Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
- 'Biggest Act of Civil Disobedience in Canadian History'
Popular content
Today's Top News
Beyond Obama: Zinn Says Direct Action Needed
Howard Zinn says small differences matter, but a powerful social movement needed for real change
This a pivotal presidential election that finds America mired in two wars abroad, floundering through an economic crisis and digging itself deeper into debt every day, all during a time when global credibility is at an all-time low.
A person who wants a bold change in the way United States is going is not going to find them represented by either democratic or republican candidate. There are certain moments in history when even a small difference between the candidates may be crucial.
The Real News spoke to Howard Zinn, an American historian, political scientist, social critic, activist and playwright. He is best known as author of the bestseller 'A People's History of the United States'.
Zinn states " We have gone through an insufferable 8 years with the Bush administration, probably the worst administration in history. In this situation we are desperate for a change. So even though Obama doesn't represent any fundamental change he creates an opening for a possibility of change. That is why I am voting for Obama. That is why I suggest to people that they vote for him. But I also suggest that Obama will not fulfill that potential for change unless he is enveloped by a social movement, which is angry enough, powerful enough, insistent enough, that he fills his abstract phrases about change with some real content."
- Posted in
146 Comments so far
Show AllYes, he'd damn well better, and I'll be one of those angry, powerful (if only), and insistent people who voted for him.
Guess we're going to have to start flooding our representatives in Congress again.
And we all know how well THAT worked in the criminal bailout for the criminals in Wall Street...
The social movement begins by voting against ANY member of Congress who voted for the bailout.
Here's a strategy for just such a social movement from a person who actually began a social movement over 40 years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ-R4vKLKfU
I appears as if Zinn and Chomsky's minimalist "endorsements" of Obama will be rotated regularly on CD until Erection Day. There's absolutely nothing new here.
That's been a feature of the Obama propaganda for a long time now. For over a year now I've seen Obama propaganda pieces that try to link him to every progressive icon. I've seen him linked to Dr. King Jr, especially back last Jan when the holiday comes around. I've seen him linked to FDR. I've seen him linked to JFK.
This same junk keeps appearing, even thought Obama opposes almost everything the Dr. King, FDR, Prof Zinn and Prof Chomsky stand for.
This is just part of the propaganda to create the delussion that Obama represents the left and is 'progressive'. Even though Obama is constantly a center-rightist (at best, sometimes he's scarily further to the right), this is how they create the delusion. In turn, this leads to the sort of vague comments you see out here from Obama supporters who vaguely say we should support Obama because he's 'progressive', or the ones who just seem dellusional about what Obama really stands for.
That's the full cycle for those who would learn from it. The propaganda techniques that create an extremely false impression, to the people who then argue and seem to believe that impression, but who have nothing to back it up with when really asked to do so.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Yeah,
And if you look back at all those attempted connections, it almost like they were being "tried on" one by one. For awhile its Dr. King, then its RFK, then JFK, the economy is a big issue? now its FDR!
At the exact moment that Obama is pushing for an outrageous shift of wealth to the private sector that would have made John Rockefeller blush, Teddy Roosevelt reach for a pistol, and sent effigies of FDR alight in Capitols across the nation, they try to link him to Franklin Roosevelt!
Now that things have gotten close, a stronger technique is being employed. Presenting rural or "southern" people as backward, violent, hicks, then showing them to be loyal to the selected Loser is much more effective than trying to link the selected Winner to famously popular leaders of the past.
Since the population is NOT that backward, violent, or "hickish" (including most of the rural and southern pops.) and since of course everyone KNOWS this -especially those connected to TV since it was for their programmers and advertisers benefit that much of the statistics that show this were gathered in the first place- the population is predictably moved away from McCain. And since the parties and the Media have done such a good job keeping third parties out (of mind at least), -and since Obama has done a very good job of being incredibly similar in policy to McCain- a move AWAY from McCain is predictably a move TOWARD Obama.
The new move to employ a similar technique in associating Obama with SOCIALISM is particularly nasty considering that its being peddled by Corporations who know perfectly well that Obama is their Man, AND who know better than you or I just how much the average "American" under 70 would WELCOME a little bit of socialism in this country.(Health Care being the screaming example here)
The sad part to me is that the poor bastards who get manipulated this way -mostly by CableTV News and their allies in the press and wire services- are not only being exposed to this crap, but huge amounts of advertising, its all going past their conscious filters -and they are PAYING for it all!
Don't Panic,
-matti.
Actually, I'm slightly surprised that Zinn, Chomsky, Hayden, Michael Moore etc, all say to vote for Obama. I'm pretty sure that most of them also said to vote for Kerry and Gore. See what that got them.
Obama bails out Wall Street, votes for FISA, wants to increase the military and military action, etc, and these supposedly 'progressive' voices tell us out here to support Obama in spite of his shortcomings?
Where is leadership? Where is someone who tells us that what Obama offers is unacceptable, and that we need to support a candidate who is truer to the values of the general public than corporate interests.
No sale here. I'm voting for Nader. Has Zin even read his book? Change always requires struggle, and keeping your vision intact. Lesser of two evils is not my principle that I vote on.
"I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, then vote for what I don't want and get it." Eugene Debs
www.NotOneMore.US
Obama in the White House will only slow the left's cause. Folks will think they'll have a legitimate leader who won't be subservient to his white masters and Wall Street donors.
Change doesn't come from elections, it never did. Go back and study history.
So what's your suggestion? McCain? A 3rd party vote that will help McCain get to the White House? Give me a break.
If it's not close captioned nor transcript online, deaf people can't have access to this material. Deaf people do a lot of online reading. I point out the obvious.
I get the feeling that the economic crisis will force Obama to be as progressive as his base. I have always seen Obama as a centrist, so I was never disillusioned with some of his more moderate positions. However, he BO wins, the american public has to keep him focused on the working class.
So, I decided to look up the word "centrist" in the Free Dictionary.
The definition, as a noun, wasn't all that interesting or surprising.
centrist: n. One who takes a position in the political center; a moderate. (I think the intent is to use a sort of "political relativism" measured against the population rather than, more reasonably, measured against the broader spectrum of ideas, opinions and values).
The example they provided for "centrist" as an adjective was far more interesting.
centrist: adj. Marked by or adhering to a moderate political view.
example: "The deep pool of centrist opinion in the country, that essential guarantee against violent political upheavals, is being dangerously shaken" - New York Times.
What is so moderate about views that could result in the destruction of Earth's ecosystem and the termination of life on the planet? Is it moderate to vote for the guy who will punch a 25 foot hole in the hull of your boat instead of the guy who will punch a 50 foot hole?
BTW, I don't think it makes much difference whether people vote for Obama or they don't. I think your post, citing issues and values, is far more important. I like the "here's what's wrong with Obama; don't you agree?" approach more than the "here's why you shouldn't vote for Obama" approach. Let's work at getting a buy in on the underlying values and issues.
I guess that strategy will become more acceptable to liberal Democrats after the election. Right now, they're blinded by their rah-rah.
Hmm, I wish I knew where to find the quote quickly, but Obama has actually been saying just the opposite. I've seen quotes from him where he's basically already saying he may have to give up all his progressive policy ideas in order to make sure we can keep pumping hundreds of billions of dollars to his Wall Street backers\cronies.
Obama has already made the decision that the money he might have spent on his vague progressive ideas is already instead going to the Wall street guys.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Here's one example:
LEHRER: All right. All right, speaking of things that both of you want, another lead question, and it has to do with the rescue -- the financial rescue thing that we started -- started asking about.
And what -- and the first answer is to you, Senator Obama. As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it's going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?
OBAMA: Well, there are a range of things that are probably going to have to be delayed. We don't yet know what our tax revenues are going to be. The economy is slowing down, so it's hard to anticipate right now what the budget is going to look like next year.
But there's no doubt that we're not going to be able to do everything that I think needs to be done.
from the transcript of the first debate
To see what an Obama administration has in store for us, look at Paul Street's book Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics. Written from a progressive perspective, it reinforces and details Zinn's astute comments about the need to organize a progressive movement to oppose an Obama administration.
Great book. I was just reading some of it at lunch time. I'd highly recommend it!
One thing I keep saying is that in a year or two, there are going to be a lot of very disillusioned 'progressives' who should be willing to join us in protesting and opposing an Obama administration.
If you want the wars in the Middle East to end, you'll be out in the streets with us protesting President Obama and his policies.
If you oppose bailing out Wall Street and protecting the corporate crooks from prosecution, you'll be out in the streets with us protesting President Obama and his policies.
If you want a fair and equitable health care system, you'll be out in the streets with us protesting President Obama and his policies.
If you oppose a government that's a police state spying on its citizens, you'll be out in the streets with us protesting President Obama and his policies.
This could go on for awhile, but I think most people should get the point from just the beginnings of this list.
Personally, I say start the opposition early and vote Nader. But, if you got to vote for Obama, just realize you are going to be opposing him sooner rather than later. Unless that is you are willing to support what is basically a Republican agenda just because the President has a (D) after his name. Anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan is going to have to eventually decide either to stand by their beliefs and oppose Obama, or to support Obama and give up their beliefs.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I don't know, Samson. I followed Rich M's link, and we may be protesting something much more horrific than the usual suspects you mentioned.
Think of the change that could happen if we progressives got our act together and voted for true change via Nader. We wouldn't be setting ourselves up for another four years of pushing the wet noodle by voting the lesser of two evils once again. REAL change will NEVER come through voting for a candidate who is beholden to corporate masters. NEVER! NEVER! NEVER! WE will be fooled again.
Although I have been an admirer of the work and positions held by Nader and the intellectual thought that a third party would actually be good for our country, the realistic fact is that neither he nor it will happen in our lifetime. Moreover, if the social fabric and mindset of this country were not so intellectually brainwashed Obama would not have to be so beholden to the Jewish electorate and military/terrorist mindset, etc. If he wasn't, however, he wouldn't be electable becuase of the sheer number of people whe just don't get it. Must we develop a strong social movement that holds his feet to the flame, yes indeed. Will change be anything but incremental? No, of course not. Institutions and the people they govern are always slow to change. Finally, as they say, the revolution will not be televised! Get to work people, we have a tough row to hoe.
Your first and last sentences are very contradictory. You start off by saying that its impossible to happen in your lifetime. Then you say get to work. And you do it all while being critical of exactly the people who are doing exactly that work right now ... the people talking about and supporting the alternative candidates in this election.
Why not follow your own advice and join us right now? Stop being critical. Stop being negative and saying it can't happen. Stop supporting candidates that don't beleive in anything we believe in and who instead actively OPPOSE every progressive notion from bailing out homeowners and not wall street, to ending our awful wars, to good single payer health care, to holding criminals in the government accountable to the law.
If you believe in what you say at the end, get to work and come join uks.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/20-0
"We may elect representatives to Congress to end the war in Iraq, but the war goes on. We may plead with these representatives to halt Bush's illegal wiretapping but the telecommunications lobbyists make sure it remains in place. We may beg them not to pass the bailout but 850 billion taxpayer dollars are funneled upward to the elites on Wall Street. We may want single-payer, not-for-profit health care but it is not even discussed as a possibility in presidential debates. We, as individuals in this system, are irrelevant."
Published on Monday, October 20, 2008 by TruthDig.com
The Idiots Who Rule America
by Chris Hedges
....................
We elect...we plead...we beg...we are irrelevant....
WE aren't going to take it anymore
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
.
Howard, live long and prosper.
A way to keep people from becoming complacent, to keep them active and pushing for change in an Obama admin. is to use the profit motive. Money is the greatest motivator of all. And it can be used for good or ill, depending on its distribution.
Give people equal shares of non-transferable stock and dividends from our public treasure. People will pay constant attention when it involves their dividend income, same as investors do about any other investment. They will pay attention to what persons, banks and corporations We the People Inc.'s management is dealing with, to whether they are honest or crooked. And they will have one person, one vote in yearly stockholder's (online?) meetings as in a direct democracy.
If instead of politicians, We the People Inc. get shares of stock in AIG and others we bought out, we may someday get dividends. That precedent is waiting to be set. With a President Obama, we have a chance.
To bad Obama will never in a million years do what you propose.
Have you not noticed that Obama is completely on board with the BUSH\McCain\Democrat bailout plan? Didn't you see him fly back to DC not only to vote FOR it but to also twist arms to make sure it passed.
Have you not noticed that Obama has never said anything that you attribute to him? Or maybe you haven't noticed that from the very beginning of the campaign his biggest backers and contributors are exactly the people who would be hurt by what you propose?
This is sheer fantasy. It has nothing to do with Obama. Electing Obama will not only produce what you say you want, instead electing Obama will give us a President who's been bought by Wall Street and who will actively oppose exactly what you say you want.
If you really want what you describe as a policy, then vote Nader.
If you want the continuation of the Bush\McCain\Obama bailout plan, and protection of the wall street crooks from prosecution, then vote Obama.
But don't try to pretend you'll get Nader's policies by voting for Obama. That's just ridiculous.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I think that's because he's actually trying to get elected by the sheeple, rather than going for 2% of the vote.
Don't try to pretend you'll get Nader's policies by NOT voting for Obama.
No it's because he's a Democrat and that's what Democrats do. You should take your own advice and don't try to pretend that you'll get Nader's policies or anything remotely as good by voting FOR Obama.
.
If Democrats cannot beat the Republicans without the votes of the folks who vote Independent,
That is the Democrats fault, not the fault of the people who chose not to vote for them.
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
ZinnLogic: a study of convolution, contradiction and self-delusion.
Change does not manifest through support of that which prevents change.
For those who want the level of change to which Zinn points (as a diversionary tactic), validating Obama is the definition of counter-production.
To produce real change, a demonstration of opposing ideology must be developed *outside* of the established power system. Both Zinn and Chomsky openly admit that there is only one party... that there is no real choice between the two factions... that they both serve the same oligarchy.
Yet they promote the concept of supporting that party of limitation... and insisting that support can logically lead to change.
No mechanism for real change directed by "We the People" currently exists nor can it spring from a system that is based upon "no choice". Mandated exclusionism can only produce more exclusion.
There is a reason that all politics are now extremely right of center. Voting for The Party is a fraud. It is only an attempt to gain increased validation of the means of exclusion. A vote for The Party is a vote for the system which disables our voice.
When voters endorse voiceless obedience to corporatist rule, it only repudiates any attempt to gain voice. It leaves opposition defenseless. That is the real reasoning behind this barrage of propaganda on CD. The Party wants NO opposition to corporatist rule.
Vote for Obama and then work within the system to wrest power? This is a self-defeatist's dream. It is a set-up for failure. It is a scenario that has but only one conclusion... more accelerated and unfettered drive towards fascism.
What happens when our only choice (and you WILL have to vote), is between fascism and Stalinistic totalitarianism? Will ZinnLogic still maintain that we should obediently vote for those who have reduced us to complete powerless pawns? Will it insist that we continue to work only within the system that prevents any voice?
Build opposition now. Do not be co-opted. Do NOT vote for Obama and all that he represents. His "hope" is a lie. Vote for a "second" party or abstain from participating in this charade.
toast said: ZinnLogic: a study of convolution, contradiction and self-delusion.
-------
Yup, completely agree --- it is sad to see individuals such as Zinn and Chomsky stoop down to supporting imperialists such as Obama. But that is to be expected, they have very little experience in actual movement building and so don't fully understand the dynamics of how movements are built.
Obama is being elected based on what he has said he will do, not based on what so-called "progressives" want him, or expect him to do... When he is in office he will do what he has said he will do, and the liberal-left will never pressure him as they would a Republican. We can see how Clinton was able to push through a rotten welfare deform plan, and his 8 years of horrendous sanctions on the people of Iraq - that his sectry of state said was worth the million + deaths of Iraqi childern.
Obama has already promised to have warlords such as Powell in his cabinate, what more proof do liberal-leftists need of the kind of regime to expect under this guy? Obama, once in office, has no need to listen to the 5% or less who are progressive activists, because he won't need 'em. The guy does need 'em NOW 'cause he needes their votes, and organizing energy. And if people were serious about change, the pressure would have been on him now, not later. And that pressure would have been very simple: start talking about our issues now, or you won't get the votes (period).
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
"When he is in office he will do what he has said he will do, and the liberal-left will never pressure him as they would a Republican."
You are right. Lets just vote for McCain. Once he is in power, we on the 'Left', liberal or progressive or whatever can then exert real pressure on him.
LOL! the usual obamaite gone crazy response.
NO, we vote for Nader or McKinney, give them 5% or more, then use that solid organized base with a clarity of ideas and principles to then pressure Obama/McCain.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Which one .. Nader or McKinney ... they dont particularly like each other too much ... kinda like Obama and McCain (similar but still ..).
"they have very little experience in actual movement building and so don't fully understand the dynamics of how movements are built"
That's not even close to being accurate.
Chomsky and Zinn were both HUGE figures in the anti-VietNam movement. They were writing, educating and organizing in the period between the start of the war (March 1962) and the time when you actually saw protests in the streets 5+ years later. Precisely what they did is to help build that movement. Zinn especially was an important figure in the civil rights movement of the South. They both have enormous experience in building social movements.
The message to people who have been dedicating their time and money to elect Obama is this:
The effort required to push Obama ahead of McClone on November 4 is miniscule compared to the effort it is going to take to get an Obama Administration to implement change that benefits anybody other than top 2%. History proved this to be the case when FDR was elected in 1932.
Dear Howard, Obama does the exact opposite: he closes the door on real progressive change. What we must do: boycott ALL corporate media; vote ONLY for real progressive candidates (preferably outside the two party (sic) system); educate educate educate through pamphlets, alternative medias, theatre, television shows of our own; continue to tell the DPA's why they are dangerous to real progressive change. Just for starters!
Even with all their warnings and caveats about Obama, Chomsky's and Zinn's support for him shows the dottering caution that old age can bring to formerly vigorous thinkers -- much as I sincerely respect their life's work.
Zinn thinks Obama's election would create an opening for the possibility of change?
I think what Howard's statement really means is that Obama's election would: theoretically enable the potential for the creation of a possibility that leads, maybe afterward, to an opening for the uncertain development of a chance for the consideration of perhaps-useful change to be discussed......
I hope Howard and Noam will forgive my reluctance to vote for something like this.
"Oh" they'll tell us after the election. "We agree with you on most of those progressive things you're saying. But you have to understand, the next election is just two years away. If we imposed all that purist, fringe stuff on our Democratic Congress and on President Obama, we'd lose tons of seats in the 2010 election. Remember, the perfect is the enemy of the good."
The idea that those who are not willing to take political risks NOW but will do so once in power is absurd.
Bravo, Professor Zinn.
If only the weenie Naderites had a small fraction of your wisdom.
A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain/Bush policies. Wake up.
Obama is not good enough. But to say they are the same is inaccurate. Here are some tangible differences.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: Obama plans to reinstate Habeas Corpus. He was a cosponsor of an amendment to reinstate it. He supports trial rights for "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay .
John McCain does not plan to reinstate Habeas Corpus, and voted against that amendment. He called the Supreme court ruling granting trial rights to "enemy combatants "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country" .
Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act, which John McCain not only voted for, but almost singlehandedly spearheaded. This piece of legislation also relates to the torture issue.
DIPLOMACY: Obama has repeatedly stated his willingness to negotiate with "official enemies" and was attacked by both Democrats and Republicans.
John McCain frequently attacks Obama on this issue, and retains the Bush doctrine: Once they've already done what we want, then we'll negotiate.
MILITARIZATION OF SPACE: Obama wants to cut missile defense and "weaponization of space" program budgets.
McCain wants to increase missile defense and "weaponization of space" program budgets.
TAXATION: According to Harper's Index, Obama would raise the tax rate on the highest income earners by 5%. McCain would decrease that tax rate by 12%. 2 other sources on Taxation differences.
Sure, sure, Obama plans this, Obama plans that. Watch what he does, not what he says. He's a Democrat for God's sake. Lying is in their genes.
Obama vowed never to vote for the FISA bill and voted for the bill anyway. He's not to be trusted.
Interesting, Zen thinks a third party should hold off until it can arrive in strength. Rather, Zen is saying it is up to the leftist, social change progressives to do what they didn’t do with Clinton, pressure the president to go further, envelope him with a social movement.
He is also saying that he doesn’t expect this to happen unless economic times get much worse, there are more foreclosures etc resembling the thirties.
Then he expects strikes, direct action etc.
So don’t worry, rather than support the candidate who will give you what you need now, just wait until things get much worse, there are conditions resembling the thirties, there are violent labour confrontations, and the Dem or Rep president is forced grudgingly to give you the bare minimum he has to in civil rights, healthcare, employment equity, peace, etc.
That is one way to do it.
Personally I think the Republicans and the Corporations have more influence and will be capable of pressuring the Democrats (as they currently do) more than any social movement could at this point. This is why I am going to vote for Ralph Nader. These intellectuals (as respectable as they are) are not inerrant. I would love for Ralph Nader to debate this issue with Chomsky and Zinn. Obama is increasingly pandering to corporations and Republicans. Why will that change when he's in office? Why hasn't it changed the past 2 years when the Democrats got control of the House and Senate. There is no force of pressure other than Nader for this movement. So we have to keep voting for him and supporting him so he keeps raising these issues. I think more votes for Nader equals more pressure on the system to change. Even in the electoral arena. It was clear after what happened in 2000 that the electoral needed to change. But has there been any indication that it will? No.. so why do we wait another 4 to 8 years to wonder if anything else will ever change?
Deteriorating economic circumstances will force progressive change. Washington will be the last to change. If we ignore them collectively by refusing to acknowledge their leadership, refusing to serve in the armed services, refusing to participate in the consumer society, refusing to pay our taxes, the movement will be too large to put into their puny little KBR prisons, the elite will flee for their lives and American's will take their country back. Not one gun is necessary in that kind of revolution.
Americans are really quite remarkable in their apparent wide-spread REFUSAL to form anything resembling a "movement" ... you would think that something as apparently universal and nonpartisan as "the crappy quality of public education," by now, would have made the PTA and the teachers unions massively major players ... We all pay taxes and many many people have kids ... and "every parent" wants their child to have a bright future ... but, as far as I can tell, there is very little grassroots growing around education ... the energy seemsto be directed either in supporting the charter school your very own child is attending or towards making enough money to afford private school.
It's fascinating how Americans avoid collective action. I marvel that complaints about the "quality of education" have been loud and constant since shortly after I graduated high school in 1969 ... and the schools have, overall, apparently consistently declined in quality. The NYT reported that No Child Left Behind has managed to result in previously well-rated schools now failing. .... I don't even want to think of the morale problems teachers and administrators must face.
If we're not willing to do anything about education ... what are "we" likely to stand up for? This "I"ve got mine, too bad about you and yours" attitude seems to have permeated and fouled our "civil society."
I hate to think just how bad things would have to get to reverse this I-me-mine isolationism.
(In comparision, universal health care is infinitely more "controversial", likely more expensive and complicated and beset by various rightwing doomsday/creeping socialism urban legends)
Common Causers, Zinnites,Chomskyists., et. al. get it through your heads--Obama -man is simply a Front-man for corporate rule. As is McCain or any other elected official. Rich-rule in this country, as in every other and they have the military/warlords/thugs to support them. Jefferson said we need a revolution every 20 years to keep democracy going--time's up!
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
&YYY&
Overthrow of the current media regime presents a pivot place.
For discussion about relevant facts and truths, with an honest face
There is too much presentation of denial, blathers trivial and absurd
For meaningful conversation about adaptation and change to be heard.
The current regime rules by myth, with an air of exceptionality,
Even though both the laws of physics and greed apply with ultimate finality.
The myths are broadcast as gossamer presented as daily gospel,
They are the thinnest paper walls, so punch and tear to escape the spell.
Must see:
Barack Obama Music Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY
Not that it is going to be much different - but I personally feel that all of the preceding comments should be VERY prepared to change Obama to McCain.
As I said, it makes no difference who is elected - unless it is our sister from Georgia, the other Mc - McKinney.
But I could be wrong !
cont... re: Creating a national movement. This I believe.
*********
I’ve had it with protests. I want the dignity of a vote.
Where do we go from here? How is our voice to be heard? --- We must go to the voting booths, all of us, more often! We must hold official national votes on the broad, meaningful issues of our governance. We must pick the issues, prioritize them, debate them for as much as a year, and then vote. Congress doesn’t have the guts to tackle the issues that need to be addressed, no matter how clear the need is. Year after year we must vote, all of us, as many as 4-6 times, directly, on the big issues relating to the broad outlines of our governance. We must discover the social values and policies that unify us as a people and adhere to them. Tax policy, foreign policy, trade policy, health care policy, education policy, environmental policy, drug policy, whistleblower policy.......
The people will “take back” this country from the abusers of the public trust when we take a more direct hand in the decisions that our leaders must abide by.
It is going to take informed opinions and the participation of all Americans to recreate an America we can all be proud of again.....Following the leader hasn't proven very effective.
***********************************************
****************************************
************************
The above is not a theoretical proposal. You can go vote on it now!
After 20 years of effort, a working proposal is already established in the form of a Constitutional amendment. It has been reviewed, critiqued and shaped by many Constitutional scholars. See, www.vote.org and www.NationalInitiative.us This is the work of Senator Mike Gravel, stemming from his frustration with the significant weaknesses of our current, incomplete governing system.
A form of National Initiative, empowering citizens, is the next evolutionary step in democracy. It is how we Take Back America, and, issue by issue, keep the dream alive.
“…that government, of, by, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”
Inherent in Democracy is the power of the people to decide. The most powerful acts we can perform as citizens are to make law and to fire public servants when necessary.
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
And while we're at it.. We need to focus more public attention on tightening the nuts and bolts of the multiple systems (electronic voting, campaign financing, the electoral college and super delegates, the presidential debates, gerrymandering, ballot access, etc.) that make our democracy work, or fail. Media and government should be pressured by all citizens to promote a national discussion entitled "The State of Our Democracy" so that we all can gain an understanding of which systems are working, which are not, how we fix those that aren't, and which new, "improved" systems will make our nation a truly great example of democracy.
As Americans who have been taught to believe democracy is our proudest national achievement, we should be constantly involved in strengthening our elections systems.
“Eternal vigilance - and the power to do something about it - are the price of our liberty.”
Do Americans still have the right stuff? Would you rather be empowered or disempowered of the right to participate in the decisions that will create your future?
Everyone has a role as “citizen politician”. Norman Lear calls them “Born Again Americans.”
Where is the power?
I think the power is with the vote and that we ought to be voting
directly more often, on more issues. Voting ought to be regular and
often, as it is in Switzerland. Our "eternal vigilance" must be linked to
the power of the vote, or, we will be powerless to accomplish anything
but to exhaust ourselves in protest and fruitless outrage.
-- www.vote.org -- please go there and vote to empower the people by
expanding the power of the ballot inititiative nationwide. Go to
www.vote.org to get an easy understanding of determining and
strengthening popular will.
George Ripley
Washington , D.C.
October 22, 2008
Friends,
Zinn has some good ideas. I would like to add some thoughts of my own.
Soon we will have a new president. It is imperative that we, the members of the peace, anti-war and anti-imperialist movements, scrutinize his actions, starting with his acceptance speech, to determine whether he is taking actions that we believe will lead to real peace and justice in the world.
Although we may not agree on some of the specifics, I have made a list of possible points below that can used as a starting point to monitor how well he is doing over the course of his term in office. Even if he initially takes some actions that we agree with we should not let ourselves be misled into thinking that positive changes will continue to occur without continuous pressure from us. Your thoughts are welcomed. For one thing I may have missed important points.
Jim Lucas
Below are the suggested questions.
Has the new President:
1. Withdrawn U.S. troops from Iraq?
2. Ordered that the U.S. pay restitution to Iraq?
3. Withdrawn U.S. troops from Afghanistan?
4. Pledged to refrain from carrying out illegal cross border attacks into Pakistan?
5. Stopped the U.S. campaign attack Iran?
6. Ended the U.S. effort to overthrow the Venezuelan government?
7. Stopped the U.S. campaign to promote the secessionist movement in Bolivia?
8. Stopped the U.S. effort to thwart the democratic process in El Salvador?
9. Stopped the U.S. Fourth Fleet from patrolling around South and Central America?
10. Ended the campaign to encircle Russia?
11. Ended the training of Georgian troops as a way to harass its neighbor Russia?
12. Reversed the new U.S. military presence in Africa?
13. Normalized relations with Cuba?
14. Ended U.S. financial aid to Colombia which ostensibly is for a “war on drugs” but too often
is spent to support paramilitaries who engage in violence against the Colombian people?
15. Revoked the Bush doctrine of preemptive war?
16. Ended the CIA practice of overthrowing other governments?
17. Stopped the transfer of arms to other nations, especially those led by dictators?
18. Closed all of the over 700 U.S. bases outside the U.S.?
19. Agreed not to use inhumane methods such as sanctions, bombing and proxy militaries as a
substitute for using U.S. ground troops? This is in addition to opposing the use of U.S.
ground troops.
20. Begun to reduce our nuclear stockpile in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty?
21. Started to promote the Middle East as a nuclear free zone which would require that
Israel abandon its 200-300 nuclear weapons?
22. Ordered that the U.S. respect the nuclear treaties that our nation has signed?
23. Stopped our anti-missile program which encourages other nations to build more missiles,
especially nuclear ones, in order to avoid these defenses, a possible new escalation of the
nuclear weapons arms race?
24. Started reducing the military budget as a step toward a budget only for self-defense,
recognizing that the projected budget for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is about $3 trillion?
25. Begun to use funds from the military budget to meet human needs in the U.S.?
26. Ended torture by the U.S.?
27. Closed the School of the Americas w
hich has a history of training military personnel
from South and Central America in techniques of repression and torture?
28. Refrained from exporting people to other nations for torture?
29. Adopted a collaborative approach to working with other nations as opposed to its current one
of domination?
30. Told the Americans that the most important way to combat terrorism is to meet the
human needs of people in the rest of the world and by ending U.S. oppression of them?
31. Acknowledged that people in other nations have suffered far more at the hands of the
U.S. than the U.S. endured from terrorists on September 11, 2001?
32. Ended the use of the fear of terrorism as an excuse to extend U.S. power around the world?