HERE’S TO THE CRAZY ONES :
September 25th, 2008 12:11 pm
click link for video—> Here\'s to the crazy ones…
Posted in Uncategorized by admin
1 Comment
Your Safety is my No. 1 Concern
September 6th, 2008 7:04 am
Scariest Hospital Risks
Hospital Warning : Antibacterial Wipes Found to Spread Superbugs
Hospital Warning
Washington County Student Diagnosed With M.R.S.A :
WASHINGTON COUNTY STUDENT DIAGNOSED WITH MRSA
IN THE AGE OF SUPERBUGS : WHAT IS THE REMEDY ? ( from October, 2007 )IN THE AGE OF SUPERBUGS : WHAT IS THE REMEDY ? ( October 2007 )
Posted in Uncategorized by admin
2 Comments
HANNITY’S AMERICA
August 26th, 2008 11:02 am
Sean Hannity
HANNITY ON EMINENT DOMAIN
Our America,
Log in or register to commondreams.org
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Home
Headlines
Views
Newswire
RSS
About Us
Donate
Sign Up
Archives
E-mail this article
Printer-friendly
Share
Discuss
Home > Newswire
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 7, 2008
4:21 PM
CONTACT: Earthjustice
Ted Zukoski, Earthjustice, (303) 996-9622
Groups Challenge Federal Decision to Waste Natural Gas, Ignore Global Warming at Colorado Coal Mine
Agencies reject multi-million dollar chance to capture gas, protect climate
DENVER - October 7 - WildEarth Guardians and Earthjustice today called on federal agencies to withdraw a permit for a Western Colorado coal mine expansion that would waste massive amounts of methane and contribute to global warming.
Methane -- also known as natural gas -- is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, yet is also a valuable energy source.
"Not only is this a waste of valuable resources, it's worsening global warming," said Jeremy Nichols, Climate and Energy Program Director for WildEarth Guardians. "We aim to put an end to this needless waste and safeguard the climate."
In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Denver, WildEarth Guardians, represented by the public interest law firm Earthjustice, challenges the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Interior for ignoring global warming impacts of enlarging the West Elk coal mine. The lawsuit aims to overturn the decision authorizing the mine to expand and vent 7 million cubic feet of methane daily.
The Forest Service estimates that the amount of wasted methane would be enough to heat more than 34,000 homes for 12 years. Based on current natural gas prices, the methane's value would be approximately $21 million annually and more than $250 million over the life of the mine expansion.
"This is the ultimate hypocrisy," said Nichols. "While the Bush Administration is clamoring for more and more natural gas drilling in Colorado, they're authorizing a massive waste of this valuable resource."
The West Elk coal mine, near Paonia in Gunnison County, is operated by Mountain Coal Company, a subsidiary of Arch Coal, a multinational coal company based in St. Louis. Last July, the Forest Service and Interior Department permitted Arch Coal to expand the mine, drill 168 drainage wells to vent methane, and build nearly 23 miles of new roads on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison national forests.
Methane must be released from a coal seam before it can be safely mined. But rather than venting, the gas can be captured for use or, as a last resort, flared. These alternatives were not seriously reviewed by the agencies, yet a number of coal mines throughout the U.S., and even the world, are capturing methane and safely flaring. In August 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pointed out that the West Elk Mine was the fourth largest emitter of methane from an underground coal mine in the U.S. and one of only 12 mines in the country that does not capture vented methane for use.
The decision by the Forest Service and Interior Department comes at the heels of Gov. Bill Ritter's April 2008 executive order calling for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases below 2005 levels by 2020 and an 80 percent reduction by 2050. The agencies predict that the volume of wasted methane will increase Colorado's greenhouse gas pollution by more than 1 percent, defying Gov. Ritter's greenhouse gas reduction goals and putting the climate at increasing risk.
"The federal government is allowing this massive release of methane just as we're beginning to tackle climate change here in Colorado," said Ted Zukoski, the Earthjustice attorney who filed the suit on behalf of WildEarth Guardians. "It not only undercuts our governor, but undercuts progress toward meeting our greenhouse gas reduction goals."
Today's lawsuit charges the Forest Service and Department of the Interior for violating the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to even consider alternatives to methane venting and to account for the impacts of methane venting on global warming.
See the complaint here.
###
E-mail this article
Printer-friendly
Share
Discuss
Posted in Environment, Climate Change, Coal, Nature/Conservancy
1 Comment so far
Hide All
Comment viewing options
tmullins October 7th, 2008 5:41 pm
END MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL !
http://www.wisecountyissues.com
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Join the discussion:
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)
CommonDreams.org is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots activism organization, founded in 1997.
We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan organization.
About Us | Donate | Contact Us | Sign-Up | Archives
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
© Copyrighted 1997-2008
www.commondreams.org
Sarah Palin\'s dead lake…
Local Congressmen Defend Their Bailout Bill Votes - Tri-cities news.
Posted in Uncategorized by admin
No Comments
I still remember their banner exclaiming Holston Valley was a “THOMSON TOP 100 HOSPITAL”
July 29th, 2008 10:08 pm
Caring bridge.Quite different than the banner or their misleading advertising says they are.
Posted in Uncategorized by admin
2 Comments
M.R.S.A. (Methicillin-Resistant Staphlococcus Aureus)
June 4th, 2008 8:28 am
Superbug Infections Now Killing More Americans than AIDS
Posted in Uncategorized by admin
3 Comments
Insured or not, few are secure in US Health System
June 3rd, 2008 10:32 am
This is the so called acceptable standard of health care in America
Posted in Uncategorized by admin
No Comments
PSALM V
April 30th, 2008 2:31 pm
Posted in Uncategorized by admin
No Comments
” I KNEW I WAS GOING TO GET BETTER … “
April 20th, 2008 12:59 pm
Posted in Uncategorized by admin
No Comments
WELLMONT - Providing Exceptional Care For You !
April 12th, 2008 7:17 pm
Let’s see, better outcomes - not at all my experience with Wellmont from day 1.
Fewer complications - can’t remember that one either. Still have a hard time believing his stomach ended up about a foot from where it was supposed to be.
Less Post-Op bleeding - My father bled for fifteen hours at Wellmont Holston Valley Medical Center. When my mother severely cut her index finger to the bone I bypassed two Wellmont facilities. Went to Norton Community Hospital - they wanted to know why she had to wait 20 minutes to see a doctor !
Higher survival rates - My father survived ten months. He was a living dead man and was begging for a pistol to end his miserable existence.
Lower infection rates ? They sent him into this community so infected he was almost radioactive. MRSA and VRE. Yet we just can’t seem to figure out how people who have never been in a hospital or a nursing home and they have gotten MRSA.
Shorter stays ?
Wish even one of their accolades had happened, he walked into Wellmont Holston Valley Medical Center ( a top 100 hospital in America ) and came home on a gurney after they cut his legs off.
This is one of their misleading, fraudulent and false advertisements. This one has run a few times during the Super Bowl. It’s disgusting ! It’s dangerous for our public safety and health. Apparently and actually what you see here on my blog is ‘acceptable’ standards of care according to Virginia and Tennesee government agencies plus Wellmont’s definition of ‘acceptable’ standards of care.
click here for An actual Wellmont ad.
Posted in Uncategorized by admin
No Comments
Guess I am one of those misunderstood bitter people
April 12th, 2008 3:57 pm
I totally get what Obama is saying, he’s more in touch than anyone running for president.Why is it so difficult to unerstand why \’we\’ are frustrated and bitter ? Are we that afraid of hearing the truth ?
Posted in Uncategorized by admin
1 Comment
READ EEVERYTHING I AM THE UNAUTHORIZED ADMIN
BECAUSE I PROMOTE THE TRUTH.
A WEBSITE I CREATED WOULD NOT LET
ME POST MY REAL NAME WHY IS THAT?
Log in or register to commondreams.org
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Home
Headlines
Views
Newswire
RSS
About Us
Donate
Sign Up
Archives
E-mail this article
Printer-friendly
Share
Discuss
Home > Newswire
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 7, 2008
12:32 PM
CONTACT: The Wilderness Society
Nada Culver, 202-650-5818x117, nada_culver@tws.org
Chase Huntley, 202/429-7431, chase_huntley@tws.org
Drew Bush, 202/429-7441, drew_bush@tws.org
BLM Ignores Process, 2.5 Million Acres to Be Opened for Oil Shale Development
Public Denied Chance to Comment on 12 Resource Management Plans
WASHINGTON - October 7 - The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) undermined the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it decided to amend 12 land management plans for Colorado, Utah and Wyoming without providing an opportunity for the public to protest, The Wilderness Society charged in a letter sent today to the U.S. Department of the Interior. The plans were amended in particular to expedite the commercial development of oil shale in the Green River Basin of the three states.
"This administration willingly sacrificed good governance in favor of using their last days in office to fork more public lands over to the oil and gas industry," said Nada Culver, senior counsel for The Wilderness Society's (TWS) BLM Action Center. "In this case, the BLM denied the public its basic right to protest land management plans that could affect their ways of life. Unfortunately, this denial also violates federal law."
The letter says that the notice of availability issued when the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was published "makes it clear that there is no opportunity for continued public participation in the process" and asks "that the BLM withdraw the twelve amendments listed below until the agency has fully complied with applicable laws." The BLM also denied the governors of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah the opportunity to conduct formal consistency reviews with the policies and programs of their state, affecting air, water and wildlife, according to the letter.
When the Draft PEIS was issued earlier this year, it garnered nearly 105,000 comments during a 120 day period, many of which identified significant deficiencies-yet the BLM made no adjustments to the 12 amendments. Among the problems with the Draft PEIS were the inaccurate estimates of water available in the Colorado River Basin to support a commercial oil shale industry and the BLM's utter disregard for the potential global warming impacts of pursuing oil shale without significant additional research. Liquid fuels derived from oil shale, often called the dirtiest fuels on the planet, emit as much as 50 percent more global warming gases (GHG) than does conventional gasoline.
The California attorney general wrote in a letter to the BLM in March 2008: "In sum, the GHG emissions from oil shale and tar sands leasing on almost 2.5 million acres of federal land constitutes a significant cumulative impact on the environment. The available data (which was ignored by BLM) does not support the agency's conclusion that the project will not have a significant impact on climate change."
The letter charges that the BLM "has deprived the public of an opportunity to provide meaningful comment on the numerous areas included in the PEIS" including issues such as how the BLM measured the amended plans' impacts on the environment, how the decisions will affect use of our public lands and the logic of proceeding with a fuel that generates disproportionate amounts of global warming gas. The areas affected include 12 BLM jurisdictions in northwest Colorado, southwest Wyoming and northeast Utah.
"The administration should not be allowed to disenfranchise the public in their zealous pursuit of this misguided policy," said Chase Huntley, an energy policy advisor at TWS. "They're hurtling toward commercial oil shale development with blinders on, ignoring anyone or anything that might stand in the way. Unfortunately, they miss the most salient fact: The oil and gas industry has not yet successfully developed a commercial oil shale process that works safely and efficiently."
Oil shale is a sedimentary rock containing kerogen which, when heated to extreme temperatures, yields oil. On October 1, a spending limitation enacted by Congress to give the oil shale industry more time to conduct research and development on their privately owned lands and as part of BLM overseen program expired. The Bush administration has issued draft regulations for a commercial oil shale leasing program despite the fact that industry admits a viable oil shale technology remains years if not decades away.
###
E-mail this article
Printer-friendly
Share
Discuss
1 Comment so far
Hide All
Comment viewing options
Ryszard October 7th, 2008 7:20 pm
This was a scam 50 years ago, and it is still a scam now. No technology has been developed that can economically, or cleanly extract the slime from oil shale. And the oil extracted is toxic. Fifty years, guess things don't change, after all. Been there
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Join the discussion:
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)
CommonDreams.org is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots activism organization, founded in 1997.
We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan organization.
About Us | Donate | Contact Us | Sign-Up | Archives
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
© Copyrighted 1997-2008
www.commondreams.org
Log in or register to commondreams.org
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Home
Headlines
Views
Newswire
RSS
About Us
Donate
Sign Up
Archives
E-mail this article
Printer-friendly
Share
Discuss
Home > Newswire
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 7, 2008
12:32 PM
CONTACT: The Wilderness Society
Nada Culver, 202-650-5818x117, nada_culver@tws.org
Chase Huntley, 202/429-7431, chase_huntley@tws.org
Drew Bush, 202/429-7441, drew_bush@tws.org
BLM Ignores Process, 2.5 Million Acres to Be Opened for Oil Shale Development
Public Denied Chance to Comment on 12 Resource Management Plans
WASHINGTON - October 7 - The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) undermined the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it decided to amend 12 land management plans for Colorado, Utah and Wyoming without providing an opportunity for the public to protest, The Wilderness Society charged in a letter sent today to the U.S. Department of the Interior. The plans were amended in particular to expedite the commercial development of oil shale in the Green River Basin of the three states.
"This administration willingly sacrificed good governance in favor of using their last days in office to fork more public lands over to the oil and gas industry," said Nada Culver, senior counsel for The Wilderness Society's (TWS) BLM Action Center. "In this case, the BLM denied the public its basic right to protest land management plans that could affect their ways of life. Unfortunately, this denial also violates federal law."
The letter says that the notice of availability issued when the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was published "makes it clear that there is no opportunity for continued public participation in the process" and asks "that the BLM withdraw the twelve amendments listed below until the agency has fully complied with applicable laws." The BLM also denied the governors of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah the opportunity to conduct formal consistency reviews with the policies and programs of their state, affecting air, water and wildlife, according to the letter.
When the Draft PEIS was issued earlier this year, it garnered nearly 105,000 comments during a 120 day period, many of which identified significant deficiencies-yet the BLM made no adjustments to the 12 amendments. Among the problems with the Draft PEIS were the inaccurate estimates of water available in the Colorado River Basin to support a commercial oil shale industry and the BLM's utter disregard for the potential global warming impacts of pursuing oil shale without significant additional research. Liquid fuels derived from oil shale, often called the dirtiest fuels on the planet, emit as much as 50 percent more global warming gases (GHG) than does conventional gasoline.
The California attorney general wrote in a letter to the BLM in March 2008: "In sum, the GHG emissions from oil shale and tar sands leasing on almost 2.5 million acres of federal land constitutes a significant cumulative impact on the environment. The available data (which was ignored by BLM) does not support the agency's conclusion that the project will not have a significant impact on climate change."
The letter charges that the BLM "has deprived the public of an opportunity to provide meaningful comment on the numerous areas included in the PEIS" including issues such as how the BLM measured the amended plans' impacts on the environment, how the decisions will affect use of our public lands and the logic of proceeding with a fuel that generates disproportionate amounts of global warming gas. The areas affected include 12 BLM jurisdictions in northwest Colorado, southwest Wyoming and northeast Utah.
"The administration should not be allowed to disenfranchise the public in their zealous pursuit of this misguided policy," said Chase Huntley, an energy policy advisor at TWS. "They're hurtling toward commercial oil shale development with blinders on, ignoring anyone or anything that might stand in the way. Unfortunately, they miss the most salient fact: The oil and gas industry has not yet successfully developed a commercial oil shale process that works safely and efficiently."
Oil shale is a sedimentary rock containing kerogen which, when heated to extreme temperatures, yields oil. On October 1, a spending limitation enacted by Congress to give the oil shale industry more time to conduct research and development on their privately owned lands and as part of BLM overseen program expired. The Bush administration has issued draft regulations for a commercial oil shale leasing program despite the fact that industry admits a viable oil shale technology remains years if not decades away.
###
E-mail this article
Printer-friendly
Share
Discuss
1 Comment so far
Hide All
Comment viewing options
Ryszard October 7th, 2008 7:20 pm
This was a scam 50 years ago, and it is still a scam now. No technology has been developed that can economically, or cleanly extract the slime from oil shale. And the oil extracted is toxic. Fifty years, guess things don't change, after all. Been there
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Join the discussion:
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)
CommonDreams.org is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots activism organization, founded in 1997.
We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan organization.
About Us | Donate | Contact Us | Sign-Up | Archives
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
© Copyrighted 1997-2008
www.commondreams.org
Log in or register to commondreams.org
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Home
Headlines
Views
Newswire
RSS
About Us
Donate
Sign Up
Archives
E-mail this article
Printer-friendly
Share
Discuss
Home > Views
Published on Tuesday, October 7, 2008 by TomDispatch.com
Voting the Fate of the Nation
Will Economic Meltdown, Race, or Regional Loyalty Be the Trump Card in Election 2008?
by Chalmers Johnson
In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama called the forthcoming presidential election a "defining moment" in this country's history. It is conceivable that he is right. There are precedents in American history for an election inaugurating a period of reform and political realignment.
Such a development, however, is extremely rare and surrounded by contingencies normally beyond the control of the advocates of reform. So let me speculate about whether the 2008 election might set in motion a political reconfiguration -- and even a political renaissance -- in the United States, restoring a modicum of democracy to the country's political system, while ending our march toward imperialism, perpetual warfare, and bankruptcy that began with the Cold War.
The political blunders, serious mistakes, and governmental failures of the last eight years so discredited the administration of George W. Bush -- his average approval rating has fallen to 27% and some polls now show him dipping into the low twenties -- that his name was barely mentioned in the major speeches at the Republican convention. Even John McCain has chosen to run under the banner of "maverick" as a candidate of "change," despite the fact that his own party's misgoverning has elicited those demands for change.
Bringing the opposition party to power, however, is not in itself likely to restore the American republic to good working order. It is almost inconceivable that any president could stand up to the overwhelming pressures of the military-industrial complex, as well as the extra-constitutional powers of the 16 intelligence agencies that make up the U.S. Intelligence Community, and the entrenched interests they represent. The subversive influence of the imperial presidency (and vice presidency), the vast expansion of official secrecy and of the police and spying powers of the state, the institution of a second Defense Department in the form of the Department of Homeland Security, and the irrational commitments of American imperialism (761 active military bases in 151 foreign countries as of 2008) will not easily be rolled back by the normal workings of the political system.
For even a possibility of that occurring, the vote in November would have to result in a "realigning election," of which there have been only two during the past century -- the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 and of Richard Nixon in 1968. Until 1932, the Republicans had controlled the presidency for 56 of the previous 72 years, beginning with Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860. After 1932, the Democrats occupied the White House for 28 of the next 36 years.
The 1968 election saw the withdrawal of the candidacy of President Lyndon Johnson under the pressure of the Vietnam War, the defeat of his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, not to mention the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. That election, based on Nixon's so-called southern strategy, led to a new political alignment nationally, favoring the Republicans. The essence of that realignment lay in the running of Republican racists for office in the old Confederate states where the Democrats had long been the party of choice. Before 1968, the Democrats had also been the majority party nationally, winning seven of the previous nine presidential elections. The Republicans won seven of the next ten between 1968 and 2004.
Of these two realigning elections, the Roosevelt election is certainly the more important for our moment, ushering in as it did one of the few truly democratic periods in American political history. In his new book, Democracy Incorporated, Princeton political theorist Sheldon Wolin suggests the following: "Democracy is about the conditions that make it possible for ordinary people to better their lives by becoming political beings and by making power responsive to their hopes and needs."
However, the founders of this country and virtually all subsequent political leaders have been hostile to democracy in this sense. They favored checks and balances, republicanism, and rule by elites rather than rule by the common man or woman. Wolin writes, "The American political system was not born a democracy, but born with a bias against democracy. It was constructed by those who were either skeptical about democracy or hostile to it. Democratic advance proved to be slow, uphill, forever incomplete.
"The republic existed for three-quarters of a century before formal slavery was ended; another hundred years before black Americans were assured of their voting rights. Only in the twentieth century were women guaranteed the vote and trade unions the right to bargain collectively. In none of these instances has victory been complete: women still lack full equality, racism persists, and the destruction of the remnants of trade unions remains a goal of corporate strategies. Far from being innate, democracy in America has gone against the grain, against the very forms by which the political and economic power of the country has been and continues to be ordered."
Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal introduced a brief period of approximate democracy. This ended with the U.S. entry into World War II, when the New Deal was replaced by a wartime economy based on munitions manufacture and the support of weapons producers. This development had a powerful effect on the American political psyche, since only war production ultimately overcame the conditions of the Great Depression and restored full employment. Ever since that time, the United States has experimented with maintaining a military economy and a civilian economy simultaneously. Over time, this has had the effect of misallocating vital resources away from investment and consumption, while sapping the country's international competitiveness.
Socioeconomic conditions in 2008 bear a certain resemblance to those of 1932, making a realigning election conceivable. Unemployment in 1932 was a record 33%. In the fall of 2008, the rate is a much lower 6.1%, but other severe economic pressures abound. These include massive mortgage foreclosures, bank and investment house failures, rapid inflation in the prices of food and fuel, the failure of the health care system to deliver service to all citizens, a growing global-warming environmental catastrophe due to the over-consumption of fossil fuels, continuing costly military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, with more on the horizon due to foreign policy failures (in Georgia, Ukraine, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan, and elsewhere), and record-setting budgetary and trade deficits.
The question is: Can the electorate be mobilized, as in 1932, and will this indeed lead to a realigning election? The answer to neither question is an unambiguous yes.
The Race Factor
Even to contemplate that happening, of course, the Democratic Party first has to win the election -- and in smashing style -- and it faces two formidable obstacles to doing so: race and regionalism.
Although large numbers of white Democrats and independents have told pollsters that the race of a candidate is not a factor in how they will decide their vote, there is ample evidence that they are not telling the truth -- either to pollsters or, in many cases perhaps no less importantly, to themselves. Andrew Hacker, a political scientist at Queen's College, New York, has written strikingly on this subject, starting with the phenomenon known as the "Bradley Effect."
The term refers to Tom Bradley, a former black mayor of Los Angeles, who lost his 1982 bid to become governor of California, even though every poll in the state showed him leading his white opponent by substantial margins. Similar results appeared in 1989, when David Dinkins ran for mayor of New York City and Douglas Wilder sought election as governor of Virginia. Dinkins was ahead by 18 percentage points, but won by only two, and Wilder was leading by nine points, but squeaked through by only half a percent. Numerous other examples lead Hacker to offer this advice to Obama campaign offices: always subtract 7% from favorable poll results. That's the potential Bradley effect.
Meanwhile, the Karl Rove-trained Republican Party has been hard at work disenfranchising black voters. Although we are finally beyond property qualifications, written tests, and the poll tax, there are many new gimmicks. These include laws requiring voters to present official identity cards that include a photo, which, for all practical purposes, means either a driver's license or a passport. Many states drop men and women from the voting rolls who have been convicted of a felony but have fully completed their sentences, or require elaborate procedures for those who have been in prison -- where, Hacker points out, black men and women outnumber whites by nearly six to one -- to be reinstated. There are many other ways of disqualifying black voters, not the least of which is imprisonment itself. After all, the United States imprisons a greater proportion of its population than any other country on Earth, a burden that falls disproportionately on African Americans. Such obstacles can be overcome but they require heroic organizational efforts.
The Regional Factor
Regionalism is the other obvious obstacle standing in the way of attempts to mobilize the electorate on a national basis for a turning-point election. In their book, Divided America: The Ferocious Power Struggle in American Politics, the political scientists Earl and Merle Black argue that the U.S. electorate is hopelessly split. This division, which has become more entrenched with each passing year, is fundamentally ideological, but it is also rooted in ethnicity and manifests itself in an intense and never-ending partisanship. "In modern American politics," they write, "a Republican Party dominated by white Protestants faces a Democratic Party in which minorities plus non-Christian whites far outnumber white Protestants."
Another difference on the rise involves gender imbalance. In the 1950s, the Democratic Party, then by far the larger of the two parties, was evenly balanced between women and men. Fifty years later, a smaller but still potent Democratic Party contained far more women than men (60% to 40%). "In contrast, the Republican Party has shifted from an institution with more women than men in the 1950s (55% to 45%) to one in which men and women were as evenly balanced in 2004 as Democrats were in the 1950s."
Now, add in regionalism, specifically the old American antagonism between the two sides in the Civil War. That once meant southern Democrats versus northern Republicans. By the twenty-first century, however, that binary division had given way to something more complex -- "a new American regionalism, a pattern of conflict in which Democrats and Republicans each possess two regional strongholds and in which the Midwest, as the swing region, holds the balance of power in presidential elections."
The five regions Earl and Merle Black identify -- each becoming more partisan and less characteristic of the nation as a whole -- are the Northeast, South, Midwest, Mountains/Plains, and Pacific Coast. The Northeast, although declining slightly in population, has become unambiguously liberal Democratic. It is composed of New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), the Middle Atlantic states (Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania), and the District of Columbia. It is the primary Democratic stronghold.
The South is today a Republican stronghold made up of the eleven former Confederate states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia). A second Republican stronghold, displaying an intense and growing partisanship, is the Mountains/Plains region, composed of the 13 states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
A second Democratic stronghold is the Pacific Coast, which includes the nation's most populous state, California, joined by Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. The Midwest, where national elections are won or lost by the party able to hold onto, and mobilize, its strongholds, is composed of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The two most important swing states in the nation are Florida (27 electoral votes) and Ohio (20 electoral votes), which the Democrats narrowly lost, generally under contested circumstances, in both 2000 and 2004.
These five regions are today entrenched in the nation's psyche. Normally, they ensure very narrow victories by one party or another in national elections. There is no way to get around them, barring a clear and unmistakable performance failure by one of the parties -- as happened to the Republicans during the Great Depression and may be happening again.
Why This Might Still Be a Turning-Point Election
Beyond these negatives, in 2008 there have been a number of developments that speak to the possibility of a turning-point election. First, the weakness (and age) of the Republican candidate may perhaps indicate that the Party itself is truly at the end of a forty-year cycle of power. Second, of course, is the meltdown, even possibly implosion, of the U.S. economy on the Republican watch (specifically, on that of George W. Bush, the least popular President in memory, as measured by recent opinion polls). This has put states in the Midwest and elsewhere that Bush took in 2000 and 2004 into play.
Third, there has been a noticeable trend in shifting party affiliations in which the Democrats are gaining membership as the Republicans are losing it, especially in key battleground states like Pennsylvania where, in 2008 alone, 474,000 new names have gone on the Democratic rolls, according to the Washington Post, even as the Republicans have lost 38,000. Overall, since 2006, the Democrats have gained at least two million new members, while the Republicans have lost 344,000. According to the Gallup organization, self-identified Democrats outnumbered self-identified Republicans by a 37% to 28% margin this June, a gap which may only be widening.
Fourth, there is the possibility of a flood of new, especially young, first-time voters, who either screen calls or live on cell phones, not landlines, and so are being under-measured by pollsters, as black voters may also be in this election. (However, when it comes to the young vote, which has been ballyhooed in a number of recent elections without turning out to be significant on Election Day, we must be cautious.) And fifth, an influx of new Democratic voters in states like Virginia, Colorado, and New Mexico threatens, in this election at least, to dent somewhat the normal regional loyalty patterns described by Earl and Merle Black.
Above all, two main issues will determine whether or not the November election will be a realigning one. Republican Party failures in managing the economy, in involving the country in catastrophic wars of choice, and in ignoring such paramount issues as global warming all dictate a Democratic victory. Militating against that outcome is racist hostility, conscious or otherwise, toward the Democratic Party's candidate as well as deep-seated regional loyalties. While the crisis caused by the performance failures of the incumbent party seems to guarantee a realigning election favoring the Democrats, it is simply impossible to determine the degree to which race and regionalism may sway voters. The fate of the nation hangs in the balance.
Copyright 2008 Chalmers Johnson
Chalmers Johnson is the author of three linked books on the crises of American imperialism and militarism. They are Blowback (2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (2006). All are available in paperback from Metropolitan Books.
E-mail this article
Printer-friendly
Share
Discuss
Posted in Military Industrial Complex, Politics, Election 2008
142 Comments so far
Hide All
Comment viewing options
MikeCorbeil October 8th, 2008 5:42 am
"B October 8th, 2008 3:33 am
...
I despise such terms as "3rd party" because it is misleading. We don´t need a "3rd party". The issue is in no way about such.
We desperately must have a legitimate representative body before worse events unfold than should be imagined."
True and not true; while it's true that the U.S. needs "a legitimate representative body", it's false that this must happen "before worse events unfold". We don't need that sort of mild fearmongering in order to clearly and easily realize that we absolutely need "a legitimate representative body". After all, the whole of humanity needs "legitimate representative bodies", and Nature also needs for us to all have this order of human, political governance or govt of truly legitimate and, therefore, representative kind, [holistically] too. We need the holistic approach in order to avoid being partial, allowing individual and/or group biases corrupt govt once [again].
"3rd party" may possibly not be a wholly accurate reference, but I don't see anything really wrong with it when we all know that it's only to distinguish from the leading political parties, both of which are damn corrupt ... like [as hell], that is, hellishly liars, gangsters, terrorists, traitors, and ... etcetera. I'd much prefer to be called a "3rd party" or member of one, than I'd ever desire to be like the Dem. and Repub. Parties and most of their members or supporters have demonstrated of themselves and how they treat The People's govt, and not just the bureaucratic part, but in whole; in concept, and all other senses. SHIT, people get arrested, convicted and can serve prison sentences for lesser acts (or non-acts) of criminal negligence, and that's the best that can be said of supporters of hellishly corrupt, etcetera, Dem. and Repub. Parties (DP and RP).
After all, the voters of both parties continuously never learn, they continuously re=elect and elect candidates who are provably [unfit], including extremely, for serving in any public offices, much less (or worse) when considering the highest of the offices in the country.
As for "3rd party", it's nothing compared to referring to the USA as a [nation], f.e. The people who've supported candidates not running for either the DP or RP haven't had any problems with "3rd party"-labeling; their only problem being the rest of the country's voters remaining hellishly, maccabrely lemming, ongoingly electing and re-electing criminals, charlatans, ... and traitors to the public offices of the USA.
And I came across an interesting compilation of videos, a 25-part series, yesterday.
"How the 9/11 Commission Got it Wrong
an Introduction to 9/11 Skepticism on YouTube",
posted by Reprehensor, Feb 23 2008,
http://911blogger.com/node/14030
That is based on the July 22 2005 hearings of the (I believe) U.S. House on the results of the 9-11 Commission, and with an apparently strong presentation by then Rep. Cynthia McKinney. Invited speakers include Lorie Van Auken of the famous 'Jersey Girls', other members of 9-11 Families, former (and perhaps some currently active) U.S. govt intelligence people, like Mel Goodman, Bill Christison and Ray McGovern, f.e., and plenty of others who qualified to speak at this hearing; a hearing that's evidently been treat very much like "msm" "news" media did with Winter Soldiers in March 2008, the four days of their testimonies, which the U.S. or simply West's "news" media preferred to ignore and help to keep readers ignorant of, instead focusing on the US-backed violence that occurred in Tibet over the ... interestingly ... same days of March. That is, both were extremely underreported and maybe much of this was outright censorship.
I haven't viewed the videos yet, for am only on dial-up connection; but am looking forward to viewing all 25.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Norman Conquest October 8th, 2008 2:48 am
You'd think Chalmers Johnson would at least be able to see the forest for the trees. Who can remember the last democratic election in this country? Ask yourself: how did we end up with these two bozos as the choice? Take your pick, the new face or the same old bloated white face of Fascism. In the end the corporations win either way. And the People, whether it's Marat or Joe Sixpack, can only do what they have been programmed to do: lose and blame somebody else for their loss.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
B October 8th, 2008 3:14 am
Touché!!!
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
HP October 8th, 2008 1:46 am
Been real busy working on the elections in Canada. Wow the closed system as I call it America has. In Canada the candidates are on the chopping block night after night. I have gone to the mic and asked real tough questions that got lots of support by the people there. It make US politics look so controled and so limp.
In Parliament everyone for the Prime miniter to anyone who is elected has to answer question DAILY from the opposition. These are wide open questions that get just wild and are shown on TV for all to see. I wish the US had the same so these so called Democrate could be exposed for what they are.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
ShadowDancer October 7th, 2008 10:58 pm
And somewhere on a Reservation or in a city or town an Indian gave a shrug of the shoulders.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
mschlee October 7th, 2008 8:33 pm
The likelihood that the US could collapse into civil war and we could all die of starvation or at the hands of an invading army has sure as fuck got MY attention.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
drmhed08 October 7th, 2008 11:24 pm
Maybe I'm way off base, (at least I hope I am). But, I have a very strong feeling that there isn't going to be an election for us to "exercise our vote". With Presidential Directive 51 in place, the Army brigade for quelling domestic disturbances in place....plus, think about it...do you really think cheney, bush, and all the other psycho neocons are just going to quietly pack up and walk away in January....leave their insane agenda behind...REALLY?! Either some sort of terrorist attack will take place, ("gee whiz, we never saw it coming!"), and/or the economy will worsen even more, and bush will declare marshall law, (they already threatened to over the bail-out vote). This will happen either right before the election, or after the election, before the new president can take office....whoever that might be...and ESPECIALLY if it might be Obama, (even though he isn't exactly free of the grease from the 'machine'.)
Like I said...hope I'm wrong...:o\
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Fossil Fooled October 7th, 2008 8:02 pm
OPEN THE DEBATES:
Here's what you can do:
Write a letter to the editor about how important it is for Cynthia and Rosa to participate in the debates. See the Talking Points below for ideas. Keep the letter short and focused -- five or six sentences is good. We're aiming for 100 letters sent by Greens to newspapers and news web sites all across the US. Visit the letter-writing page to look up a newspaper and post a letter -- use the provided text as a basis, or write your own:
http://www.democracyinaction.com/dia/organizationsCOM/Greens/pickMedia.j...
Go viral! Forward links to video clips of the Green ticket widely (http://www.youtube.com/user/RunCynthiaRun).
Recommend and promote video clips and articles with positive coverage of Green candidates by 'Digging' them (http://digg.com/).
Promote the McKinney-Clemente Power to the People campaign on Facebook, Myspace, and blogs. Don't forget to add links to these important web sites:
http://votetruth08.com/
http://www.rosaclemente.com/
http://www.gp.org/
State and local Green Party and other Green campaign sites
Host a Debate-Watching House Party:
http://www.democracyinaction.com/dia/
organizationsCOM/Greens/event/distributedEventSignup.jsp?distributed_event_KEY=179
Contact TV, radio, blog sites, and urge them to cover the campaign. We'll provide a list soon of the top 50 that should be targeted, with their contact information.
Other actions: write an op-ed column or article and submit it to a newspaper or news web site. Post a message on an e-mail bulletin board. Call in to a radio talk show.
Make a donation to the McKinney-Clemente campaign to help the candidates travel around the US for media appearances and campaign events:
http://votetruth08.com/index.php/contribute/donate?task=pre_paypal
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Brian Brademeyer October 7th, 2008 8:00 pm
Only Nixon could go to China.
Only the Democrats can privatize Social Security.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
madcow October 7th, 2008 8:05 pm
Only Republicans can bring us fascism.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Brian Brademeyer October 7th, 2008 11:06 pm
You fail to see below the surface.
Only Libertarians can bring us fascism.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
tazabeau October 7th, 2008 10:57 pm
Maybe we should start selling off our stuff and prepare to move to another country. This one looks like its falling apart. ;-(
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
John F. Butterfield October 7th, 2008 6:24 pm
Democrats an opposition party?
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Samson October 7th, 2008 6:15 pm
To me, the only way this election might a moment of change in America is if Obama turns out to be America's Gorbachov.
Gorbachov (and I'm almost certainly mis-spelling that) was a party hack who used messages of change and openness (Glasnost and peristroika if I remember correctly) to rise to power in the Soviet Union.
Then, when he tried to move slightly in that direction, he ended up opening the flood gates of change that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. That certainly was not Gorbachov's intentions. It just that he committed himself to that course and then it got way out of his control.
So, could Obama do the same? Could his talk about 'change' lead to some small efforts at change, which might then end up mobilizing and enthusing the American people for real change?
I'm doubtful right now. Mainly because Obama is showing that his talk about 'change' is all hot air and BS. He just had the ideal opportunity to put it to the test with the $800 billion theft of last week ('theft' is a better name than 'bailout'). Obama showed clearly that he has no interest in change. If he did, that would have been the perfect moment, with some 75% of the American people opposing that 'theft'. To win the election easily and in a landslide, all Obama had to do was to commit himself to that sort of change. But he wouldn't.
To me, that's the very best anyone could hope for form Obama. That maybe he might try some small 'changes' that make the people demand more. And eventually he might have the same result as Gorbachov did in the old SU. But, since Obama clearly comes down against 'change' when the opportunity presents itself, it seems doubtful that he'd do this.
---------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
weatherly October 7th, 2008 3:30 pm
The only thing that makes this presidential election a "defining moment" in our history is that it will mark the ascendency of oligarchic rule over our country when it slipped into the event horizon of fascism on 9/11.
Take your pick, but the ObamcCain candidacy that most people credulously perceive as representing a "choice" in the November polls is the option between a half crazed fascist and the purer dyed-in-the-wool variety.
How pathetic.
The "Democratic" "Party" has long since demonstrated why it has become the scourge of American democracy. Bipartisan rule and the jack-asses who support it are as much to blame as the Republicans for this predicament.
What chance would the readers of CommonDemocraticPartyDreams.org give for martial law by election day? Or, before the next inauguration?
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
carpeveritas October 7th, 2008 8:30 pm
This really is a response to all of you and the excellent article the professor has written. I am a registered Green, love Cynthia and Kucinich and would like nothing more to see them in office. I think we all agree that we live under one party rule with a faction of the fascist right and your classic everyday old school Republican on the left, as I tell my friends, if Obama gets elected, he will be the 2nd best Republican president we have ever had, but I digress, we have a poorly functioning electoral system coupled with election fraud. Lots of hurdles for Obama to overcome not to mention a Green candidate. I used to think like the majority of you that, regardless, I'm sticking to my principles, and I will vote for Cynthia; however, when Stalin Palin got on the ticket, that did it for me. On the Republican fascist side, we have two very insane people who are willing to push the button without reservation for different reasons - McNasty loves war and wants to be ruler of the earth and Falin would like to bring about the 2nd coming and convert everyone to Christianity.
Whatever Obama's faults and sellout positions, I don't believe he is a rash person, I can't imagine him causing and bringing about WWIII, but I can with the other party in place. As the professor said, if we are mindful and push Obama on issues, we can effect change. If you choose, in a swing state, to vote for Green or another independent candidate, you are putting this country in peril. For me and I hope you too will see that this vote is about life or death, saving the earth or killing it, moving towards peace or more war, moving towards liberty and reclaiming freedoms or moving towards a darker and a more repressed fascist state. Vote Obama for Moving Towards Change.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Samson October 7th, 2008 6:52 pm
Zero ... or at least zero chance of anything related to the election. A massive economic collapse might cause it for other reasons.
But, I keep hearing this idea that the Republicans would do this to stay in power. That ignores the fundamental realities of power in this country. The Republicans don't hold power any more than the Democrats do in Congress or will in the White House. The real power is the money behind the scenes that pulls the strings of the public politicians we see on the stage.
And, that real power is perfectly happy with an Obama presidency. That is obvious. There's $450 million plus in Obama's totals for fundraising in this election. That didn't all come from $20 from college kids. A lot of it is big donations from big money and corporate America. And they ain't giving that to someone who they would then block from power with martial law.
By comparision, McCain is running his campaign from public financing. One thing that is very clear is that the big money moved from Republicans to Democrats in this election.
And of course, the Democrats have shown they are completely subservient to the real power anyways. Again, last week's theft of $800 billion and the support that Obama and the Democrats gave to that effort shows this.
So, there is no chance at all of martial law in order to stop the election or to stop Obama taking power. If the Republicans were to try it, the real power behind the scenes would stop them fast. Because such a declaration of martial law would reveal that the illusions of democracy in this country are just that. It would risk causing an uprising from the American people.
Why take that risk when the real power in the country is supporting Obama and the Democrats and is perfectly happy with them taking power? And they certainly aren't under any delusions that Obama would bring any real changes that would help the people at the expense of the ones holding the real power.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
lynne October 7th, 2008 3:03 pm
I have a friend who I believe is clearly racist. She claims to be a Democrat, but watches Fox News all the time (and quotes them all the time). She will take ANY smear against Obama and run with it. She is convinced he is a Muslim and is completely concerned about the Reverend Wright thing. John McCain could do just about anything and she would NEVER rail about him like she rails about Obama. I wish she would just vote for McCain and shut up instead of saying she is a Democrat and looking for anything to give her an excuse not to vote for Obama. But I feel the REAL reason she does NOT want to vote for Obama is because he is black. If I ever were to say this to her, she would deny it strongly I am sure.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
NYCartist October 7th, 2008 6:30 pm
If it will make you feel better, say it. Ask her what would be wrong if he were a Muslim which he's not?
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
chessgames56 October 7th, 2008 6:10 pm
Ha, ha, if she watches fox news and takes it seriously, while claiming to be a democrat, she's probably a 'closet republican' like Lieberman! As for Obama's race: if there was a fire would you care about the color of the man bringing the water to put it out? The problem is that Obama does not have the 'water.'
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
atheist October 7th, 2008 3:26 pm
That's interesting. What you are saying is that no matter what anyone says, if they don't vote for Obama then they are racist. Even if they deny it. How presumptive of you.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Erroll October 7th, 2008 3:57 pm
athiest
If you notice, madcow wishes to reassure Common Dreams readers that "I'm only observing a FEW [his caps] comments that seem to be tinged at racism" at 3:40 pm despite the fact that he originally said at his comments at 3:18 pm that "many anti-Obama comments that have that weird racist tinge to them." It would appear that after you called him on his statement is when he decided to back off his claim that those people or, as he wrote, "many anti-Obama comments that have that weird racist tinge to them", which helps to give the impression that anyone who dares to criticize Obama must then be racist.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
madcow October 7th, 2008 5:03 pm
Thanks Erroll. Notice the retraction below, where I admitted I should have written "few" and not "many". I wish we could all be perfect and never make mistakes like you. Some of us, at least, don't have a problem admitting when we over-state things.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
atheist October 7th, 2008 6:09 pm
You didn't just overstate, you trivialized millions of voters' sound reasoning for not wanting to vote for Obama.
This reminds me of all of the people (all men come to think of it) who have responded to my complaints about beauty pageants with the classic "You're just jealous", as if I couldn't possibly have a legitimate reason to think pageants are detrimental to women or to our society.
I've voted for plenty of black candidates and would love to see a black President, but not Obama. I wouldn't want to see Marion Berry or Alan Keyes or Jesse Jackson as President either. Now Condi Rice, I could see her as President.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
madcow October 7th, 2008 7:30 pm
"you trivialized millions of voters' sound reasoning for not wanting to vote for Obama"
Come on! You want to tell me there's no racism in anyone not wanting to vote for Obama.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
NYCartist October 7th, 2008 6:33 pm
Are you a woman? Why Condi Rice?
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
madcow October 7th, 2008 3:18 pm
Thanks for sharing that lynne. I've noticed many anti-Obama comments here that have that weird racist tinge to them. People don't always realize they can be driven by something that they think is abhorrent. They believe they could never harbor racist feelings, while underneath it's there and driving them.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
tetti_tatti October 8th, 2008 2:24 am
My anti-Obama posts have nothing to do with his race, just to clarify. I know you're not singling me out. I'm a Nader supporter, but also support and admire McKinney.
The arguments I use against Obama are the same ones I used against Hillary during the primaries, or John Kerry in 2004, they also had nothing to do with their races.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
KDelphi October 7th, 2008 5:31 pm
Some racial fellings (I dont know how else to put it) are natural. Especially if you didnt grow up in a diverse community. Unless someone is a die-hard racist, I find that taht lifts, once they start to feel more comfortable.
Its like a kid who goes to an all male (or all female) prep school. When they first get around the opposite sex, they are usually nervous as hell. It is just a matter of familiarity.
Of course, there are true racists. But, to call people that, when they feel assuredly that they are not,. is insulting and wins you NO VOTES!
I'm not entirely sure that I buy the "Buckley effect". People were decrying the polls in W. Virginia and KY., saying that 20% of people in these mostly white, poor states, said that "race could be a factor". I think the contrary. That meant that 80% do not think that it is a factor (even if you assume a few are lying--why in KY and VA>???). Along with 96% of the Af. Am. vote, I would think that Af. Am. community leaders would be happy with the decrease in racism. After all, a "Af Am. is nominated for president , people!
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Hank Fur October 7th, 2008 3:43 pm
Would you - or anyone - care to offer some examples? I have not seen anything of the sort here.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
madcow October 7th, 2008 5:11 pm
I remember someone mentioning something about Obama's deep baritone voice in a derogatory way, that sort of had that racist tinge---for me anyway. What difference does his voice make to anything?
For example.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
KDelphi October 7th, 2008 5:21 pm
That is ridiculous. A "baritone voice"? The other day, someone here said, "We could never have high speed transit, cause whites dont want to ride trains with blakc.." What a bunch of bullshit!!
They also said that, Chris Hedges was referring to Obama being "Muslam when he said he stuck a knife in the back of the poor"! C'mon people!! Yeah, Hedges is being a little melodramatic, but, blaming every thing, every vote you lose on race---well, that is just race baiting.
It is divisive, and does not help.I dont know if the person is racist. A racist is not exactly a vote Obama is counting on, is it?
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
atheist October 7th, 2008 3:28 pm
You too. You think that if someone doesn't like Obama it must be because he's (half) black. This is a riduculously narrow and presumptive way of thinking. What if Marion Berry were running for President ? Or Alan Keyes ? If someone didn't like either one of them, would it be simply because they are black ? Or might there be some substantive and legitimate reasons for a person to not like these two guys ? If the latter, then why can't you accept this with Obama ? Maybe because YOU like Obama and you have a hard time understanding why someone else doesn't ? That's YOUR problem, not theirs.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
madcow October 7th, 2008 3:42 pm
No, I'm not saying anything close to that. There are plenty of reason to not like Obama that have nothing to do with race, or racism. I'm only observing that I've noticed a FEW comments that seem to be tinged with racism.
I shouldn't have said "many", in my first post--my bad.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Hank Fur October 7th, 2008 4:49 pm
Give some examples madcow. Inquiring minds want to know!
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
outsidethebox October 7th, 2008 2:14 pm
And what will happen when enough people stand up for themselves and vote NEITHER Republican or Democrat?
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
atheist October 7th, 2008 3:29 pm
We'll finally have the change we were looking for.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
NYCartist October 7th, 2008 2:16 pm
they'll be lonely. They may feel righteous, but they'll be lonely.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Erroll October 7th, 2008 2:23 pm
NYCartist
But they will also be secure in the knowledge that they did not cast their vote for an overt warmonger like McCain or a more insidious warmonger like Obama.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
KDelphi October 7th, 2008 5:32 pm
That is racist. (I'm being sarcastic)
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
NYCartist October 7th, 2008 2:25 pm
Reread what you wrote. What administration will they be living under while "secure in their knowledge"? Fat solace.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Erroll October 7th, 2008 2:58 pm
NYCartist
You seem to be somehow missing the point. If people vote for a third party or an independent candidate, it would then mean that they did not help elect, if they become president, either Obama and McCain, both of whom, as I wrote in my earlier comment, are laying great emphasis upon using military force in order to [allegedly] solve problems which are in actuality aimed to further the use of American imperialism.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Samson October 7th, 2008 7:13 pm
A) I won't have blood on my hands.
B) I'll be voting to build a better and just country for the future.
and
C) Who says there will be that big of a difference? This is the myth the Democrats constantly promote. That somehow Obama is better than McCain.
Just on the recent example, was Obama better than McCain on the $800 billion theft of our money last week?
Especially noteable was that the core of the opposition to that theft came from Republicans, while the Democrats mostly just kow-towed to Wall Street and gave them what they wanted.
Add to that Iraq where Bush is negotiating a withdrawal plan that will get us out quicker than anything Obama has proposed.
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Republicans. But its starting to be distinctly noticeable that the Democrats have gotten so incredibly awful that they are in places starting to be worse than the Republicans! Never thought I'd see that.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
madcow October 7th, 2008 2:13 pm
"Overall, since 2006, the Democrats have gained at least two million new members, while the Republicans have lost 344,000."
These former Republicans are to the right of most progressives. This means the Democratic party is becoming more right-wing. It's a result of having an extreme right-wing President in office these last eight years. We can start moving the party, and the country back to the left if we elect a Democrat. Progressives may be able to grow the Green party if a Democrat is in the White House.
There's a reason why Obama moved right---that's where the votes are. Progressives are a little minority in America today, and getting smaller every day. If you want to get big---vote Obama!
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
RichM October 7th, 2008 2:39 pm
Ridiculous & self-contradictory. Madcow admits Obama has "moved right" & that "the Democratic party is becoming more right-wing." Yet in the very next breath she asserts that by voting for these right-wing clowns, "We can start moving the party, and the country back to the left."
I'd be amused to hear your attempt to explain the mechanics of these non sequiturs. In particular, how exactly is a Democratic White House supposed to "grow the Green party"? Are you under the illusion that the Dem Party has some sort of secret fondness for Greens?
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
madcow October 7th, 2008 2:52 pm
It's called incremental change my friend. It happens slowly over a long period of time. Just like it's been happening with the right since 1980. That's 28 years to get here, on the brink of fascism.
Zinn said it best:
"I think voters should vote for Obama, not because he goes as far as needs to be gone, but because with Obama there is sort of a chance of a movement away from our present situation. Whereas with McCain, he is stuck in the Bush philosophy. With Obama there’s sort of little glimmers of possibility. Our big job is not just to vote for Obama so that there is a possibility, but to turn that possibility into a reality by creating a social movement in this country which Obama will have to pay attention to — because that, ultimately, is what brings about change. The President or Congress have never initiated important change. No, what’s needed is a social movement such as we had in the labor movements of the 1930s, the black movement, the anti-war movement, womens’ movement of the ’60s, a new social movement in this country which will shake up Obama and his conservative cabinets and move them in bolder directions just as the agitators of the ’30s moved FDR in a bolder direction."
I know you don't want to hear this again because it defeats everything you've been arguing about. This is a solution. Something you apparently don't believe in.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Ted Markow October 7th, 2008 11:20 pm
"I know you don't want to hear this again because it defeats everything you've been arguing about. This is a solution. Something you apparently don't believe in."
madcow,
I'm going to vote for Obama, but in no way do I believe either my vote or his presidency will be a solution. A vote for Obama is merely the better of two bad roads.
You know, after just sitting through an hour and a half of the second presidential debate, it reinforced to me just how vacuous this whole election crap is. It is pure kabuki theater! Neither candidate and neither party is being bold and honest.
So, while I feel Obama is the better choice of the two who have a chance of being president, I don't believe for a New York minute that he will be able to make radical changes, even during this time of radical problems. I'm afraid that the people have run out of time outs and lifelines - we are truly on or own.
Very tough times lie right ahead. I don't want to make them any tougher than they surely will be.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Samson October 7th, 2008 7:22 pm
Precisely, what incremental change are you talking about? Give specifics.
On the bailout\theft of last week, you had exactly the same position from Obama and McCain. This is very typical of their economic policies. Its hard to think of any case where Obama is really any better. I don't know of any incremental changes that Obama is proposing.
Likewise on foreign policy. Obama is promoting and continuing the same wars. He wants to keep troops in Iraq throughout his term, while Bush is negotiating a withdrawal by 2011. Obama wants wars in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan just like Bush and the Republicans. Again, exactly what incremental changes is Obama proposing.
This is typical from Obama supporters. There are these blind assertions that Obama is better. But they are never supported. And nothing Obama is saying gives anyone any reason to believe that he proposes any incremental changes in the right directionn of all.
Obama is not a progressive. Never has been. If Obama was really proposing progressive changes, I might believe this and support madcow's argument. But its a total fantasy.
Last week's vote on the $800 billion theft is telling. It shows you the real choices in this election. Obama and McCain were exactly the same, and both were happy to steal $800 billion out of the public treasuries.
You can vote to support that. Or you can vote in opposition to that by voting Nader, McKinney or Barr. The choices are very clear.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Samson October 7th, 2008 7:16 pm
For me, electing a Dem president will likely make things worse.
What you see with a Dem president is a lot of Dem members of Congress voting for whatever the President wants (ie, just like Republicans in yet another way).
This creates some really nasty dynamics in Congress. Because now you have the same pro-war, pro-corporate agenda being pushed by a Dem president and with large amounts of Dem support in Congress.
We saw this in the 90's with Bill Clinton. He was able to pass bills that the Republicans couldn't dream of under Reagan\Bush precisely because of this sort of dynamic.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
RichM October 7th, 2008 5:41 pm
Hey Madcow, if you're still around -
Zinn is basically saying that building a new social movement -- one with values like welshTerrier2 described in his post above -- is the MAIN THING. Zinn only mentioned the idea of voting for Obama because he suspects the D's would be a bit less ferociously repressive than the R's. So they might permit an atmosphere in which the movement would have a better chance of getting off the ground.
IN CONTRAST, your position is all about encouraging childish silly illusions in Democrats. You make silly claims, such as "Obama will be a transformational leader. Obama will stop the war. Obama will give progressives a seat at the table." etc etc. // Zinn has no such illusions.
So you see, even though you quote Zinn, & pretend to admire his wisdom, you actually don't understand what he's saying. And your position is really nothing like his.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
madcow October 7th, 2008 7:45 pm
You guys crack me up. You're so desperate to hold on to the notion that one should "never vote for Obama" that when one of your heroes comes out and says:
"I think voters should vote for Obama, not because he goes as far as needs to be gone, but because with Obama there is sort of a chance of a movement away from our present situation. "
you twist and turn his words to mean something else entirely. What did Zinn say? "I think voters should vote for Obama..." Hello, do you see those words looking back at you from your computers?
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
RichM October 7th, 2008 4:06 pm
"...I know you don't want to hear this again because it defeats everything you've been arguing about..."
- You don't really understand the quote. You like it only because it tells people to vote for Obama. But Zinn also says that the difference between Obama & McCain is small ("With Obama there’s sort of little glimmers of possibility" -- hardly a strong "endorsement"). And he says that what we really need is "... a social movement such as we had in the labor movements of the 1930s..."
In other words, Zinn is saying that without that "movement" he speaks of, nothing constructive is going to happen. (You are aware, aren't you, that Zinn is neither a Democrat, nor a supporter of the 2-party system? Why do you suppose that is?)
If Obama wins, do you suppose there is going to be a social movement "such as we had in the labor movements of the 1930s"? Where will it come from? Do you intend to take an active part of it? Do you think it's more likely that such a movement will emerge, or that people will simply go on watching television, then voting for R's & D's once every few years? My bet would be on the latter. Without any meaningful breakthrough in political consciousness, most people will simply follow the culturally conventional path. With no serious challenge to the 2-party tyranny, nothing is going to change.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
madcow October 7th, 2008 5:35 pm
Of course I believe a social movement is possible. There are things happening NOW that have never happened before in this country. The internet alone is huge. Never seen before. The internet could someday supplant the TV as the number one source of information. Information is power.
I don't think you really understand the quote. He's saying that with Obama there's a CHANCE to advance---WITH enough people to push for a change. Without that "glimmer" it's more of the same. And the effect of a Palin in power could advance all the regressive aspects of our culture---the narrow-minded religious fanatics on the rise. She has the charisma and the ambition to lead us into a new fascism.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
RichM October 7th, 2008 5:47 pm
You're the one who doesn't understand the quote. See my 5:41 post just below.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
KDelphi October 7th, 2008 5:39 pm
Knowledge is NOT power, if you continue to vote the same way, rationalize all you hear, etc.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Thomas More October 7th, 2008 4:56 pm
I believe we are going to have a movement no matter which one wins. I simply believe that the only ones happy about things now are the Neocons and their Wall Street buddies that are profiting from this and the folks that hate America.
Left, Right, Center, all these non extremists which is about 90% of the population is not happy with the way the country has been led or where it is. I believe they are getting ready to do something about it. And I believe it will start at the local level. A Reformation if you will.
I believe for the first time in my life it would be possible for the formation of a real Third Party. As bad as everything is, I think it will produce a better country. Leadership is what is needed, now there's the real problem.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
welshTerrier2 October 7th, 2008 5:25 pm
"... about 90% of the population is not happy with the way the country has been led or where it is. I believe they are getting ready to do something about it."
Oh, t'were it so ... but it isn't.
The great "doing something about it" is to ping-pong from the Republicans to the Democrats. Tens of millions don't vote at all. Most of those who do are convinced "the other guys will get us out of this mess and they sure couldn't do any worse." That's not a citizenry on the brink of a movement; that's the kind of non-involvement that makes change, real change, impossible.
Many on the left shout the mantra that, when things get bad enough, the people will join us and demand change. The danger is that the kinds of changes they'll ask for will NOT be the kinds of changes we really need.
Take one of many recent examples. Gas prices sky-rocketed. There was huge political pressure on the Democrats to support offshore drilling for oil. "Tree hugger" environmental concerns were all warm and fuzzy when oil was cheap, but now, the environment be damned!!
What human emotion lies at the core of Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine"? FEAR.
Be cautious about believing that a collapse of the US will bring the masses into the streets demanding progressive changes. Klein's model is that desperation makes the masses more pliable to the will of the powers that be.
Until we are able to educate the American people about our values and how we would implement laws and policies consistent with those values, the kinds of changes most of us hope for are nowhere on the horizon. Too many on the left have disdain for the American people and thus have no chance of educating or influencing them. Too many believe that pointing out the horrors of capitalism is sufficient but fail to coherently make the case for something different.
The left has been lazy and disorganized and alienated and ineffective. Some of that is beyond our control. Sadly, some of it is that we don't clearly understand what our strategy should be. We need to move beyond the hatred and the ugliness and the alienation and the rhetoric and find a way to communicate with those we hope will join us.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Thomas More October 7th, 2008 6:28 pm
I do believe we are at the crossroads. I do believe that Americans are about to do something over the next 4 years.
I don't think for a minute the streets are going to fill and there would ever be a "revolution" here. Dreamworld stuff.
"Too many on the left have disdain for the American people and thus have no chance of educating or influencing them. Too many believe that pointing out the horrors of capitalism is sufficient but fail to coherently make the case for something different.
The left has been lazy and disorganized and alienated and ineffective. Some of that is beyond our control. Sadly, some of it is that we don't clearly understand what our strategy should be. We need to move beyond the hatred and the ugliness and the alienation and the rhetoric and find a way to communicate with those we hope will join us."
I'm glad you said that, true as it is, when I suggest things like that people throw rocks. Far too many on the left have disdain for the American people and I'm damned as to where they found their superioritity.
"We need to move beyond the hatred and the ugliness and the alienation and the rhetoric and find a way to communicate with those we hope will join us."
Well put. And a good start would be to do away with the intolerance and the absolute insistence there is only one way.
"Tree hugger" environmental concerns were all warm and fuzzy when oil was cheap, but now, the environment be damned!!
I think this is a great example. Anyone knows we are going to have off shore drilling and nuculear plants. Rather than follow the old model of "Never" perhaps it would be a good idea to work towards controlling it, keeping it down as much as possible, getting other goals fulfilled by compromising on these. Keep the old "Never" model and watch them roll right over us.
One of the most confusing things I find in a lot of posts is the cry for negotiation rather than military force, but they seem to reject negotiation for "unconditional surrender" terms. I hope this is somewhat clear.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
welshTerrier2 October 7th, 2008 8:10 pm
Clear? Yes, but I disagree that the left must compromise.
Compromise is a tactic that can be used only after we have clearly defined our values and our positions.
Phase I of building a movement has to be the defining of our values and the types of laws and policies that would implement those values. We must not dilute this definition with status quo thinking and compromise. It is far too early in our development to give away the store.
Consider a couple of key issues as examples.
First, military spending. Let's suppose I believe the necessary level of military spending to DEFEND the country is $300 billion a year (instead of the current real military budget of $1.1 TRILLION). Let's also argue that no country can survive for long running up massive deficits. If that's my view, should I be willing to COMPROMISE with Democrats who argue for a 10% increase in military spending while the Republicans call for a 20% increase? Should I "go along" if Democrats are willing to compromise with me on level funding?
To me, that makes no sense at all. If the view is that 100 million people have no or inadequate health care and that we cannot afford anything close to the current levels of military spending, what sanity can be made of compromise?
Also, one must consider the purposes for which the US military has been used. If my view is that the US military is nothing more than the "enforcer" of US imperialism, and, let's say Obama wants to send more troops to Afghanistan (and of course he does), should I go along if he agrees to send only half as many additional troops?
Again, the problem is that he does not see (or admit) that the US military presence in almost every instance is unethical, illegal and not in the national interest. How do you craft a compromise from fundamentally different value systems?
And, as a second example, consider global warming. My view is that we must radically alter our energy usage IMMEDIATELY. We must do so even if it causes severe disruptions to our way of life. Is this politically feasible? No, it's not. My view is that we really have no choice. My view is that we damned well better reduce our carbon footprint in a huge way within the next five to ten years. Even that may not be enough to save the planet.
What does Obama offer in compromise? Is he willing to talk honestly with the American people about the sacrifices we clearly have to make? No way ... that, of course, would not be politically palatable. Funny how the truth is not politically palatable; one wonders how we ended up with such a system of governance.
Consider the two issues together. In my view, both military spending and global warming threaten the survival of the US as we know it and the survival of life on the planet. Obama has not called for a single penny of reduction in military spending. Obama, in fact, has called for an increase in the size of the military. Obama has called for a skimpy $150 billion over ten years for alternative energy research and hinted in the first debate that he might have to cut that back if the budget crisis continues. $150 billion over ten years is $15 billion per year. On the other hand, he spends in excess of $1.1 trillion on the military.
Consider his priorities and his values.
The spending ratio he establishes is $1100 on military for every $15 on alternative energy. Why, if Obama seeks a peaceful world, does he call for an increase in the size of the military? Why, if he wants to emphasize diplomacy over combat will he need the same spending level Bush had. Why, if he plans to end the incredibly costly war in Iraq can he not cut the insane spending on defense? And, of course, why, if he understands the threat of global warming and the devastating impact of the cost of imported oil does he spend so little on alternative energy development?
How should the left compromise with that?
The left cannot compromise with the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party has an almost polar opposite system of values on the most critical issues. Compromise is fine at the right time and on the right issues. To call on the left to compromise with Democrats doesn't make any sense at all. Democrats wouldn't even let Kucinich, one of their own, participate in most of the debates. And their stranglehold on the FEC with the Republicans shuts down the voices that represent many of us. How do we compromise when we have no voice and the duopoly spends whatever it must to ensure we never do? What does Obama have to say about the corporate control of our news distribution media? Has he called for them to be broken up to diversify American news outlets? No, of course not. The problem is that Democrats are either unwilling to take on the corporate state or they honestly don't believe one exists. Therein lies the rub!!
I'm afraid your criticisms of the left's unwillingness to compromise are misplaced at this time. The left needs to go about the business of drawing clear differences between our beliefs and those of the controlling parties. Our conversations, for the time being, must be amongst ourselves. We spend far too much time criticizing the dead parties and not nearly enough time building an alternative vision. Right here on websites like Common Dreams is where our differences should be worked out and our compromises reached. Once we have defined ourselves, and organized ourselves into a real movement, then, and only then, can we take our movement into the political arena. At that time, at that stage of our development, perhaps then there will be room for compromise. I wish we were at that stage today; sadly, we aren't.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Thomas More October 7th, 2008 10:36 pm
I'm going to have to think about this. You raise some interesting points...differently.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
davidpeace October 7th, 2008 6:27 pm
“Be cautious about believing that a collapse of the US will bring the masses into the streets demanding progressive changes. Klein's model is that desperation makes the masses more pliable to the will of the powers that be”
Exactly. This is not Argentina or another country that suffered because of Chicago school economics. In other countries the people take more of an interest in their politics. In America there is the saying about not discussing politics. Americans are out of tune and out of touch. They know that something is wrong, but the capacity for critical thinking has been drummed out and replaced with a “desire” to conform. It is possible for the populace to wake up, but it will take some serious suffering, such that no charismatic person will be able to just mouth things he/she thinks the people want to hear. Starvation on a massive level, with actual deaths, lots of them, might do the trick and the people that will suffer the most will be the poor. Our obstacle, and it is quite severe, is that we don't control the means of mass communication. Sure there is the internet but I would bet that most people are just as content to surf for the latest news about Brittany, as is force fed to them on the boob tube, than to engage in serious political discussion. The article “Why America's Problem is Cultural, Not Political”, by Stephen Gabow, also here on CD, points to what the problems are and why we won't actually get change, other than the name on the mailbox. Very sad...
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Samson October 7th, 2008 7:27 pm
If you read Klein's book, you'll find that she does not say its automatic that the theives and the 'chicago boys' will always win in a time of crisis.
Its just that they realized this about 30 to 40 years ago and have been taking advantage of it.
A major thrust of her book is that we should learn to do the same. Times of crisis are times when anything can happen. If the left was mobilized and aggressive in these times, we could turn that change in our direction.
Lets just imagine that last week we could have mobilizied fast enough to have a million people in the streets around the Congress demanding the nationalisation of the banks.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
welshTerrier2 October 7th, 2008 8:15 pm
"Times of crisis are times when anything can happen. If the left was mobilized and aggressive in these times, we could turn that change in our direction."
Excellent!!
Without question, crisis grabs the attention of the people like nothing else can. Before the left can mobilize anyone and be aggressive, we need to define and communicate what we stand for.
Protesting in opposition to the status quo without first laying the right foundation will never build a sustaining movement for change. "Street energy" is fine as long as it's viewed as an energizing, unifying and organizing force and not viewed as an end in itself.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
welshTerrier2 October 7th, 2008 4:09 pm
as is yours, sir ...
almost scary how similar our posts were ...
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
welshTerrier2 October 7th, 2008 3:54 pm
The essence of what Zinn said is that we need to build a new social movement. Zinn also pointed out that Obama will bring us a "conservative cabinet." Are we in agreement on these two points?
As to Zinn's faint hope that a new social movement will have a better chance "shaking up" an Obama administration than a McCain administration, that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be true. The more relevant question, assuming a bona fide "social movement" can even be constructed, is whether that movement will be able to convince enough Americans that it represents the best vision for their future.
The critical path is one of influencing other citizens in the essential changes that must occur if we are to have any future at all. At the core of these essential changes is the rejection of the corporate state. At the core of these essential changes is a new American Revolution that empowers people instead of corporations. At the core of these essential changes is a rejection of both materialism and militarism. At the core of these essential changes is a fundamental belief in putting people before profits. At the core of these essential changes is an understanding that capitalism and democracy cannot co-exist.
Each one of these essential changes is totally antithetical to everything both the Republicans and the Democrats stand for. Admit it: Obama is a free market globalist. Obama has called for increasing the size of the US military. Obama has called for market-based solutions to the health care crisis.
Is it possible Zinn is right to assert that Obama would be more pliable than McCain? Sure, I have no reason to disagree with him on this narrow point. The greater point, however, is that we cannot build a "social movement" while endorsing and campaigning for and voting for a candidate who is totally antithetical to the foundations on which we hope to build that movement.
The path to change lies in building a movement and educating (and respecting!!) the American people. It does not lie in the short-sighted deception of compromised, duopolistic politics.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
RichM October 7th, 2008 4:06 pm
That's just excellent, wT2. Thanks.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Thomas More October 7th, 2008 2:15 pm
Pretty fair comment.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
NYCartist October 7th, 2008 2:15 pm
Wait. Wait. What about the never registered voters and new voters? The young are a factor. Did you see Michael Moore's new movie (free online for 3 weeks starting Sept.23, just past)"Slacker Uprising"? I liked it. It's free video to any school library,too. www.michaelmoore.com or www.slackeruprising.com It's about getting folks to register and vote in 2004 and the kids were the one majority group for Kerry. Obama (in my opinion) never started "from the Left", but I am voting for him. (I'm a Kucinich supporter.)
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
frank1569 October 7th, 2008 2:05 pm
No disrespect intended, but, first of all, unlike 1932, today we have a mass media propaganda industry that, in the least, keeps "the people" so confused, a major mobilization is impossible. Just one example? Even this esteemed author repeats the Fed line that unemployment is only 6.1%, in spite of the fact that this administration is the most dishonest in our history. It's very safe to assume the real number is closer to 12%.
Second, the Dems are clearly not on the We The People team anymore. From the Patriot Act to the bankruptcy bill to the Bank Robber Reward Act of 2008 to immunity for illegal spying to perpetual illegal invasion/occupation funding, virtually nothing would "change" even if the entire House and Senate went totally Blue. The only difference would be less bragging about torture and a few more crumbs to quell the rabble.
Guess it's fun to hope and fantasize, though...
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
B October 7th, 2008 3:03 pm
Thanks, Frank1569!
You have a clear assessment of the true state of the nation. There is no "2 party" system. There is only a corporate criminal interest system.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
RichM October 7th, 2008 2:24 pm
That's about the size of it, all right.
It's interesting to speculate which would be the worse outcome -- if McCain gets elected (which I assume would lead quickly to overt fascism & probable economic collapse); or if Obama is elected, & merely tries to put a more pleasant face on the same underlying program of corporatism, militarism & imperialism.
In some ways, I think that if Obama successfully "stabilized" the country by throwing more crumbs to the rabble, & making superficial cosmetic gestures like shutting down Gitmo (while keeping open all the other US prisons worldwide), but changing nothing fundamental -- that that would be even worse than having McCain elected, where at least we'd have the satisfaction of seeing the US finally collapse, which it so richly deserves. Then perhaps something good could be built on the wreckage -- and everyone would finally learn, beyond any possible doubt, that the US model of society, economy, & politics is a hopeless failure.
Today's USA calls to mind the last scene in the movie "The Fly," where the Jeff Goldblum character has become such a hideous pathetic monster, that it begs to be put out of its misery.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
KDelphi October 7th, 2008 5:36 pm
LOL!! It's "funny", cause that's about how I feel!!
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
B October 7th, 2008 3:17 pm
I can easily relate to what you are saying, but still;
-- when the corrupt system, any corrupt system, collapses while there are no openly viable alternatives (as perceived by a critical mass of citizens of all categories)one can most assuredly expect some of the very worst things to start happening on the local, in your face level for most people...
While I refuse to serve the interests of, or receive from, in any capacity the temporarily ruling criminal cabal, and therefore don´t get home much anymore, I would much prefer repairing our house rather than merely waiting for it to collapse...on us.
I understand what many feel about voting for the only representatives of substance, ie, Kucinich and/or Nader. To my mind we are in the middle of a social war for possession of the planet, and it will not be won by trying to vote "tactically" as in the "lesser of 2 evils", which in essence is merely the same scam in a different, more palatable guise to the uninformed or merely desperately hopeful.
A drowning victim will, in fact, try to live by grasping at reeds floating on the water...
Suppose, just suppose, that enough of the popular vote was for substance as opposed to throwing away their voices because, because, well because at least it SOUNDED good...
No matter how any of us try to slice it, this election is also lost, and so is the voice of reason with it. The system is not called that for nothing...so why not send a signal to the system that all the people are not to be fooled...all the time?
Thanks for listening!
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
toast October 7th, 2008 5:26 pm
"A drowning victim will, in fact, try to live by grasping at reeds floating on the water..."
reread your post and agree... thanks. We need to learn to swim or at least attempt to do so.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
B October 8th, 2008 3:12 am
Glad to hear it. You DID have me wondering for awhile there!
The points raised by others regarding the need, right here, right now, to define and shape the agenda that must be presented to the critical mass of the woefully deceived, deliberately misled, and therefore benighted populace are right on the mark, to my mind.
Those who propound the futile gesture of "voting for the lesser of two evils" by which I specifically mean voting for the other corporate interest party known to some as "Democrats", are those who are grasping at a floating reed with the desperation of a drowning victim.
Why not toss them a lifeline instead?
As an example, madcow, if one were able to demonstrate to you personally that there is a better, as in GENUINE, modus operandi for constructive change towards a humane and holistic society of cooperating equals rather than a continuation of the same dog eat dog society ruled by the criminal corporate interest regime (with a few tokens attached; do you want beads with those blankets?) to suage the rising anger of the disenfranchised wageslave citizenry, would you STILL claim that "incremental" change (if that is what you truly want to call it) under the rule of criminals is the correct way forward?
I would like to discuss with all of you for hours, days, weeks if need be until we reach an encompassing definition of a social platform for change that can be agreed upon and supported by the broader base of what is called by some to be the "progressive" community.
But then, that really isn´t the only frighteningly critical issue at hand;
A TERRIFYING issue is the FACT that corporate propagandists (MSM) deliberately avoid the truth and deliberately muzzle the voices of the citizenry as well as those representative voices of reason such as Kucinich, McKinney, Nader, Zinn, as examples among many... in order to maintain the criminal agenda of their masters and cohorts in crime...
Is it REALLY that hard to imagine a broadcast across the nation from some as yet unspecified outlet? Consider.
There are many of you out there who possess the skills needed for that task, and perhaps that should be your focus as we gather momentum...
The internet is a terrific boon to humanity and communication, sure. When it is allowed to function rationally, sort of like tv could have been, or atomic energy
could have been. Yet it also, since it is entirely controlled by the same criminal agenda as the above, could become an Achilles heel to any progressive movement...
Again, please consider the realities of our situation before...exposing the wrong things at the wrong time, so to speak.
I know that the vast majority of you much prefer honesty and openness, as I also, but the fact remains that the planet is not governed by such ideals, and if you would combat the known enemy to human brotherhood effectively, you had best learn to pick up those tools that are most effective to their undoing...
-- subterfuge
-- disinformation
-- asymmetric communications
-- nonparticipation
-- local and regional (ie, tribal) effort
I would like to go on and on, but hope that others will expand on this instead.
As for me, I´m still just dogpaddling...barely!
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Little Brother October 7th, 2008 6:34 pm
Your comment caused me to flash on something that IMO nicely complements your point from another perspective; see what you think.
Pardon my quoting song lyrics, which I am usually able to stop myself from doing, but there's an eldritch, fabulous 1977 song by The Band about a totemic shaman or mystic called "Pepote Rouge"-- the song might be too mysto for some, but I find that the verses remain admirably relevant:
♪ "Pepote Rouge, come down from the mountain
And lead your people into the light of day
For they are lost, and know not where they're going
And all their leaders are cast of clay
Now disbelief and mass confusion
Spreading wild all across the land
You can call it love, or call it wisdom--
But do you not save a drowning man?" ♪
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
madcow October 7th, 2008 2:56 pm
You'll change your tune when it's you who gets hauled off to prison or a reeducation camp for your "radical" viewpoints. Right now, the President thinks he can do that---to you. He thinks he can snoop in your house and not tell you about it. He thinks he can take you from your comfortable home and lock you up and throw away the key---right now---if he thinks you're a threat. Did you hear him talk about "the angry left" during the convention?
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
KDelphi October 7th, 2008 5:37 pm
You need to stop fearmongering and state what your candidate will do, that would mkae a person want to vote for him!
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
RichM October 7th, 2008 2:57 pm
Yes, I heard all that. And I'm also aware that the Democrats didn't say a word to oppose him, or even to criticize him. I also know that Obama & the Democrats voted for the FISA amendment, which essentially gave retroactive approval to the very "snooping" you're referring to. And Pelosi & other Dems knew about the snooping for years, but never said anything publicly about it.
So, if you disapprove of government snooping, why are you voting for a party that supports it?
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
madcow October 7th, 2008 3:25 pm
I disapprove more of the party/philosophy that LED the other party down that road. I believe the other party will LEAD us back.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Hank Fur October 7th, 2008 3:52 pm
Oh my god. Your logic is twisted. No party leads, it the moola that they follow. And Obama has received more moola from the financial institutions than McCain has. Do you really think they wasted their money?
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
toast October 7th, 2008 5:22 pm
I believe!! I believe!!!
Unfortunately sadcow, your "prophet" has proven himself to be nothing more than profit$ for the corporatists who engineered the road you discredit. As we all know... that profit makes for fat wads of cash as they all run laughing from the bank. Obama is their man... nothing you can say will erase his coordinated cheerleading attempt to get them everything they wanted... and much, much more.
You are an exercise in confusion and delusion.
The long haul attempt at incremental steps towards progress that you describe, is the one for which most progressives are striving... only they refuse to be co-opted by attempting that change from the inside. We know THAT doesn't work. It only provides more servile support for corruption.
Become the enemy to change the enemy is such a convoluted piece of "logic" that I can't begin to express my misgivings that even YOU could believe it.
I for one will stand up to those who I believe damage this country, especially if their acts stem from greed and corruption. I will not join them. Your recruitment program deserves nothing but derision and rejection.
YOU... are a large part of the problem. Wake up.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
madcow October 7th, 2008 8:03 pm
The parties are not the enemy---the corporations are. Obama's not a corporation. He's a man. He knows the constitution, he's brilliant, empathetic, with a healthy world view. I think he could be a great President. But we won't know until he gets in there and shows us how he responds to the people. I'm sorry you're so jaded that "hope" seems like a bad word to you.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
NYCartist October 7th, 2008 2:27 pm
Do you know how old that argument is:when things get really terrible? Why not start the push for better before it's Pinochet-like?
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
RichM October 7th, 2008 3:05 pm
An argument's being "old" is unrelated to its value. Certain arguments presented in the Declaration of Independence are "old," but still valuable & valid. Ditto the Golden Rule, Aesop's Fables, & the Communist Manifesto.
"...Why not start the push for better before it's Pinochet-like?"
- I have nothing against that at all. However, the fake cosmetic change of the Democrats is not a "push for better." It's a push for continuing in the same direction, with mere lip service paid to "better."
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Hank Fur October 7th, 2008 3:53 pm
Every one of your comments is bang on. Thank you for being here, clarifying, putting things in perspective.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Thomas More October 7th, 2008 6:34 pm
You're gonna give him the big head!
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
NYCartist October 7th, 2008 2:10 pm
The media wasn't all that "democracy friendly" in the past either. We have the internet now. And Pacifica network. (I'm a WBAI 99.5FM fan, www.wbai.org)
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
NYCartist October 7th, 2008 2:04 pm
I very much like C.Johnson's books. I would like to point out that the South went Republican as a result of the Voting Rights Act of 1964. If African-American voters are not disenfranchised, that could be changed some. How much? We'll see. Note:North Carolina is "in play" for Obama. Early voting in Georgia has begun with a sizable number of African-Americans "on line" according to the local Atlanta newspaper.
Besides voting, how do we get the US Congress off the vote away money for empire? And bail-out fallout can either discourage or enrage voters. Simultaneously, we need new coalitions,yes? I took a tiny bit of "heart" from Kucinich pointing out that the BailOut Bill mess was neither R nor L, but too many "chickened out". We'll see what public pressure can do. As Howaard Zinn points out: FDR got pushed to the programs he put into being. It's about us more than the candidates.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
Thomas More October 7th, 2008 2:19 pm
The South of 2008 is much different than the South of 1964. You may get a big surprise.
"We'll see what public pressure can do. As Howaard Zinn points out: FDR got pushed to the programs he put into being. It's about us more than the candidates."
Absolutely correct in my opinion.
Login or register to post comments
report this comment
12next ›last »
Join the discussion:
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)
CommonDreams.org is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots activism organization, founded in 1997.
We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan organization.
About Us | Donate | Contact Us | Sign-Up | Archives
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
© Copyrighted 1997-2008
www.commondreams.org
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment