Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama, The Prince of Bait-and-Switch
I interviewed a woman who had lost eight members of her family, including six children to a US bomb - but mass murder in Afghanistan isn't news.
On 12 July, the Times devoted two pages to Afghanistan. It was mostly a complaint about the heat. The reporter, Magnus Linklater, described in detail his discomfort and how he had needed to be sprayed with iced water. He also described the "high drama" and "meticulously practised routine" of evacuating another overheated journalist. For her US Marine rescuers, wrote Linklater, "saving a life took precedence over [their] security". Alongside this was a report whose final paragraph offered the only mention that "47 civilians, most of them women and children, were killed when a US aircraft bombed a wedding party in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday".
Slaughters on this scale are common, and mostly unknown to the British public. I interviewed a woman who had lost eight members of her family, including six children. A 500lb US Mk82 bomb was dropped on her mud, stone and straw house. There was no "enemy" nearby. I interviewed a headmaster whose house disappeared in a fireball caused by another "precision" bomb. Inside were nine people - his wife, his four sons, his brother and his wife, and his sister and her husband. Neither of these mass murders was news. As Harold Pinter wrote of such crimes: "Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest."
A total of 64 civilians were bombed to death while the Times man was discomforted. Most were guests at a wedding party. Wedding parties are a "coalition" speciality. At least four of them have been obliterated - at Mazar and in Khost, Uruzgan and Nangarhar provinces. Many of the details, including the names of victims, have been compiled by a New Hampshire professor, Marc Herold, whose Afghan Victim Memorial Project is a meticulous work of journalism that shames those who are paid to keep the record straight and report almost everything about the Afghan War through the public relations facilities of the British and American military.
The US and its allies are dropping record numbers of bombs on Afghanistan. This is not news. In the first half of this year, 1,853 bombs were dropped: more than all the bombs of 2006 and most of 2007. "The most frequently used bombs," the Air Force Times reports, "are the 500lb and 2,000lb satellite-guided . . ." Without this one-sided onslaught, the resurgence of the Taliban, it is clear, might not have happened. Even Hamid Karzai, America's and Britain's puppet, has said so. The presence and the aggression of foreigners have all but united a resistance that now includes former warlords once on the CIA's payroll.
The scandal of this would be headline news, were it not for what George W Bush's former spokesman Scott McClellan has called "complicit enablers" - journalists who serve as little more than official amplifiers. Having declared Afghanistan a "good war", the complicit enablers are now anointing Barack Obama as he tours the bloodfests in Afghanistan and Iraq. What they never say is that Obama is a bomber.
In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghan istan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan. He wants more combat troops, more helicopters, more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power - because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, "bait-and-switch" Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince.
Those who write of Obama that "when it comes to international affairs, he will be a huge improvement on Bush" demonstrate the same wilful naivety that backed the bait-and-switch of Bill Clinton - and Tony Blair. Of Blair, wrote the late Hugo Young in 1997, "ideology has surrendered entirely to 'values' . . . there are no sacred cows [and] no fossilised limits to the ground over which the mind might range in search of a better Britain . . ."
Eleven years and five wars later, at least a million people lie dead. Barack Obama is the American Blair. That he is a smooth operator and a black man is irrelevant. He is of an enduring, rampant system whose drum majors and cheer squads never see, or want to see, the consequences of 500lb bombs dropped unerringly on mud, stone and straw houses.
John Pilger is an investigative journalist and documentary film-maker.
© 2008 The New Statesman
251 Comments so far
Show All"Mainstream media is waaay behind in reporting the news these days, folks." Deliberately, I'm sure. Apparently there are interesting polling numbers showing that Obama will not have a cakewalk, as many expected. Today I heard one radio commentator talking to some expert about it - and it got me 'thinking' more than 'knowing', admittedly - and I found that the tone the expert struck was extremely cautious, so that he didn't say what he knew to be true about Obama, namely that he's not that far from McCain really, without denying the facts on the ground that would lead one to conclude thusly. Those facts are constantly popping up in the news (but not properly explained of course) and they speak to the interesting poll numbers.
I think that most of us commenters here in Common Dreams would not affect those interesting numbers due to the fact that we wish a pox on all their houses. Keep that in mind.
But I imagine that the establishment has the same concerns it has always had, which is how to 'manage' a 'free' people. Our consent is, don't forget, manufactured and not something we would normally give if we were clear on what's involved. A few - too few perhaps - of us have that clarity, and, I think, intact moral compass.
Pardon me for leaning on Chomsky, but, my point would be that our elites do not want to lose control of the situation, for that would lead to the unknown, which they fear. It may be irrational - since if they demonstrated good intentions and wanted to pull together with the rest of society to make a society that works for everyone, we would welcome that - but it's real and it's probably largely due to plain old corruption. Folks can and do sell their souls. Human imperfection allows for all kinds of folly.
So our elites have this wobbly, unsafe mansion in which they rule and in which the rest of us are there to serve them and be out of the way the rest of the time. And they don't intend to give that up and work with us to build a clean, safe mansion in which everyone is an equal and contributes equally and receives equally.
Therefore, Just as the establishment desperately pushed the shining white knight myth, in the case of the murdered (and murderous) JFK, positing that dark establishment elements killed him off, so as to imply that while the system may not always work, it is good and will work if allowed to (so that we would not question it too seriously and conclude that we have an electoral system in which only elites thrive and find political representation), so too would any commentary be avoided that too directly and visibly made the point that the Democrats and Republicans are just one party with two factions that will only serve the elites and help them to maintain their (costly, destructive) power and privilege.
Noam Chomsky hammers that point home nicely in his book RETHINKING CAMELOT. And I think it's the thought behind the title of his book HEGEMONY OR SURVIVAL.
Foreign policy is just one reason not to vote for Obama, but for more on Obama's domestic strategies, fans of commondreams should also try googling: youtube + the audacity of democracy
Mainstream media is waaay behind in reporting the news these days, folks.
People let's face it, Obama is a recipe for disaster. America needs someone who can LEAD, someone who knows where they stand, and most importantly, a Democrat who is ELECTABLE. Those of us who read common dreams know most of all, we need someone who can help the country recover from the Bush regime. Yet - the Gallup polls continue to show Obama in a dead head against McCain.
Scary indeed, but easy to understand when you consider Obama hasn't secured all the delegates he needs, AND, cannot get the swing states we need.
Voters who care to see a Democrat in office in the Fall and cannot convince themselves of the merits to an Obama candidacy should look no farther than http://blog.pumapac.org/
In his semi autographical book, Dreams From My Father, the young Obama portrayed himself as consumed with the life history of a largely absent father who abandoned his wife and son to seek a leadership role in post independence Kenya, only to lose it over what Obama diagnosed as inflexibility. Thus, it is no surprise that the candidate Obama would bend over backwards to accomodate every power block - AIPAC, the military industrial media complex, and misled religion. As president, can he balance his own psychological needs (to avoid his father's fate) against our interests as a nation? The answer remains to be seen, but we the (CD) people should hope for the best and prepare for the worse, lest we end up with another Bill Clinton.
Clinton, you may recall, installed Patriot Act beta version after Oklahoma City, beggared emergent nations to give us neo-liberal pseudo prosperity, spurred media consolidation by enabling Clean Channel oligopoly, rained missiles on wrong targets to sow the seeds of blowback. Let's keep a closer eye on the other charmer, Obama.
Dwell on that for a while H2O, and don't expect an apology this time, as you certainly don't deserve one!
H2O July 29th, 2008 3:08 pm
I'm sorry H2O, but your logic and your argument about the health care issue are both pathetic. You really don't know what kind of health care plan will emerge during an Obama administraton, but you do know what you'll get from McSame - Nothing! Your wasted vote for Nader or McKinney increases the likelyhood of a McCain victory, as neither Nader nor McKinney will break 10% together in ANY state. If McCain wins, I hope it is by a very narrow margin so you can see what you did to your selfish self and others. It's not ALL ABOUT YOU and your needs H2O!
huzzah:
liked your catapult image! Could get a vivid picture of what that would look like!
Let me try another analogy - You have a 100 foot cliff you need to scale to save life or limb and 10 feet of rope. One guy says "I'll help you, here's 10 feet more." Another guy says "I'll help you, here's 30 feet more." A 3rd guy/gal says "I'll help you, here's 90 feet more" - i.e., "I'll help you get what you REALLY need". When you need 100, 30 is no more useful than 10.
Here's the thing with Obama - he could have been the guy to offer the 90 feet of rope, he even indicated in a video about 5 years ago that he knew then that that's what we needed. We need no less now. But he won't offer it. Why? Because that 90 feet for us means less for the insurance industry from which he has gotten a fair amount of money (through "individual" contributions). Perhaps more to the point, he wishes to avoid at all costs negative ads (ala Harry & Louise) such as those unleashed against the Clinton's. I.e. he is willing to pull back those extra feet of necessary rope to keep the insurance co.s happy. If we can't convince him now, when public support for single payer is so strong (even the US Conference of Mayors passed a resolution in favor of HR 676 - or "the Medicare for all" bill), we will not be able to after he's elected because he won't need a thing from us (as in votes) but WILL desire the continued favor of the insurance industry.
I have been in the healthcare field long enough to know that "maybe, just maybe" isn't good enough by a long shot. My reason for supporting a Nader or a McKinney is mainly for this, among other reasons. He could have proposed it, he refused. He could have proposed so many other things that indicated that we, all of us, were more important than corp. $$$, he has refused. By refusing, he has made his choice for the other. I know, he is a very charismatic character. On an emotional level I would love to be able to vote for him. But he falls too short of what we need and what we need is too great to ignore.
I understand that he looks and sounds better than McCain, but his health care plan, when all is said and done, is simply another rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic - he's still heading for the iceberg. If you don't tell him, before the election, that without this (for you, it may be something else) you will not vote for him, and if you do not carry through if he still refuses, you will not get what you need. You may well get Obama, but he won;t get you anywhere and the only message you can give him, or any politician, for that matter, that qualifies as more than a sticky note on the fridge is the one you send in the voting booth, and all the "hope" in the world won't "change" that.
H2O July 28th, 2008 1:34 pm
I apologize if I come across to you as being excessively cynical and callous in regards to your hard times. I'm sorry, I do feel for people that have fallen on hard times. I hope things improve for you soon.
)when i read someone complaining about obama going to afganistan, i thought, hey, wasn't he supposed to be on a committee, overseeing such things just like this article pointed out, in afganistan? you know, "oversight" or some such political talk that translates as "try not to bomb innocent people"...and i thought, it's nice that he's going back to work, to do his job...cuz it's true, these sorts of things are happening all the time there.
i say, PUSH. obama's got the hairiest of hair margins over mccain, and i bet in some red states, he's got less. none of the good stuff gets thru to folks out there, none of the stuff on liberal and progressive blogs, none of it...so this is not about handing votes to mccain, no one here can really bring those votes in for obama.
but we do have one thing left--we still have a good chunk of votes.
so, progressives should feel free to PUSH obama, into recognizing that we have issues, and our issues are important. there is a way to achieve national security, without dropping bombs on innocent people--in fact, i'd say that the bombs would be counterproductive...
we must PUSH. push them all. they backed down on FISA, i guess thinking that between the dems and gop, in nov, we'd vote dem easily, in congressional elections. they'll pump us up again when they need our vote again, but i say, a good threat in their primary will shape things up.
as for this presidential election, PUSH. it is the only leverage we have left, the threat of not getting our votes. obama needs every last one he can get, and they know it.
H2O -- I like your pit & bridge analogy, though I still feel as I did before. That 20 feet of bridge between McCain' 10ft and Obama's 30ft may not be enough to get us across the pit, but it might give us enough space to slow down , allowing someone else to come in and finish the bridge. Maybe that someone is us. Maybe, just maybe, if Obama is elected, we can convince him to put in place our plans for a 90 foot bridge.
I know, it's not likely, but I believe if McCain's elected the pit will become so wide the only way to cross it will be by catapult, which will be as likely to kill us as get us over.
I loved it when somebody said Pilger uses big words. I didn't see a single big word...but I did see some shoddy reasoning.
Starofthesea, I'm still waiting for your reply - Do you have one?
starofthesea July 27th, 2008 7:32 pm
MikeBinSC July 27th, 2008 11:07 pm
Canuckistan calling…
Wow. Intense discussion. Haven't felt this many neurons bouncing around in a long time. Wish I could invite y'all over for dinner (no food fights, please). Around here, so-called discussion is pretty much limited to BluRay vs HD.
But that's the thing. The time for DISCUSSION is long past. Someone suggested a general strike on 9/11/08. Failing that, a revolution…which would probably be superseded by Macy's Super Sidewalk Sale.
We also have a big deal election coming up so the fix is in, the bribes delivered: $100 "climate change" kickback (thanks, Gordo, but you're still a jerk & I'm not voting for you); GST lowered (thanks, Stevo, but you're still a jerk & I'm not voting for you). But our population is 10% of that of the States; therefore, 10% of the hype.
If 39% of the electorate (in BOTH countries) can hardly bother to get up off the couch & vote - let alone reach consensus to effect REAL change - then we get what we get: endless war, hegemony, empire-building, culture of fear. And the zealots' Rapture Index ratchets up another notch as Dubya gleefully chortles, "Bring it on!"
If it wasn't for Doonesbury I'd have slit my throat ages ago.
H2O-How many committees of correspondence will we need to "persuade" Obama to bring the troops home, to "persuade" him to fix healthcare, to "persuade" him to abandon the trade policies that are beggaring us all, to "persuade" him to abandon nukes, to "persuade" him to .....
How many will it take to persuade McCain when your constant bashing of Obama gets him elected?
PS - check out today's Article on CD by Ehrenreich "The Suicide Solution". All this stuff continued, if not began, in the last Dem. administration. It continued, though accelerated, in a Rep. one. It will continue, though perhaps at a slightly slower pace, under another Dem. admin. Please, tell me how much more "evil" will you tolerate before even the "lesser" becomes too much? When will you say NO? This is not a rhetorical question - I would really like to know - do you lesser evil folks have a breaking point?
(I guess I'm really lousy at making myself clear here - guess I better not quit my day job, that is if I still have one.)
TeriD -
great suggestions, but not enough. Never had, nor even wanted, a $125,000 home. Mine's less than 1/2 that and mortgage is MOSTLY paid. No credit card debt., no home equity loan, 15 year old car on its last legs, or axles, as the case may be, vacation, when I could, at a campground.
The point of this is NOT to engage in a pity party. The point is that when you live in a country where "the opposition party" can't even bring itself to champion universal health CARE as opposed to "universal, mumble, mumble, well not exactly universal, access to health insurance" you, and I do mean you, unless you are independently wealthy and eternally healthy, are in trouble.
I'd love to deny them my dollars, but they, in turn will deny me all else.
Ironically, my mistake may have been in not "investing" (ho,ho there's another scam if I ever saw one) every spare nickel in a magical 401K or a Roth or any of those other wonderful roulette wheel games. But for those who have - how much has its value, much like that of your house, depreciated in this wonderful bail out Wall Street, drown the rest world your man inhabits?
Look, this whole thread started out as a commentary on Pilger's description of Obama as a bait and switcher and has proceeded through multiple variations of the recurring "to B or not to B, that is the question" theme. Many have argued that just because one differs on Obama's military position is no reason to dump him. My point in all this is that his lousy military position is just a drop in the bucket. How many committees of correspondence will we need to "persuade" him to bring the troops home, to "persuade" him to fix healthcare, to "persuade" him to abandon the trade policies that are beggaring us all, to "persuade" him to abandon nukes, to "persuade" him to (fill in the blank), in short to "persuade" him to adopt the positions that folks like Nader and McKinney are ALREADY committed to. We don't HAVE to persuade them! If we can't even convince ourselves to support someone who already champions these positions that build those 90 foot bridges we ourselves need, how can anyone argue that we could EVER "persuade" a guy whose powerful incentives (read here mega $$$$) are all in the opposite direction?
The only reason that I can possibly think of for people to continue to argue for this "lesser evil" routine is that this "lesser evil" hasn't touched them yet, that they believe that they themselves will be able to stay OK even as the "evil" continues. And if you really believe that, have I got a bridge for you...
Yo, just saw tailcap's response to previous post - my argument was NOT for Obama. The wolf at the door did NOT refer to McCain - it was an allegorical reference to hard times. Shucks, I guess I blew it again! And I am sorry that "human interest" stories inspire cynicism in you - wait til you are there
H2O July 28th, 2008 11:22am writes "For me, I am running out of time, the wolf is catching up."
-This post is standard lesser-evilism except for the human-interest touch which is added to the unoriginal "I used to be a "bleeding heart" fool but then I grew up and now will vote for Obama" theme followed by the time-honored crying wolf (McCain).
Never mind the fact Democrats let Bush get away with murder, refuse to impeach him, and grant him immunity instead.
It's the war stupid. The political spectrum has moved to far to the right that today's so-called liberals are actually somewhat left-leaning Republicans, hence they support candidates that support war, do not impeach criminals but instead grant them immunity and vote for the unconstitutional abridgment of our civil liberties in the name of the GWOT.
Wow. This is one long thread. The Obama bashers are out strong. It is always interesting to read the Nader supporters views of the Obama campaign. I like to read the lists they make up comparing what a President Nader could/would do. But Ralph Nader will never be the POTUS. He has zero popular appeal. Ralph just doesn't have what it takes to be viable candidate and he will never have it.
There were 90 thousand progressives in Florida in 2000 who underestimated the damage baby Bush would do as President. Al Gore did not talk the talk they wanted. But Al could have been elected if Nader had not set himself to tilt at the windmills one more time.
Again, naive Naderites are ignoring political reality and cannot see the huge difference between McCain and Obama. It is so sad that they cannot believe in Obama. Voting for a person, is always a act of faith. The whole world is waiting for the Americans to elect a person like Obama. But, alas, if this website is an indication, people who have the understanding of how our nation must change cannot believe in Obama, because he is not Ralph Nader.
TeriD, H2O -
If you haven't watched this short animated video, do it now.
Get your kid to watch it, and their kids too.
www.storyofstuff.com
BUY ONLY WHAT YOU MUST HAVE AND BUY IT LOCALLY!
very well said H2O. and unfortunately, it will probably get worse before it gets better. the system has been pulling the wool over our collective eyes so long we are sheeple.
Unfortunately, also, there is no easy, simple or quick answer, as you said. short bridges do not destinations achieve.
personally, I have gotten myself completely out of credit card debt and stopped adhering to the system that perpetuates enslavement/ownership- they own our homes, they own our cars, they own most of our credit card bought belongings. and they have " taught" us to live on borrowed debt.
we need to take it back. stop going for the most expensive whatever. so what if you " qualify ( and let's not even go into those shady tactics" for a 300,00.00 home. opt for the 200,000.00 or 125,000.00 home that you can pay off the easiest. we collectively buy into the myth at every turn and then are angry that we have been taken advantage of by the system. we do collude. unfortunately.
they will lose their power when we stop buying in. literally. naomi klein, no logo.
" they" are not nice people. we are not going to simply defeat "them" and have utopia. they will be disempowered when they no longer have anything we want.. the dollars stop flowing into their pockets etc.. the oil companies and corporations have power over us, control us.. because we keep going back to them.
" that there is a devil there is no doubt. But is he trying to get in me, or trying to get out."
" be careful when you point the finger- you've got three pointing back at you."
( no this is not directed at you H20:)
Wow... too much to read all this, but just consider that Obama has never evidenced any real action to back up his rhetoric to speak of. Nader has pointed out his recent awful pandering to AIPAC etal. The choice is clear. Kucinich was the only best candidate. If we supported him things would be changing already. Obama is hardly the 'change' we need. All nice rhetoric. Nader or Kucinich alone represent anything genuine. The numbers too are not true about 'stealing' votes, as 38% of Nader's votes the last time he ran were registered Demos (and who knows if they would have all voted for the Demo candidate anyway). It probably zeroes out or gives a plus to Demos if you take into account the Repubs, Libertarians and get-out-and-votes that Nader got. Besides the principle is do you want a new system or more of the same. If you never vote for a third party/Green/Progressive YOU'LL NEVER GET ONE! duh. The illusion so many buy into is that you can incrementally move toward real 'change' by voting for the 'lesser of two evils.' That logic is pretty weak to nil.
First, before I forget - Lobo Gris: Thank you for the kind words, they were much appreciated.
Ahh, back into the fray.
I think jerome irwin (2:42 AM) touches on a key aspect of this discussion that has not, to my knowledge, been directly discussed before and that is the degree to which the various people who post here are being personally affected by what's happening in this country right now.
I first switched from being a "faithful" Dem to voting on principle in '96. This choice was an obvious consequence of my political awakening or coming out of Plato's cave, as it were. I started out as a NIMBY in the town I lived in, but in the process, over the 10 years I spent in local politics in the late 80s, early 90's, I learned ever so much - best education I ever had. I learned that it was not enough to get "the good ole boys" out, that you had to pay equal, if not more, attention to whom you were replacing them with, that the people who seemed to have the most tenacity in the political arena were those who wished to use it for personal gain - greed is an enormously powerful motivator, and that it was so difficult to find an honest person who would actually run for office that if you found one you needed to support her/him, no matter what the odds. And I learned that, much to my chagrin, the local Dem. establishment wanted to gain power, not so it could improve the lot of the people, but so it could be the one in charge of handing out the goodies. I didn't learn this from pundits or the "liberal" media; I learned it from being there, in the thick of it. And I understood quite clearly that state and nat'l politics were no more than my little town writ large.
Armed with this degree from the school of hard knocks, I began to pay more attention to what the problems were, what the necessary solutions were and who were the folks who were supporting them, not with weasel words, qualifiers, and loopholes you could drive a truck through, but with clarity based on an analysis of not only what was at stake but for whom. So now I use a very simple criteria in deciding whom to support: a) how wide is the gap between where we are and where we need to be, b) who is the one who will commit to building the bridge sufficient to cover that gap.
With regard to our current situation in so many areas, I suggest that we have a 90 foot gap and that Obama's bridges are only about 30 feet long. McCain's are even shorter. And before you say "a 30 foot bridge is better than a 10 footer", remember that at the end of either you still fall into the pit. And before you say "well at least it's a start" remember that, at best, we have been adding 10 foot increments at a time when the gap itself is increasing at a rate faster than that - in other words, the faster they go the behinder we get.
Returning to what I think jerome irwin was alluding to, I have gone, over these last 20 years or so, from being perhaps what might be described as one of them there "bleeding heart liberals" who had a good job, good health care and good health and whose progressive tendencies arose from a combination of abstract principles of justice and sympathy with those "less fortunate", to someone in danger of losing a job and with it, not only my health care at a time when I might actually need it, but my ability to keep my home. My sympathy is becoming empathy. These discussions are no longer theoretical for me, they are real and they are personal. And lest you say that I am doing nothing more than going back to being a NIMBY, let me ask you, all of you - how close is the wolf to your door? How much longer do you have before "hope" is not enough? How much are you willing to gamble that, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, you can "persuade" your man to do the right thing? And how long are you willing to give him to do it? For me, I am running out of time, the wolf is catching up.
Do not think that I have any illusions that voting for a 90 foot bridge builder who "won't win" this time around will help ME out very much, but unless all of us out here start doing that without further ado, before we have a new "party structure", or before it is "safe" (and, just out of curiosity, which Rep. would be "safe"), more and more of you and/or yours will join me in feeling the wolf's breath on your neck.
Think about it.
TeriD July 28th, 2008 10:40 am Thanks for your response, but I refuse to begin a discussion about what I am doing or not doing. This is not about me.
I am against war, therefore neither McCain nor Obama will receive my vote. I will vote for McKinney who is trying to build up the Greens and best reflects my views.
I believe people should vote for the candidate that best reflects their views, not the lesser-evil. A strong argument can be made that both McKinney and Nader are better progressive candidates than Obama. If so-called progressives were to back them instead of Obama our country would be better off. The world would be a better place if Democrats and Republicans ceased to exist altogether.
It's a circular argument though, Dems don't vote for 3rd parties because they can't win, they can't win because you don't vote for them.
If not now, then when do we break with the pro-war Democrats? For me the time is now. If it isn't for you, that fine too. Keep doing what Democrats do and keep getting similar results. You'll be here four years from now, when we are even worse off, making the same arguments: "Obama is still better than _______________! (insert the name of the Republican candidate) Good luck with that.
What a great idea for a Nader/Kucinich ticket---I wish Ralph had made that choice already (nothing against present running mate), but sadly I don't think Ralph is going to change this time around, and it may well be his last run for office....
By the way, it is amazing what you can accomplish when you are not distracted by the corporate bread and circuses.
TeriD -- I do a lot of things which I mentioned in a posting on another thread awhile back.
Green Party work as a county council member and on various planning boards. (Of course, that work consists not only of getting people elected but of "relocalizing" and greening areas.)
Wrote an pro-Bill of Rights, anti"PATRIOT" Act resolution that was passed by the city council and has been used as a model for similar resolutions around the country. (I also bugged people endlessly in the months prior to the vote.) It states that local officials, including law enforcement, will follow the Bill of Rights and their oaths of office in any conflict with the USA"PATRIOT" Act. (When it passed, there was such sweet euphoria among the crowd - euphoria such as I have never seen - that I realized all the stuff about people don't care is malarky. The Beltway Club survives by keeping a lid on things, but those "things" are still there.)
I helped write an impeachment resolution which failed to pass because the local Republicans got together and said they wouldn't vote for a necessary local improvement measure if the resolution passed. (Blackmail...certainly.)
I have helped organize study groups on the nature of corporatism and on the role of money and finance in suppressing democracy and community and what we can do about it from the grassroots.
I take citizenship seriously and consider myself simply a laborer in the field of empowerment, democracy and healthy and sustainable community life. I believe citizenship entails incessant work and that it doesn't come cheaply. Very old-fashioned, really.
tailcap-
democracy works when WE particpate in it. isn't that the point? Obama.. is participating ( succesfully). does that make him an angel? a demon? it just means he is good at playing that particular game. if you disagree with the game.. then isn't it your civic duty to participate? being angry.. serves nothing.
democracy- the words.. We the people. I assume we are all included in those words.
is our democracy being shredded. of course. do I agree with things I see? no. do I like them. not at all- it is frightening, especially when you start to project where it all might lead. But being angry and screaming does not bring about real change. It only perpetuates the same paradigm.
chips- if it has been eviscerated.. then it happened because we as a people have allowed it.
I work with local social justice groups, sustainability groups, being informed, and teaching peace, and teaching people how to employ critical thinking; ie, what does this say, is it true? do I believe it? ( find out) and do i agree with it. and- what do I want to do with this information?
what about you?
TeriD:
Your "democracy" has been eviscerated. What are YOU doing?
I agree with a 3/ multi party ( functional, rather than ideologic) system. But chances are, it won't come from the top-down. it has never been how our country functions. grass-roots change has always been the back-bone of this country. This is not a bad thing, it is anthropology and democracy at their best, reflecting need and the people's desire. And top down change probably opens the door for worse kinds of top-down change, like military coups or revolutionary take-overs... I can almost certainly guarantee this is an energetic door/ concept that is best left unopened. things haven't gotten that dire; once hostile change starts.. there is no going back. once columbine happened.. no school was a safe zone. it is like losing virginity, everything changes and it can/will happen again and again.
so- break with the old patterns.. create new paradigms.. start small groups for change at the local level, so that better candidates can get elected. be informed and ask informed questions of local candidates- hold them accountable by being knowledgeable.
this is the information age.. and the information is out there. Use it as a tool of change.
TeriD July 28th, 2008 9:24 am writes what are you doing to change things? are you running for local offices? on school boards as 3rd party candidates etc?"
-This blogger epitomizes the classic Democratic Party supporter's red herring argument. Lacking strong arguments to refute the truth about their candidate and what he's up to, they attempt to switch the topic over to YOU, and have YOU explain what YOU are doing to improve America. That way it's now about YOU and no longer about Obama.
The answer: I am not running for president and this article wasn't about ME, it was about Obama. Try refuting anything I said instead of changing the subject.
This argument can be called: The "WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?" argument which is really not an argument at all. It's an attempt to change the subject. Nice try.
It has become clear that Obama has no principled opposition to the murderous occupations being carried out in our name in Iraq and Afghanistan. His criticisms are only about the tactics. Obama believes we need to pull troops out of Iraq in order to redouble our murderous efforts in Afghanistan.
Obama, the "antiwar" candidate:
"We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
The Democrats have had the means to stop this war for a very long time and have refused to do it. Obama has repeatedly voted to fund the war while posing as an opponent of war. This obfuscation has been fairly successful as evidenced by bloggers on this site that actually believe Obama is "antiwar" in spite of the fact he votes to fund the war, wants to add an additional 90,000 troops, want s another "surge", saber rattles Iran and Pakistan and calls for increased military spending.
What is so immoral about Obama's call for increasing military spending and hence profits for the MIC, is that many Americans are suffering financially and even losing their homes. Obama is not championing spending the $16,000,000,000 monthly price tag on people that are hurting, instead he wants to spend more on war.
Anyone opposed to war should not vote for either of the parties of Big Business and the Military Industrial Complex. If peace is what is sought neither party can deliver it. A vote for Democrat or a Republican is a vote for war. The time has come to break with the both and vote for a third party.
They may not win this time but if they can get 5% of the vote they will qualify for matching federal funds which is a start. Democrats will fight this proposition tooth and nail in spite of the fact that to be against having more than two parties is thoroughly undemocratic.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says we can only have two political parties. Those opposed to third parties are opposed to having a free, open and Democratic society where opposing points of view are not ridiculed and stifled.
The time has come to break with the warmongering Democrats and vote for a third party.
for those of you who believe that OB is so corrupt and evil and corporate:
what are you doing to change things? are you running for local offices? on school boards as 3rd party candidates etc? We live in a democracy, or something approximating that. so, how are you walking your talk? What are you actually DOING.. rather than just saying..
?
Yes, indeedy, Serena and MikeBinSC are reading from the same playbook. It's called "The Malthusian Way for Establishing Global Fascism Through the Market State. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Barack and Michelle, Mike BinSC, Serena, et al.
jerome irwin July 28th, 2008 2:42 am - "And so it goes, endless more innocent victims will be massacred in places like Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever. But few of the Mike Bin's will barely blink as they sip on their latte after a hard shopping day at the mall, or scoff down a hot dog at some American bread and circus event or gladiator spectacle in the arena."
Jerome, you're just a glutton for punishment aren't you?
Well, Jerome, I'm not going to feed you any more, you'll have to get it somewhere else. Suffice to say that I have never tasted a latte and I can't remember the last time I saw the inside of a mall. I live very frugally and very locally, and you should too.
The daze of bait-and-switch and bullshit are over. This is the 21st Century. Apple pie will kill you.
"If McCain (god forbid) wins, America will never be the same."
Neither will it be if Obama follows the advice of his chief legal advisor. Or if the USA"PATRIOT" Act and Military Commissions Act are allowed to stand. Or if the Fourth Amendment no longer has any force. (Well, other amendments, too, as eviscerated by the above mentioned acts.) Will Mr. Obama work for repeal?
I went to Obama's website, and I personally think that, yes, his "defense" program, while not specific, could be characterized as warmongerish. (We'll do all these wonderful things to protect our "interests" with the new spiffy 21st century military.) I see nothing about reducing the military to a size commensurate with use and distribution of resources necessary to address real problems (and not to fill the corporate maw.)
Maybe my searching skills are not up to it, but I didn't see a thing about the Bill of Rights or the Fourth Amendment. Obama (or some Obama laborer) did say that voting was the first of all rights, but that's not true. People voted in the Stalinist USSR and in Nazi Germany, too.
There are some good things on the site, and I wouldn't for a moment dispute that Obama is smarter than the dullard McCain. But it still looks like top down. Unfortunately, the top is murderous, smothering of liberties and human potential, and unable to see beyond its limited "policy parameters" and corporate folklore -- which is tragic. Whether or not we believe that statement is, I think, at the root of some of our disputes here although largely invisible in the smoke and heat.
But cheer up. Obama will probably be the next president and we'll see. (Personally, I am quite certain that he will be.) But I'll be voting for McKinney and feel just fine about it.
For God's sake, why waste your time on the Mike Bin's of the world. They don't get it and never will. The fact of the matter is that there are at best any where from 6 to 10 to maybe, on a good day, 15 percent who will vote according to what their principles and conscience says is genuinely right, regardless of whether who they vote for wins or losses.
Hence we have the "Lesser of Two Evil" majority who are unable to vote their conscience because they are caught up in the bullshit winner/loser syndrome.
They will probably not vote for Nadar, McKinney or whomever and throw their vote at the Prince of "Bait & Switch" or Dudley DoLittle and then moan and bitch down the road that, "Once again, we have been betrayed! You can't trust any of those politicians!" \
And so it goes, endless more innocent victims will be massacred in places like Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever. But few of the Mike Bin's will barely blink as they sip on their latte after a hard shopping day at the mall, or scoff down a hot dog at some American bread and circus event or gladiator spectacle in the arena.
Thank You Mike.
serena1313 July 28th, 2008 1:04 am
Honest comment, thanks.
huzzah July 28th, 2008 12:21 am
We are reading from the same, or at least very similar play-books.
Thanks for the comment.
A lot of you on CD seemingly have the impression that Obama is just a slick talker with nothing else going for him. But have any of you bothered to read transcripts of interviews? or his policy positions at his web site? If you had I believe your opinion might change.
The man is reasonable, flexible, highly intelligent, uses reasoned logic and has so much more to offer than McCain.
Obama does not advocate war or violence. But he does believe that Afghanistan is a hotbed of "terrorists." Iam not sure if that is his rhetoric or what. I disagree with him on that and FISA.
The people running HRC's campaign jumped ship over to Obama's. Apparently he needs them for several possible reasons:
1) HRC supporters would cry fowl
2) they have "experience," but questionable judgment, IMHO
3) if O had said he would be pulling troops out of Afghanistan imagine the public's outcry.
4) they are needed to unite the party ...
5) if he had not welcomed Clinton's people into the fold they more-than-likely would be all over the networks causing trouble
McCain would be all over the networks, too, accusing Obama of being soft on terror. Not that John McCain hasn't been making up lies as is. So it is to Obama's advantage in some ways and damaging in other ways.
Furthermore Obama's philosophical view of life closely matches my own. While I disagree with several of his policy positions I agree with more than I disagree. Insofar as McCain, I have nothing in common with him nor do I agree with anything he proposes.
I did my research on Obama. I have no illusions -- my eyes are wide-open. Obama is a politician. However he is consistent. He has a vision for America -- one that is deferential to the people as opposed to continuing the inanity of Bush's strategy which John McCain will most assuredly do.
If you would do minimal amount of research I suggest many on this board will find they have much more in common with Obama than realized.
Last but not least, with over a million donors Obama is beholding to us rather than big interests. Sure he has received some money from lobbyists, but very few.
McCain, on the other hand, has over 100 lobbyists working on his campaign. The money he raked in June: $1.1 million of it came from the oil and gas industry -- shortly after he called to remove the ban from off-shore drilling. If McCain (god forbid) wins, America will never be the same.
Obama is by no means perfect, but he offers hope for the future. Granted it is a leap of faith, but one Iam willing to make along with millions more.
Predicting whether a presidential candidate once in office will disappoint is not a science. However to judge who is the better candidate I look at the way the individual runs his/her campaign, read transcripts of interviews, speeches, personal writings and policy positions in addition to news articles, etc... And I watch for consistency, character, intelligence, flexibility and the manner in which he/she treats others, etc...
Based on those merits Iam confident that Obama is by-far much, much better than given credit for.
Take a moment of your precious time to do a little research. It is okay to change your mind or not. Either way your vote matters a lot.
when is someone going to write a book on the university of chicago? my curiosity was piqued by it years ago, what with the ascendancy of the neocon/PNAC crowd and all, but obama, and his roots there, just tips it over completely for me. what's the history? what's the deal there?
***
(someone here used the word 'duopoly'. well put. we need to elect representatives who'll represent us, the american citizenry, to the american government itself. does every 'union' have to be a labor union? how about a citizenry union? we may even squeeze a reconstitution convention out of it...)
I want to echo the compliments given to ChrisHorton. Excellent posts, sir.
Unfortunately, many just aren't listening.
I'm a leftist on most issues. The Democratic Party as a whole does not represent my views. They are far closer than the GOP, however, and it would be nice if some here would tone down their rhetoric and just concede this point. Obama and McCain are NOT the same. Now, I haven't heard anyone on the left express anything less than disappointment with the FISA vote. That one sucked. But complaining about the AIPAC speech? He's running for President and he's supposed to either not go to the event his opponents are going to or go and tell what is possibly the most powerful group in Washington that he'll change things to be less favorable to Israel? "McKinney or Nader would do it," you might say. Well, yeah, because it wouldn't hurt their chances, which are nonexistent.
Obama is a warmonger? A bit of a stretch. Yes, I'd prefer we bring the troops home immediately instead of after 16 months. If you think Obama's 16-month timetable means he's the same as McCain, then you're 1184 months off. No, I'm not crazy about the "residual force" thing, but I see that as something we can pressure him into changing.
I know Obama's not the messiah. I know he's not really that progressive. I've known this the entire primary season. But flat out equating him with McCain is both intellectually dishonest and kind of offensive. Remember that the majority of the U.S. is not progressive. They have to be persuaded to our side. 8 years of Bush has given them a little push, but this militant ranting about Obama will just push them back. Again, he's by no means perfect, but I believe he may be more open to persuasion than most anyone else we've seen reach this level of politics. Will I still vote for him? That depends...
In all the back-and-forth on this page I don't recall seeing any mention of the electoral college. Why not? If Obama has a shot at my state (GA), I'll vote for him. If he's way behind in the polls in the days before the election, I'll vote for McKinney. H2O says above that he is a pragmatist and will vote for the progressive regardless of party affiliation. I believe the pragmatic thing, in this election, is to make sure McCain does not win. To that end, I believe we should do as ChrisHorton says and focus on our common...um... dreams. We all want a progressive government. How do we get there?
I voted for Nader in 2000 because I knew Gore couldn't win my state. Had I lived in Florida, however, I would have voted Gore in a heartbeat. I know he wasn't perfect, but does anyone here really believe, I mean REALLY BELIEVE, that we would be NO better off now, both the U.S. and the world, had Gore won? After the Supreme Court awarded Bush the White House, my dad said, "Well, maybe four years of that idiot will be a wake-up call for everybody." Didn't happen. Now a lot of us are willing to give them another four because the Democratic candidate isn't a true progressive? Not this time, if I have any say in the matter. Look, I'll be the first to agree that our system is broken. It's all about money, it's run by corporations, etc. But unless you can change it now, Obama is a better choice than McCain. (Or less bad. Same thing.) And, like it or not, it'll be one of the two come January.
Yeah, it shouldn't be that way. I'm all for a third party, but that's not how things work right now and the only way to change that, barring armed revolution, is to vote in others who also support the idea. Because it'll be the politicians in power that allow a third party access to said power. So vote in Greens at the local and state levels. Or national if one is running in your state. But don't disparage Obama (and his supporters) so much. You say he and the Dems need to learn that progressive support is not a given. Why won't he just say, "Well, I can shift toward the left to pick up this 10% of voters while alienating 10% of moderates and energizing the GOP base who's ambivalent toward McCain, or I could stay centrist and maybe lose the progressives but keep the moderates while a lot of Republicans stay home."? And let's be honest -- there's a lot of people here that wouldn't vote for him, even if he put all his views directly in line with the progressive agenda, just because he's a member of the "corrupt" Democratic Party. As is the exalted Kucinich, who has, if I'm not mistaken, endorsed Obama. So I guess he's not perfect either.
Sorry this was so long. One last thing. Someone said that the lesser of two evils is still an evil. Yes, but it's lesser. There are two men. One is about to shoot someone in the face. The other is about to push a button that will set off an atomic bomb in a large metropolis. You can only stop one. Which one do you choose to stop? Yeah, I thought so. Let's please get over this "Obama is as bad as McCain" BS and at least slow our nation's descent into Hell. Vote Obama if your state's in play, vote McKinney or Nader if it's not. Maybe ask your local Obama campaign workers to push for McKinney/Nader/Barr to be included in the debates. I dunno. But if McCain wins, there may not BE a country for Nader to be President of in 2012...
Wow, if the opinions expressed here are any indication, without any doubt McCain will get elected.
Utopia aside, the only choice is Obama or McCain. With all these Obama bashing who do you think the winner will be?
The only way to get someone else elected would be a strong third party(that we can only dream of).
Without a strong alternative party the supreme court will all be neocons and SS will be privatized. Then we will all celebrate our utopia and keep dreaming.
starofthesea says, "...his legal adviser, Sunstein, who counseled him on his FISA vote, and that Bush hasn't done anything illegal, etc is also being posed as a possible Supreme Court appointee if BO is President."
Don't get me *started*! Sunstein is a hot button issue with me because he represents (in a phlegmatic way) what Obama (in a charismatic way) is beating around the bush about.
Sunstein, in his legal and political views, is about institutionalizing two societies, the experts and leaders... and the citizens. He represents the next stage in corporate cultural and political invasion which amounts to saying, "OK, corporations, government and 'experts' have learned a lot about people from many years of studying buying habits, personal psychology, and so on. Let's put that to use in the form of a political and economic structure that recognizes that citizens can be led and manipulated to recognized ends useful, of course, in perpetuating the very society and economic structure doing the leading and manipulating. The only way it will work is by ignoring the Constitution when it impedes the 'expert' work of social engineering (by corporations and government meshed as one entity), but that's OK because they are 'experts' and really shouldn't have to follow the same rules as the rest of the citizens." Sunstein himself probably coined the term "libertarian paternalism" for the process. Yes, that's Greenspan-style libertarianism wedded to government paternalism -- in other words, to recognize, accept, and institutionalize the primary destructive development of the last few decades. This may be liberalism, but it is a rotten, putrefying, sick liberalism that we have to fight if we have any self-respect. "We the people" is not a concept Sunstein grasps in the slightest and his work focuses a clear light on the great divide of our time.
starofthesea July 27th, 2008 7:32 pm
Starofthesea, your being way too quiet on this one! You just posted a lot of words here without checking your facts, and it makes your entire argument, and that of others here that claim Obama was being groomed for this, absolutely WRONG!!
Suck it up, it's not the first time, and I'm sure it will not be the last!
READ THE EXCERPT BELOW!
Networks blew it by blowing off Barack Obama's speech.
Kansas City Star Aug 02 2004
Byline: Aaron Barnhart
In the last week the government has opened inquiries into why cable TV bills are so high and whether the V-chip has done anything to cut down on TV violence.
While they're at it, how about a commission to investigate how ABC, CBS and NBC _ which continue to reap the benefits of free broadcast spectrum _ were able to weasel out of covering one of the essential moments in a free society?
Their failure to cover a single minute of Tuesday night's proceedings at the Democratic National Convention made these broadcast giants look small. And because of their indifference, millions of people missed out on what was the biggest political debut of the year, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama delivered an electrifying address to a cable-and-PBS audience.
Obama, a self-described "skinny kid with a funny name," came into the convention as the presumptive winner of the U.S. Senate race in Illinois. He left the convention as the toast of Boston and the brightest new star in the Democratic Party.
The son of a Kenyan father and Kansan mother, Obama made his remarkable biography the centerpiece of his 15-minute address.
"I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible," he said as a delighted crowd cheered....
I've voted in every election since 1972 and the only votes for president that I have ever regretted casting were for Bill Clinton in '92 and '96. Never again will I vote for a lackey or tool of the corporate globalist oligarchy. All Americans need to realize that the limitation of choices to Coke vs. Pepsi or their political equivalents Demonrat vs. Rethuglican are imposed on them by constant media propaganda and conditioning. We need a higher standard for our candidates. I have already written to the Obama campaign telling him first not to vote for the FISA Amendment Act and then, afterwards, how disappointed I was that I could no longer support his candidacy. The campaign KNOWS how, when, and where he lost my support. I hate to see the country going down the tubes, but if McCain won due to Obama's disaffection of progressive voters, it would send a powerful signal to the Demonrats that they need a candidate with real integrity who will actually stand up to the corporate oligarchy and lead us away from bloodshed and bankruptcy.
What the hell has voting for your next four year term Dictator(s) got to do with "Democracy?"
Democracy is when the PEOPLE decide, not when those elected decide for them.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
starofthesea July 27th, 2008 7:32 pm I am thinking back to the 2004 keynote speech by the "young upstart" Obama and feel a cold chill remembering that the MSM began right then to prepare us for today by gushing over him as the coming Messiah of the Dem Party. In retrospect that seems strange to me. I mean he was as green as Iowa corn.
Starofthesea, you have this part wrong. The MSM actually did NOT cover his speech. They picked that night in the middle of the convention to break for regular programming. It was covered by PBS and some cable outlets, but ABC, CBS, and NBC did not cover it.
If people can't seem to grasp the notion of fascism as a function of the left as well as the right, then review the recent history of Great Britain, i.e. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. It's amazing how so many are blind to the rigging of the matrix. Of course Obama will be allowed to throw a few crumbs to the people to perpetuate the charade. Our fuedal lords such as the Rothchildes, Rockefellers, etc., and their bankers have a long history of financing opposing movements to fuel the chaos, while they scoop up the booty. They financed Hitler, Stalin, Mao, not to forget the Pinochets, Batistas, and an endless line of petty dictators. Now we have a declared dictatorship in the U.S. and Obama and most of the Democrats have said practically nothing about reversing this. We really don't have a government at present--it's been bought up by the fascist New World Order. Why so many can be fooled into thinking that Obama or McCain has the interests of the vast majority of us in mind is truly frightening.
After all those posts, what could I possibly add that is new? Little Brother and Rich M---keep on keepin on. You help me clarify my own unease.
I am thinking back to the 2004 keynote speech by the "young upstart" Obama and feel a cold chill remembering that the MSM began right then to prepare us for today by gushing over him as the coming Messiah of the Dem Party. In retrospect that seems strange to me. I mean he was as green as Iowa corn.
Point 1----Are we really to believe that in the entire Democratic Party the best speaker was a this unknown guy from Illinois? Call me paranoid, but it looks in retrospect like, perhaps a set up.
Point 2----- If there really is only one Party and it serves not the people but it's corporate masters, then surely the meteoric rise of BO took place with all the support/cheerleading of the corpstream media, who most here on this site know is in service to the same corporate masters.
I then conclude that BO is the heir apparent, and if corpstream's cheerleading and his total willingness to bend over and kiss their corporate butts and give the finger to the American people, isn't sufficient, Diebold will take care of the rest. DD, give up your fear mongering about McCain. He's probably feared more by the puppetmasters than good ol BO, since he is crazy as a loon and a loose cannon.
As for Vote Obama because McCain wouild be worse, all I can say is you have got to be kidding me!At best it's a wash. Hasn't BO said enough? and his legal adviser, Sunstein, who counseled him on his FISA vote, and that Bush hasn't done anything illegal, etc is also being posed as a possible Supreme Court appointee if BO is President. Okay DD, does that sound just abit like Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts?
Methinks BO doesn't want to hold Bush accountable for his many crimes because he wouldn't have all those handy executive powers Bush and Co has grabbed. He really wants a smooth transition, folks. new boss same as old boss, but more articulate.
We, the people are the only ones who stand to lose and we are gonna lose way more than we bargained for. HE IS A TOTAL FRAUD and I regret ever giving him the benefit of the doubt. He's part of the problem, not the solution. Obama now disgusts me and truly scares me. What a great packaging the regime has done to get him before us. And what a crash the people who still believe in him will feel when they wake up out of their collective dream of change. Moderate, my ass, he's more of the same, but he comes ina different color. Whoppee ding!
Arry July 27th, 2008 5:48 pm - In regard to Cindy Sheehan, the CMSM propagandists and eager dissent antibodies will try to isolate it into a "San Francisco" thing.
Yes, that certainly could happen, but if all the progressive blogs picked it up as a campaign with national support, it would be harder to label it a "San Francisco" thing. But, the progressives have always been short on organizing, it's like hearding cats.
Obama is only bait n switchin on the rightwing folks to vote for a leftie candidate. if he gets enough vote from teh right, he won't need your progresive ballots!
Vote Obama its alright its safe!
MikeBinSC -- Of course, I agree with you at 1:31. In regard to Cindy Sheehan, the CMSM propagandists and eager dissent antibodies will try to isolate it into a "San Francisco" thing.
Little Brother July 27th, 2008 3:33 pm
That wasn't aimed at you particularly, I meant to add MikeBinSC July 27th, 2008 3:16 pm to it too. And actually it wasn't just for ya'll. I meant it for us all. (myself included)
I've seen both your posts for a while and I know you both to make sense usually. I know that sometimes we say something a certain way and it is taken another way by someone else and the food starts flying....
Just think if everyone here had exactly the same opinion who'd learn anything. My God, if some of the radical extremists quite posting I'd miss them.
Sometimes someone will say something here and a light goes on! I've gotten that from both of you before. And it can be from someone that I hardly ever agree with.
Long winded....I do that I know....anyway, lets not let things go too far if we can.
CD is a great place where I've found liberals like myself to extremists that can't even see the left they are so far right. Centrists, moderates, radicals...makes the world go round.
Thanks to you both for the civil response to my suggestion.
Pax Brothers
RESPONDING TO OBAMA'S POST-NOMINATION SHIFT RIGHT: WITHHOLD DONATIONS? WEAK TACTIC.
MikeBinSC July 26th, 2008 10:30 pm
"If you could get every self-identified progressive to vote for McKinney, the result would be a McSame or Obama win...But, it would increase the probability of a McSame win."
MikeBinSC July 27th, 2008 1:05 am
abramawicz July 27th, 2008 12:45 am
I...explain [to Obama] that...when I see some progressive action from him...he can expect my support. I don't tell him that I intend to vote for him."
Withhold donations? Weak tactic. Here's why.
In a generally apologist article, Green wrote he wanted a candidate "at the left edge of what is realistically possible."
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/27/9925/
If you could get every "self-identified" left liberal Obama supporter to state their intention to vote third party if he shifted right, it "would increase the probability" that he would run "at the left edge of what is realistically possible."
As abramawicz pointedly noted in his reply to Green:
abramawicz June 28th, 2008 11:22 am
"Obama will 'govern at the left edge of what is realistically possible' only if he is made accountable; and he will be accountable only if he cannot take the left Democrat and progressive vote for granted, but is faced with losing votes when he espouses right wing positions."
djnoll -- Please read a bit more about oil resources and related realpolitik if you think our "mission" is to get Bin Laden.
Unfortunately, the FISA vote (for example) *was* a bait and switch.
Democratic centrists are masters of bait and switch. It seems to be one of their primary modes of operation built right into the contradictions of true affiliations and public image. Maybe Obama will be different. There have been many indications that he won't be.
Nevertheless, I agree that there was never any serious reason to consider him a progressive.
I agree with those who think it probable that Obama will be the next president. I am not sanguine at all about the big revolution of people power which will then take place.
I think it is more likely that an endless series of tiny baits and switches will mesmerize those who consider themselves "progressives" but who have little conception of the oppressive and parasitical nature of corporatism in the political process. (They kinda get it, but not really.) So, things will drag on always for a little while longer while those who are really in the fight look forlornly for the crowds to appear.
I'm not saying it has to be this way. But we have to consider ways to continually feed and energize the process under circumstances that drain and sanitize dissent.
I have read this article and only about a third of the responses to realize that neither the author nor the respondents I read have ever actually considered what Obama was actually saying. He is not now, nor has he ever, advocated a war like the one in Iraq nor an imperialist war in Afghanistan. The mission he was talking about was breaking Al Quaida, capturing or killing Bin Laden, and making sure that the Taliban does not continue the work of Al Quaida. This was the mission of the multi-national force that went there in 2002 and it is still their mission - one that thanks to BushCo has been all but abandoned, allowing the work done in 2002 and 2003 to be undone. If you have any doubts, look at the rising casualty numbers and the resurgence of Taliban and Al Quaida forces, which have been sheltered by our so-called allies, the Pakistanis - you know, the ones who allowed nuclear secrets to be sold to the North Koreans. Divert your rage at the Bush Administration for abandoning our mission and our soldiers there for the war in Iraq which was for power, money and greed, and one man's insane desire to best his father.
Whether Obama would be a good, fair, or great president is not the point of this article. This article was written to twist the words of one man to benefit another warmonger, who does not even know his geography well enough to identify where the war is being fought. When Obama talks about shifting troops to Afghanistan, he also asks Europeans to increase their troop numbers so that we can all finish the initial mission - which in case you have all so conveniently forgotten was to bring to justice the man who ordered the 9/11/01 attacks on this nation - and bring all our people home. You moan and groan about collateral damage, and I have to agree with you that it is atrocious, but on 9/12 none of you thought one damn bit about these people - you all wanted was for Bin Laden to die! Now you complain because our current government has so messed up capturing this fanatic, and that innocents are dying. Well, guess what, our soldiers were innocents too, and they were left to die by a government that has consistently protected the perpetrators of 9/11. War is not nice, nor is it pretty. Just ask any EMT that pulled bodies out at the Pentagon or the World Trade Center. We demanded justice, our government promised it, and then the government betrayed us and the soldiers we asked to deliver justice.
Vote or not for Obama. It is a free country for a while longer, but if you vote for McCain or do not vote at all or vote for a fringe candidate, you can count on more dead children - ours and theirs - and more war for years to come. The choice in this democracy is yours - a short increase to finish a mission that was abandoned by Bush with justice for 9/11 victims as the goal or endless, wasted years of continuing, and possibly escalating, war. Choose wisely.
Obama - Just one more corporatist, Republican war-monger posing as a Democrat... to give us more of the same.
Do not vote for dangerous, lying opportunists who cynically believe that voters cannot discern between the course this country needs to take, and the special interest/military program that has been perpetuated for decades... which Obama will continue to shove down our throats in the guise of "real change".
An evil is an evil... no mater how it dresses itself up to please those who willingly engage in self delusion as a substitute for actual change.
You can measure your penchant for self delusion by understanding the fact that Obama doesn't even lie well.
Good comment Nick. One had only to listen to Obama's keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention to know that he was a centrist, not a progressive.
John Pilger, YOU equated the war in Afghanistan with the war in Iraq. Noam Chomsky equated them, along with a majority of the far left. Barack, on the other hand, never equated the two. And frankly, I'm sick of everyone accusing him of bait and switch whenever he disagrees with them on anything, no matter how consistent he has been on the subject.
Obama opposed the war in IRAQ, and claimed Afghanistan was where most of our resources should be directed. He differentiates the two based on the fact that Afghanistan actually harbored terrorists, and the operation was supported by the international community. While I find myself to the left of Obama, his reasoning honestly sounds more convincing than your argument, which consists entirely of talking about a house being blown up.
Sure, I believe we shouldn't put our trust in elections, that we should be building the foundations of the progressive revolution in the streets and communities. But while we're busy with that, we have TWO choices, McCain and Obama. And anyone who believes there are no serious differences between the two clearly suffers from some sort of leftist martyrs complex.
On baiting and switching:
This from the back cover of William Blum's Freeing the World to Death:
"If I were President, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize---very publicly and very sincerely---to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce to every corner of the world that America's global military interventions have come to an end. I would then inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but---oddly enough, a foreign country. Then I would reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damages from the many American bombings, invasions and sanctions. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget in the United States is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year.
That's what I would do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."
.................
Many of Barack Obama's supporters may hold this kind of fantasy of Obama's first three days in office and if, by chance, he actually ran on a promise to do these things, I think he would be overwhelmingly elected. But the bait-and-switch described by Pilger would, indeed, put into effect the gruesome assassination ending if, having baited the peace-lovers with this fantasy and then switched to a militaristic posture, he fulfilled the Obama peoples' fantasy that "once in office" he would fulfill their fantasy, this time having baited the corporate war crowd and then switched to a peacemaker's persona in office. It's one thing to betray hapless peaceniks as Obama has done in this campaign: what are they going to do about it? They'll just accept Obama as the "lesser evil," and shut their eyes and hold their noses while they vote for yet another DLC centrist. But the betraying of the military/industrial establishment complex is another matter. Oliver Stone's JFK picture of military chiefs blasting him for his betrayal in his supposed intention to withdraw from Viet Nam, whether exactly true or not, gives one a believable picture of what might happen on the "fourth day in office" of a President William Blum. Bottom line: Obama has baited and switched on the anti-war movement but, having no suicide impulse that I've ever heard of, he will NEVER switch to a peacemaking posture once he's in office.
Thomas More--
A chain of thunderstorms knocked out my Internet access just as I posted my previous comment, so I wasn't sure if it even got through.
I take your point, but if you've been paying attention, you'll notice that Mike, like Daniel David, is very quick to become frustrated and petulant, and resorts to sarcastic mockery and name-calling to bolster his limited and circular arguments.
It's just as well that CD's crappy comments system doesn't have a "comments archive", because it's not worth going into that deeply-- but if one was able to review individual comments histories, it would be obvious who's first to resort to insults and instigation.
That's par for the course with right-wingnuts, and believe it or not, I do let a lot of it go. I prefer NOT to engage in battles of wit with such lightly-armed adversaries. But dogmatic, anti-intellectual intolerance and abuse is even less justifiable from progressive moderates than from brownshirts and dittoheads.
Patience and forbearance only go so far.
re green-phobia: even independent is a step in the right direction, err.. correct direction- which is to say, away from the existing paradigm. The optimal way to ease those fears, breaking away from the two-party entrenchment/ entrainment.. is by doing it at the local levels first. school boards or town elected officials. know someone who is " progressive".. isn't quite aligned with their party anymore? run as someone off-ticket, independent, progressive. personally i am more leaning toward the " independent" label.. as it carries the minimal of connotation with it.
Only then, will people be able to grasp that not having an " affiliation" by which to " define" themselves or their politicians/ representatives by.. is not a scary thing. Keep in mind we are a culture that likes to be able to pigeon-hole things. By giving something a label.. we can file and dismiss it- know how to respond to it etc.. * without* having to do any of that pesky thinking.. challenging ourselves..
fortunately, I live in VT.. who does happen to have some of the few non-dominant party officials actually in office. bernie sanders.. probably best described ( and once upon a time, self-described, i think) as a socialist.. gasp and shudder.. is very successful as an " independent".. a powerful voice and definitely his own man, rather than a corporate lacky. as a socialist- we are afraid of him. as an independent.. not so scary.. lol:)
Thomas More July 27th, 2008 1:56 pm
Little Brother is just showing that he doesn't understand humor. He likes to make himself sound "complex", but he and his ideas are really quite "simple".
Come on people, a story that is critical of Obama is not automatically supportive of McCain. Obviously McCain is worse than Obama on this front.
There's nothing wrong with being critical of the candidate you support-- Indeed, it's a little silly to blindly follow your candidate off a cliff. If Obama-supporters are critical of him, there is a greater chance that he will change. I, for one, have let everyone from the Obama camp soliciting for money know that I will be withholding any donations until Obama pulls his head out on issues like these.
I guess the lesson here is.. you people should have gone with Kucinich or Paul when you had the chance.. if only they were as good-looking as Obama.
Commnetator "Staying sane in an insane world" has a good point re Pilger not being part of the lunatic fringe because, inter alai, he produced a documentary on Diego Garcia. I did not know this and take back my comment placing Mr. Pilger in the "lunatic" cohort. (I have actually been on Diego Garcia.) As to Obama's ability to restore America's prestige around the world, what this means is letting America be respected not for its military and economic strength but for its empathy for those less fortunate. Obama is sensitive to the needs of the marginalized for he has walked in their shoes both overseas and in the US.
Little Brother July 27th, 2008 1:34 pm
Come on guys. Surely we can disagree without getting personal. I know it gets loose sometimes. I've been guilty of a few food fights that are less than adult.
But surely we can exchange view points without personal comments.....humor and sascasm aside. There are some good ones.
I hope if I get sidetracked some one will step in and hollar "whoa"
MikeBinSC July 27th, 2008 1:21 am
The way Little Brother writes, well, it's a wonder anyone knows what he's saying. Ask him about his little thesaurus.
_______________________________________________
Sorry my prose is such a challenge for you, Mike. Complex thoughts on complex issues produce complex sentences. I write a lot of comments on a lot of blogs, and most grownups are able to keep up-- even if they don't like what they're reading.
Maybe you ought to find a fully literate adult to help you decode my comments. Meanwhile, it would really behoove you and your fellow-travelers in the "Vote Obama End of Story" camp to work on your own logic and clarity of expression instead of resorting to your jeering-rube style of defending the indefensible with snide cheap shots and laughably inane speculations about the aims and motives of those who inexplicably refuse to yield to your bankrupt and dumbed-down politics.
Sorry-- I meant to dumb this down a shade or two. But I can only squat so low.
Arry July 27th, 2008 1:07 pm
I'm with you on building the Green Party so that one day, hopefully, in the not-to-distant future, it CAN BE a viable alternative in the presidential elections.
www.switch2green.org
In the meantime we should pursue the very attainable goal of tossing Speaker Pelosi out of the House and getting Cindy Sheehan elected if we can. This would be a statement that none could ignore - It would truly shake the establishment.
Two great comments form Chris-
ChrisHorton July 26th, 2008 7:40 pm
ChrisHorton July 27th, 2008 11:43 am
Well said, and great advice.
Best wishes for your campaign, John.
Taking a bit from Chris Horton's thoughtful posting and others looking for solutions, I'll just plug the Greens one more time. If it is a matter of building, then we have to build *ourselves* as well as a movement that will actually create necessary changes.
Joining and participating in Green politics is one step in empowerment. If you are wavering in the twilight zone of fear and depression, you can break out of it by working for concrete things you really believe in, working with other like-minded people worldwide and locally, doing something.
For some reason which I've haven't been able to fully fathom, many folks who know what's going on and what the true problems that need solutions are, balk at registering Green...obviously carry some kind of irrational fear about it. (I've talked to many such people from the 1990's on, and little shock and fleeting flash of fear is fairly predictable.) Well, fear is something we have to get over. It's the stock-in-trade of those we oppose and is one of their most useful tools.
So, following Chris again, let's not be too grim or mistake fear and nihilism for cynical realism. The process of building empowerment can be an adventure; personally, socially, culturally. Don't get stuck.
ChrisHorton-
well said
You didn't really expect the military-industrial complex and the weapons industry thugs to allow bombs to be stored somewhere gathering dust, did you? Actually, they don't care who they drop them on as long as it's a source money for them. Gun-toting gangsters on the streets are less dangerous than these greedy war-profiteering bottom feeders who kill millions of innocent people for profit.
"Shucks, another run on piece with too many words. Sorry, desperation, I suppose, born of a increasing sense of frustration at not being to persuade others of what I know to be true ….."
Thanks H2O, with me you're preaching to the choir, but I appreciate your posts. Yours is the message that we need to keep repeating.
I am naive enough to believe that if we vote for something different than the status quo, then we will get something different. After all it worked for my state when an ex-wrestler ran on his "Don't vote for politics as usual" platform, and won! It CAN be done !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ventura
I would love to see a Nader/Kucinich or Kucinich/Nader ticket!
27 Reasons to VOTE NADER . . .
1. Obama
2. John McCain
3. Seat belts
4. The abuse the Katrina victims by their insurance companies
5. 650,000+ dead Iraqi civilians (estimates go up to 3 million)
6. 4000+ dead U.S. military
7. The Black Budget
8. Torture
9. The CIA
10. Blackwater
11. Lack of access to Health care which causes the deaths of 18,000 US citizens every year.
12. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, MSNBC
13. Factory farming and franken foods
14. Monsanto
15. The loss of family farms
16. The lack of regulations to restrict predatory practices by the banking and credit card industry
17. The mortgage crisis
18. Global warming
19. The loss of good will toward the U.S. around the world. Ralph could restore the status of the U.S.
20. He is not a Republican.
21. He is not a Democrat.
22. He is not an Empire builder.
23. He would not invade Iran, Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, Finland, Switzerland, Canada, Mexico, or New Zealand.
24. Ralph owes no favors to any corporation.
25. Ralph cannot be bought.
26. Ralph has a long history of quietly working behind the scene to help ordinary people in their struggles against the powerful — such as the time he helped a group of New Jersey citizens oppose the construction of a floating nuclear power plant off the coast of Atlantic City. Ralph quietly came to Cape May, no fan-fare, no political motives. He helped the people. The people won. The floating nuclear plant was not built.
27. Ralph is smart, incorruptible, and honest.
Ralph is not the only candidate who should be considered for the presidency. There are others who are also qualified, such as Dennis Kucinich, Angela Davis, Cynthia McKinney, Ward Churchill, William Blum, Cindy Sheehan, and many, many more.
If you want to end the occupation of Iraq, vote Obama. If you want to end militarism itself and start solving our real problems, then vote McKinney-Clemente and help build the Green Party, the only party with comprehensive solutions and a vision of what a better world could look like.
No matter which progressive candidate (Nader or McKinney) you support, please remember to also contribute what you can. Campaigns need money to get their message out.
John M. Wages, Jr.
US House Candidate, MS-01
www.VoteJohnWages.com
Dogface,
What our country lacks is not fearless leaders. We have, for example, Dennis Kucinich. Ralph Nader. Cynthia McKinney, Cindy Sheehan, Daniel Berrigan, Jesse Jackson (!) and many more. And if they are struck down there will be others. The problem is rather that we need a much deeper and broader movement, one that can support them and through which they can communicate with the people. One that doesn't rely on the mass media.
Kucinich, for example, is clearly fearless, a man of the people and a son of labor, a deep thinker and a prophet. His fight for Impeachment is the stuff of legends, as was his pioneering fight as "Boy Mayor of Cleveland" against the forced privatization of the city-owned power company. His campaign for president in 2004 had active committees in 50 states and received more donations than any other candidate but Howard Dean. (But few large donations!) He ran again in 2008, received standing ovations at the NAACP forum and especially at the AFL/CIO forum at Soldiers' Field, but after the first few debates he was excluded for persistently trying to talk about the issues. His press coverage in '04 and again in '08 was close to zero, and what little there was took the form of ridicule and scorn, and the endlessly-repeated label "un-electable".
I keep meeting progressive-minded working-people, Black and white, who've never heard of him.
There's the nub of the problem. We don't yet have the tools, the contacts, the networks, the level of understanding (theirs and ours) to reach the tens of millions, and there is no way around it but the hard slow work of organizing people around the issues that concern them, within existing organizations or building new ones, establishing lines of communications and using them, and educating ourselves. No sense blaming anyone for what hasn't been done yet, or for what they don't yet know or understand. Just work to do.
So keep your perspective. This election is hugely important, but it will solve nothing, resolve nothing. This one is a defensive battle, but we could gain some real ground, mostly in understanding, connections, the ability to make things happen, a bit more breathing space. But win or lose, the fight goes on.
Be prepared to spend a lifetime at it. Don't turn disagreements over strategy or tactics into enmities and dogmas. Don't mistake representatives of the corporate elite who offer a tactical alliance for true friends, but don't spurn an offered advantage for spite. Above all, build.
Build your understanding through reading, discussing and doing. Build your networks and build the understanding and experience of the people around you. Build a legacy and a story line for your children and their children and theirs. Know that you are part of an adventure that has been going on for tens of thousands of years, and that will with luck and courage go on for thousands or millions more. Have some fun along the way, and keep your sense of humor. You're going to need it.
pter montana
btw- note that I am not a historian here-
this country was essentially founded, by younger sons ( those who did NOT inherit), and came here to make their fortunes. So, it might be said that this country is perpetuating the dynamic under which it initially started.. pursuing its intent.. to take/ claim what was somehow " denied" them by the fact of their birth. they took it from the indians, they took it from the french, spanish, mexicans etc. and keep taking and taking and taking.. like an addict or wounded child whose addiction will/ can never be filled.
the most powerful thing we can do, is appreciate that the macrocosm reflects the microcosm as much as the inverse. the most powerful thing we can each do, is to understand the dynamics.. ferret out the ways in which we each/ all perpetuate that.. and change our own perceptions and actions accordingly. do we want change, or do we want to be angry? opposing something strengthens is and wastes/ diverts energy. decide what we want.. and start building that at the grass roots level.
anthropology shows the power of diffusion.. hell.. just look at humans.. we diffused all over the globe from a single person….:)
ezeflyer says: Obama or McCain is a life or death decision and the only one you get.
Wrong on (two) accounts.
First, both are warmongers. If anyone represents death, its both Obama and McCain. Comon' now, you know its true.
Second, I do have a choice other than these cretins: Nader.
Final note: I'm not interested in spending another 4-8 years bashing some nitwit I helped install.
Nader '08!
If we can ever get to the point that we quit allowing the lesser evilists to win, then, and only then, will we begin to get the people representing us that we really want.
Lobo Gris
We are owned and operated by a super-rich global gangster cabal that will dispose of domestic and foreign opposition at the drop of a hat. These gangsters will never give up power voluntarily. Noam Chomsky is right: "The US public is irrelevant"
Our nation has lost the Spirit of 1776. We have been intimidated into submission. Our military is the only institution that could stop these gangsters and bring them to justice. After all, haven't they taken an oath to defend our Constitution from domestic and foreign enemies? ha, ha, ha.
Too bad the military-industrial complex owns our generals.
I ask myself, how is all this going to end? Anyone out there have an answer?
"Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power - because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, "bait-and-switch" Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince."
Obama has been well-groomed for the position. One only needs to ask why he voted in favor of the latest FISA bill http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/26240prs20060726.htm that recently passed in the Senate and further erodes our FOURTH AMENDMENT protections. Does he believe that the "rule of law" applies to our elitist, corporate-fed government or just its tax-paying slaves?
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who apparently believes we need to re-write the Constitution and surrender our sovereigntyhttp://www.afr.org/Hultberg/snatchers.htm , is one of Obama's main advisors.
Republicans and Democrats share the same elitist ideology with few exceptions! What this country needs is a "Reform" Party.
How often does each of us practice telling people what they need to hear, rather than being polite/ convenient? so long as we all do this.. the collective people of the country will continue to fall sway to the politician who tells them what they want to hear. We need to get used to hearing hard truth ( things we would prefer to deny/ ignore), and learn that the truth isn't hard to deal with- only then will we start to demand it of and from our leaders and politicians.
change starts with us. that is literal.