their party. America be damned is what they are saying. The Constitution be damned is what they are saying. If they think it increases the chances of a Democrat victory in the next election, they'll gladly toss it all away.
By the time the Democrats took the majority of Congress in early 2007, there was already a long record of abuses and usurpations by this current administration that demanded a serious investigation into whether impeachable offenses had been committed. The war in Iraq is one. Signing statements are another. Traveling around the world kidnapping people and disappearing them into secret prisons would be on the list. As well as torturing the people in those prisons. Unconstitutional, warrantless spying on the American people would be on that list.
Any one of these would certainly be a 'high crime' and worthy of impeachment. And each of these Democratic Congresspeople stood up and took an oath to 'protect and defend the constitution of the United States'. Given that oath, beginning an impeachment investigation would seem to be a mandatory and neccessary FIRST act of that new Congress.
Instead, the Democrats have violated that oath. They are destroying the structure of checks and balances the founders envisioned as neccessary to keep us free. And they've done so for only the crass political reason of trying to sieze power for themselves in the next election. At no point have the Democrats refuted all of the arguments leading towards impeachment. Instead they only talk about politics.
When Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid took impeachment 'off the table' long before the last election, they didn't do so for legal or constitutional reasons. They did it for political reasons. When they've consistently ignored the evidence that demands impeachment, they did so for political reasons.
If there is anything that should make almost all of the current Congressional Democrats declared unfit for office, it is this violation of a sacred oath and the abandonment of this sacred duty. They've declared themselves to be anti-American. They've made it clear that they would destroy America and its Constitution in order to obtain high political office. And that should be a clear sign that they shouldn't be given even the responsibilities of a local dog catcher.
There should be more than one of us saying, "This is horseshit!"
Friday, July 25, 2008
Obama issues threats, just like Bush
Obama early in the primaries ...
The Old Obama in the primaries, after Hillary (the other allowable 'liberal' choice) had just threatened to obliterate Iran with nuclear strikes ...
Now we get Cowboy Obama for the general election ...
I've always been struck by the way Bush 'negotiated'. He basically just issued ultimatums. Then, if the other side didn't fold, he went straight to military action.
What Obama just said is that he plans to continue exactly the same technique. In other words, he just promised that the next four years under President Obama would be a lot like the last eight years under President Bush. I guess the only place to the right of that for McCain to go would be to say he'd just skip the ultimatum step and go straight to military action. But, its not like that's a huge difference because Obama's ultimatum or else policy eventually leads to the same actions.
He also just promised the Israelis that if Bush doesn't start a war between now and leaving office, Obama will pick up that ball and run with the same policy next year.
I just hope all the progressives who think Obama is 'anti-war' are paying attention.
"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith," he said. "I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hell bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior."
The Old Obama in the primaries, after Hillary (the other allowable 'liberal' choice) had just threatened to obliterate Iran with nuclear strikes ...
Obama, appearing yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press, struck back with calm outrage. "It's not the language we need right now, and I think it's language reflective of George Bush," he said.
"We have had a policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk," the Illinois senator added, "and in the meantime have made a series of strategic decisions that have actually strengthened Iran."
Now we get Cowboy Obama for the general election ...
Obama reportedly told Olmert that he is interested in meeting the Iranians in order to issue clear ultimatums. "If after that, they still show no willingness to change their nuclear policy, then any action against them would be legitimate," an Israeli source quoted him as saying.
I've always been struck by the way Bush 'negotiated'. He basically just issued ultimatums. Then, if the other side didn't fold, he went straight to military action.
What Obama just said is that he plans to continue exactly the same technique. In other words, he just promised that the next four years under President Obama would be a lot like the last eight years under President Bush. I guess the only place to the right of that for McCain to go would be to say he'd just skip the ultimatum step and go straight to military action. But, its not like that's a huge difference because Obama's ultimatum or else policy eventually leads to the same actions.
He also just promised the Israelis that if Bush doesn't start a war between now and leaving office, Obama will pick up that ball and run with the same policy next year.
I just hope all the progressives who think Obama is 'anti-war' are paying attention.
Cynthia McKinney's Nomination Acceptance Speech
From Cynthia McKinney's Nomination Acceptance Speech ...
and ...
---------------------
Ten Key Values of the Green Party
1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
4. NON-VIOLENCE
5. DECENTRALIZATION
6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Ten Key Values from other state and local Greens.
"In 2008, after two stolen Presidential elections and eight years of George W. Bush, and at least two years of Democratic Party complicity, the racket is about war crimes, torture, crimes against the peace; the racket is about crimes against the Constitution, crimes against the American people, and crimes against the global community.
The racket is even about values that we thought were long settled as reasonable to pursue, like liberty and justice, and economic opportunity, for all.
Yes, Sojourner, there's a lot out of kilter now, but these two women, Rosa and me, joined by all the men and women in this room, are going to do our best to turn this country right side up again."
and ...
"Had the Green Party's values been reflected in public policy since the beginnings of the Green Party in this country, the United States would have long ago implemented a livable wage; there would be no civil liberties erosion;
diversity would be respected, appreciated and welcomed;
education would be interesting and relevant to students' lives and no student would graduate from college $100,000 in debt in a Green Party USA because education, not incarceration and militarization, would be subsidized by the state.
In a Green Party USA, health care would be provided for everyone here through a single payer, Medicare-for-all type health care system.
We would have no homeless men and women sleeping on our streets and everyone who could work would have work. Rebuilding our infrastructure, manufacturing green technology, retooling our economy so that those who protect us, train us, heal us and prepare us for tomorrow are compensated in what is their true value to our culture and our society, based on their contribution to our civilization.
Vietnam War-era veterans would be our last war veterans because we would never have been engaged in war and occupation against Afghanistan and Iraq.
We would forego imperial designs on our neighbors to the north and south, never building any wall of division, not ever encroaching on their geographic or cultural sovereignty.
In fact, if Green Party values were now reflected in U.S. public policy, our country not only would not be engaged in war and occupation, there would be peace in the Middle East based on self-determination, respect for human rights, and justice.
We would strive to perfect our democracy at home through election integrity and no one would be denied their rightful place in our Union due to discrimination.
Our neighbors in the global community would look up to us for our cultural and technological accomplishments.
We would have apologized for genocide against the indigenous peoples of this land and the abomination of chattel slavery.
Our country would have dignity on the world stage and in every international forum, and no one in this country would be made to live in fear.
Oh, if it could be true: that the values of the Green Party were reflected
in the Federal Government's public policy.
Let me wake up and snap out of my reverie.
Yes, today's reality is harsh. Abu Ghraib, torture, rendition, lying, spying, war, stolen elections, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, New Orleans, poverty, racial profiling, Sean Bell, the San Francisco 8, Benton Harbor's Reverend Pinkney, the Holy Land Foundation, 9/11/01.
Embargo, blockade, friendly fire, depleted uranium, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, bunker busters, shock and awe.
Predatory lending, mortgage crisis, foreclosures, a country $53 trillion in debt. And while Bear Stearns gets a bailout, you and I sink or swim.
Harsh? Today's reality is harsh. But what's even harder for many to accept and admit is that our quality of life today is the making of the Democratic and Republican Parties.
What our country has become through their public policy is reflective of their values.
We will never get a United States that is reflective of different values if we continue to do the same thing.
Those who delivered us into this mess cannot be trusted to get us out of it."
---------------------
Ten Key Values of the Green Party
1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
4. NON-VIOLENCE
5. DECENTRALIZATION
6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Ten Key Values from other state and local Greens.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Money, Civil Disobedience and other stuff
Money .... can't help but to notice that the little Maplight.org widget above these posts has updated with June numbers on campaign finance. Obama must have raised about $50 million last month compared to McCain with $25 million.
Its striking to someone who's followed politics for a long time that its the Republican who's taking the public financing route for an election, and criticizing the Democrat for not doing so. That alone speaks volumes about the current campaign. Along with the numbers showing that Obama is out fund-raising McCain by Republican-like numbers.
Follow the money, and usually it will show you the winner in American politics. And, you can count on a candidate not biting the hand that feeds it. Want to know why Obama is disavowing everything even moderately progressive that he said or even hinted at to get the Democratic nomination? Just watch the dollar amounts tick over on that little Maplight.org widget and you'll know the reason why. That and the "AT&T Convention" handbag for the corporate party here in Denver tell you all you need to know.
------------------
Sometimes people are critical of the Palestinians for not opposing the Israelies non-violently like Dr. King or Ghandi might do. This article over at DissendentVoice.org tells you what happens when they do. "A West Bank Town’s Struggle to Survive"
I strongly believe that people should try to achieve needed change through legal means provided by society as their first option. In a place like America, that means contesting elections and using the courts to enforce laws when possible.
But, the question becomes, what do you do next if you find that the system is rigged to prevent change by those means? To me, the next stage is non-violent civil disobedience.
In order for non-violent civil disobedience to be effective though, you need a couple of things. One is that hopefully your opposition is willing to stay within the rules and not respond with violence in return. If that doesn't happen, you get the line from "V for Vendetta" :
But that only works when your opposition is willing to listen. What happens if this occurs, but no one knows about it.? Note the lead to the article about Palestine where it notes that this village that is attempting to resist the Israelis is only found in press searches 71 times. How effective is non-violent civil disobedience when no one knows that its suffering at the hands of a violent opposition?
And what are people, who are suffering and who legitimately have grievances, to do when legal attempts to ask for change are blocked and non-violent attempts to step outside the law are met with violence?
Its striking to someone who's followed politics for a long time that its the Republican who's taking the public financing route for an election, and criticizing the Democrat for not doing so. That alone speaks volumes about the current campaign. Along with the numbers showing that Obama is out fund-raising McCain by Republican-like numbers.
Follow the money, and usually it will show you the winner in American politics. And, you can count on a candidate not biting the hand that feeds it. Want to know why Obama is disavowing everything even moderately progressive that he said or even hinted at to get the Democratic nomination? Just watch the dollar amounts tick over on that little Maplight.org widget and you'll know the reason why. That and the "AT&T Convention" handbag for the corporate party here in Denver tell you all you need to know.
------------------
Sometimes people are critical of the Palestinians for not opposing the Israelies non-violently like Dr. King or Ghandi might do. This article over at DissendentVoice.org tells you what happens when they do. "A West Bank Town’s Struggle to Survive"
I strongly believe that people should try to achieve needed change through legal means provided by society as their first option. In a place like America, that means contesting elections and using the courts to enforce laws when possible.
But, the question becomes, what do you do next if you find that the system is rigged to prevent change by those means? To me, the next stage is non-violent civil disobedience.
In order for non-violent civil disobedience to be effective though, you need a couple of things. One is that hopefully your opposition is willing to stay within the rules and not respond with violence in return. If that doesn't happen, you get the line from "V for Vendetta" :
"What's going to happen? What usually happens when people without guns try to stand up to people with guns."Even that's not the end of the road for non-violent civil disobedience. Ghandi was met with violence at times. And the people just marched forward and let the police beat them.
But that only works when your opposition is willing to listen. What happens if this occurs, but no one knows about it.? Note the lead to the article about Palestine where it notes that this village that is attempting to resist the Israelis is only found in press searches 71 times. How effective is non-violent civil disobedience when no one knows that its suffering at the hands of a violent opposition?
And what are people, who are suffering and who legitimately have grievances, to do when legal attempts to ask for change are blocked and non-violent attempts to step outside the law are met with violence?
Friday, July 04, 2008
Self Evident Truths
Just because these words should always be said on this day. And the corporate media will stop at just acknowledging the right of the pursuit of happiness.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends,
it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed,
will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,
it is their right,
it is their duty,
to throw off such government,
and to provide new guards for their future security."
-- The Declaration of Independence
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Unity
Between Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, and Ralph Nader, two out of three of these people need to agree to withdraw from the Presidential race no later than Sept. 1.
The key is that we need one unified opposition candidate. We work in a winner-take-all system. To try to run three separate campaigns and to split our time, our money and our resources between them is political suicide. It is letting pride get in the way of our chances at success.
We don't need symbolic campaigns. We need a serious effort to change the country. If we run symbolic campaigns, we are essentially abandoning our country to the less than gentile ministrations of the two parties who represent rule by the corporations, of the corporations, and for the corporations. This is destroying America for the rest of us, and we need a serious effort to end it. Not symbolic campaigns. If we run three separate campaigns, then we confirm the charges of the Democrats that we aren't serious and can't win.
OK, its not hard to see how Mr. Nader and Ms. McKinney could combine campaigns. Their positions are relatively close to each other. But sure its impossible for the Greens and the Libertarians to unite, isn't it?
Here's how its done. The groups all agree to agree on what they agree on. What is the result of that Yogi Berra-ish sentence? What do they agree on? They agree on ending the war. They agree on bringing our troops home? They believe further in a general change in foreign policy of being less militaristic and imperialistic. They agree that our current government is corrupt and in the hands of special interests. They agree on ending secret detentions and domestic spying and torture. They agree we need to break the two-party monopoly and reform our system of elections to make them free, fair, honest and transparent.
When we win, that's a rather large action list for a two-year period before the next Congressional elections in 2010. So, that's plenty to agree on. Thus, even though the Greens and Libertarians might disagree on economics and health care and so many other things, it doesn't matter. The only thing the parties need to do is to agree that when they win they won't act unilaterally in these areas over the objections of their coalition partners.
The benefit is that we now get to run one and only opposition campaign for President. Now our votes are unified behind one candidate, while the pro-corporate votes are split. Remember, its a winner-take-all election, and this gives us our best chance of winning. And we have to win to break the locks on the system. We know neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are going to break their two-party lock on the system. We know neither will create elections that aren't decided by money. We know neither will introduce reforms like proportional representation and instant run-off voting.
Unless we can win, all of these blocks to democracy will remain. And we'll constantly be locked-out underdogs fighting from outside to try to change the system. And the only way we can win that fight is to win a winner-take-all election, then take power and introduce the real changes we need to occur.
Furthermore, this needs to happen not only at the Presidential level, but also at elections all the way down the line. We need to have single unity opposition candidates in every House and Senate race. And beyond that we need to be competing to take back our country at the state and local levels of government.
So, let the candidates campaign for awhile to determine who is the strongest candidate. But at some point, and I'd say not later than Labor Day, they need to settle that and unite behind whomever is the strongest candidate. This is the only way to really change this country. Anything less is failing the need to act effectively and rationally to return our country to be a land of the free governed by the people, of the people and for the people.
When we've taken back our country, and we've reformed our political system such that its a true democracy that represents the will of the people, then I'd be happy to see the Libertarians and the Greens and any others debate their ideas for the best policies of the nation. But for today, that's a hopeless act of pride and we need to unify to win and make the changes we know this land requires.
The key is that we need one unified opposition candidate. We work in a winner-take-all system. To try to run three separate campaigns and to split our time, our money and our resources between them is political suicide. It is letting pride get in the way of our chances at success.
We don't need symbolic campaigns. We need a serious effort to change the country. If we run symbolic campaigns, we are essentially abandoning our country to the less than gentile ministrations of the two parties who represent rule by the corporations, of the corporations, and for the corporations. This is destroying America for the rest of us, and we need a serious effort to end it. Not symbolic campaigns. If we run three separate campaigns, then we confirm the charges of the Democrats that we aren't serious and can't win.
OK, its not hard to see how Mr. Nader and Ms. McKinney could combine campaigns. Their positions are relatively close to each other. But sure its impossible for the Greens and the Libertarians to unite, isn't it?
Here's how its done. The groups all agree to agree on what they agree on. What is the result of that Yogi Berra-ish sentence? What do they agree on? They agree on ending the war. They agree on bringing our troops home? They believe further in a general change in foreign policy of being less militaristic and imperialistic. They agree that our current government is corrupt and in the hands of special interests. They agree on ending secret detentions and domestic spying and torture. They agree we need to break the two-party monopoly and reform our system of elections to make them free, fair, honest and transparent.
When we win, that's a rather large action list for a two-year period before the next Congressional elections in 2010. So, that's plenty to agree on. Thus, even though the Greens and Libertarians might disagree on economics and health care and so many other things, it doesn't matter. The only thing the parties need to do is to agree that when they win they won't act unilaterally in these areas over the objections of their coalition partners.
The benefit is that we now get to run one and only opposition campaign for President. Now our votes are unified behind one candidate, while the pro-corporate votes are split. Remember, its a winner-take-all election, and this gives us our best chance of winning. And we have to win to break the locks on the system. We know neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are going to break their two-party lock on the system. We know neither will create elections that aren't decided by money. We know neither will introduce reforms like proportional representation and instant run-off voting.
Unless we can win, all of these blocks to democracy will remain. And we'll constantly be locked-out underdogs fighting from outside to try to change the system. And the only way we can win that fight is to win a winner-take-all election, then take power and introduce the real changes we need to occur.
Furthermore, this needs to happen not only at the Presidential level, but also at elections all the way down the line. We need to have single unity opposition candidates in every House and Senate race. And beyond that we need to be competing to take back our country at the state and local levels of government.
So, let the candidates campaign for awhile to determine who is the strongest candidate. But at some point, and I'd say not later than Labor Day, they need to settle that and unite behind whomever is the strongest candidate. This is the only way to really change this country. Anything less is failing the need to act effectively and rationally to return our country to be a land of the free governed by the people, of the people and for the people.
When we've taken back our country, and we've reformed our political system such that its a true democracy that represents the will of the people, then I'd be happy to see the Libertarians and the Greens and any others debate their ideas for the best policies of the nation. But for today, that's a hopeless act of pride and we need to unify to win and make the changes we know this land requires.
Why do Democrats hate freedom?
Why did the Democrats just vote to help legalize President Bush's lawbreaking, and also to further strip away the rights and liberties of Americans? A website called maplight.org may be shedding some light on the question.
Telecom donations tied to FISA vote
" Maplight's analysis, crunched using contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics, found that the 293 House members voting last week in favor of the wiretapping compromise received, on average, more than double the amount of money as those who voted against it."
And, when I went to excellent website that Maplight.org has started, I dug a bit and created the table illustrated above. Now, one striking thing is the dates of the data in the table. They go back to 2001. But, when you look at the top three on the list, while Sen. McCain and Clinton had been in the US Senate that whole time, Sen. Obama has only been on the national stage for about half of that period. Yet, there he is very high up the list.
This vote was highly damaging in several ways. For one, it was the last step in essentially legalizing President Bush's illegal spying on Americans. Remember, President Bush initially stood up before the nation and announced both that he had already been breaking the law on a regular basis, but that he would continue to do so. In a nation of laws, that should have sparked immediate impeachment hearings. Instead, the Congress with full 'bipartisan' support has passed laws legalizing the unconstitutional spying on Americans. And now this bill goes further and gives immunity to the companies that knowingly collaborated in these illegal acts.
Furthermore, it blocks any attempt to find out the scope of the program or other information. The lawsuits that were progressing on this issue were the only real avenue of getting to that information given the inaction of the Democratic led Congress. This bill shuts those down.
Further, it establishes a very dangerous precedent in that the President can bypass everything you thought you knew about how a law was made in this country and just make up his own laws at any time. You know at some point in the future that advisors to a President are going to be discussing some future illegal act by a President and that this issue will come up in the discussion as an argument for the President to act illegally.
And, while the public debate has been over telecom immunity, this bill also contains a very dangerous expansion of the government's ability to spy on Americans.
Sen. Feingold will attempt to filibuster FISA bill
Even worse are the provisions of the bill that will make it very easy for the government to essentially suck up the communications, all communications of Americans that go overseas, whether it's an email or a text message or a phone call to a daughter, junior year abroad, or a child who's in Iraq or a reporter or a business associate. This is one of the greatest intrusions, potentially, on the rights of Americans protected under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution in the history of our country.
And gee, there's Sen. Obama with $200,000 plus in his campaign accounts from the industry he just said he supports giving immunity. Of course, like any politician he'll say that's not why he voted.
But, try going to visit Sen. Obama's office to discuss this issue with him? Give it a try. See how far you get. If you are really lucky and persistent, you might get a brief interview with staff who will listen to your pitch and then cite back the party line on why Sen. Obama just gave away the rights your forefathers died to obtain for you.
Wanna bet the executives of those telecom companies that have funneled so much money into Sen. Obama's coffers wouldn't have any trouble at all speaking to the Senator about this issue? Wanna bet their phone calls got returned by the Senator? Even if it is not as nefarious as buying votes, it is certainly buying access. Access that you as a citizen who is concerned about a government that is taking away your rights would never had is certainly granted to the big companies that funnel money to these politicians.
And, with Sen. Obama now foregoing public financing, what do you think the odds were that he was going to turn and bite the hand of an industry that's funded him so well and that he is surely counting on for more donations into the fall campaign?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Numbers and the mistake
OK, my background is mathematics and engineering. Sometimes I'm fascinated by the way numbers and statistics will help to illustrate or just plain see a pattern. Yeah, I know numbers and statistics can lie. But sometimes they can be very interesting.
Bill Quiqley, in a piece up on Znet gives numbers compiled by a magazine called Nuclear Resister on the number of anti-war arrests by year.
Since 2002, the NUCLEAR RESISTER has documented anti-war arrests for protestors each year:
2002 - 1800 arrests
2003 6072 arrests
2004 2440 arrests
2005 975 arrests
2006 950 arrests
2007 2272 arrests
2008 810 as of May 1
To me, this pattern, and the fact that the was is still continuing, shows the mistake the anti-war movement has made. One way to look at these numbers is to say that the number of CD arrests by antiwar protesters dropped at the time of the Kerry campaign in 2004. And they stayed down through the 2006 elections, only to start climbing afterwards.
The anti-war movement essentially committed itself to the Democratic Party over this time. They backed the Kerry campaign, didn't support an independent, and seemed to deliberately back off any independent action in that time. This seemed to both kill the momentum of the antiwar movement, and it silently delivered a message that working in politics to back Democrat was the answer.
The number stayed low through the 2006 election. Then it starts to rise again. And surely it starts to rise because the anti-war movement was figuring out that having the Democrats in power in Congress meant nothing to end the war because the Democratic leadership supports the war.
To me, the numbers after 2006 are encouraging. It shows a movement waking up from a delusion that the Democrats were the answer.
Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership is about to ensure passage of a war funding bill that fully funds the Iraq war into 2009 (at a cost of something like over a $160 billion). And they have taken any impeachment acts for lying the nation into war completely 'off the table'. Perhaps that was always a pun too since the mechanism to bury Rep. Kucinich impeachment resolutions is called 'tabling'.
Bill Quiqley, in a piece up on Znet gives numbers compiled by a magazine called Nuclear Resister on the number of anti-war arrests by year.
Since 2002, the NUCLEAR RESISTER has documented anti-war arrests for protestors each year:
2002 - 1800 arrests
2003 6072 arrests
2004 2440 arrests
2005 975 arrests
2006 950 arrests
2007 2272 arrests
2008 810 as of May 1
To me, this pattern, and the fact that the was is still continuing, shows the mistake the anti-war movement has made. One way to look at these numbers is to say that the number of CD arrests by antiwar protesters dropped at the time of the Kerry campaign in 2004. And they stayed down through the 2006 elections, only to start climbing afterwards.
The anti-war movement essentially committed itself to the Democratic Party over this time. They backed the Kerry campaign, didn't support an independent, and seemed to deliberately back off any independent action in that time. This seemed to both kill the momentum of the antiwar movement, and it silently delivered a message that working in politics to back Democrat was the answer.
The number stayed low through the 2006 election. Then it starts to rise again. And surely it starts to rise because the anti-war movement was figuring out that having the Democrats in power in Congress meant nothing to end the war because the Democratic leadership supports the war.
To me, the numbers after 2006 are encouraging. It shows a movement waking up from a delusion that the Democrats were the answer.
Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership is about to ensure passage of a war funding bill that fully funds the Iraq war into 2009 (at a cost of something like over a $160 billion). And they have taken any impeachment acts for lying the nation into war completely 'off the table'. Perhaps that was always a pun too since the mechanism to bury Rep. Kucinich impeachment resolutions is called 'tabling'.