The Problem Is Empire
Tom Hayden delivered these remarks to a gathering of activists at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. It appears as part of the Moral Compass series, focusing on the spoken word.
Let me tell you some of my story and lessons I have learned over these past five decades. I have always tried to improve my country, always trying from the places around me.
I was smart and ambitious and athletic, but something never felt right in my suburb, school and church. I felt more at home with the underdogs and misfits than with the authorities. I was Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye against Alfred E. Newman at Mad magazine.
I editorialized against overcrowded classes in high school. I editorialized against racist fraternity discrimination at the university. I went to the Democratic Convention in 1960 and was moved by Martin Luther King and John Kennedy, and a new student movement.
I moved to Georgia, became a Freedom Rider, got beaten up for civil rights. I helped start a movement on campuses called Students for a Democratic Society that believed in what we called participatory democracy, the right of everyone to a voice in the decisions affecting their lives. We wanted to bring the spirit of the Southern movement to the North.
I left graduate school and became a community organizer in the slums of Newark for four years. During that time the US government, led by the Democratic Party, invaded Vietnam with hundreds of thousands of troops after promising not to. The draft started up, and I was classified IY, the category for potential troublemakers.
Watts blew up in 1965. My Newark neighborhood became an occupied war zone in 1967, and that was it for the war on poverty. I wanted to know who we were really fighting, so I went to North Vietnam in December 1965, my first trip outside America. I was shocked at the civilian destruction, and the brave resistance of a small nation of peasants. I came back and immediately lobbied for a negotiated withdrawal, and got nowhere.
Now I was living in two worlds, still knocking on doors in Newark and opposing a war that was ending the war on poverty I believed in. The contradictions becoming too much, I helped organize antiwar protests at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968. Nixon, the FBI and even Lyndon Johnson said we were part of an internationally funded communist conspiracy. I was still fighting against wrongdoing at home, while my father's generation thought we were pawns of an enemy abroad.
I went back to Berkeley set on organizing youth and student communities. I was yanked away to be indicted by the Nixon government for the street riots in Chicago. I spent about five years, including five straight months on trial, living under a cloud, until the courts threw out the case of the Chicago 8. I really didn't know if we were descending into a police state or not. During our trial, one defendant, Bobby Seale, was chained and gagged, and two Panthers working on his legal defense were shot with ninety police rounds while sleeping in their apartment.
I went back to mainstream antiwar work trying to defund the Indochina war, from 1972 until 1976. I supported George McGovern as a peace candidate, Vietnam veterans against the war like John Kerry, the Berrigan brothers' civil disobedience, and those who went underground to Canada. I didn't join them, but I thought the Weather Underground was completely predictable and understandable.
After the long radicalizing interruption of the war, I tried to combine community organizing and electoral politics. I served in the California legislature for eighteen years, once again returning to local and state issues. Based on the early vision of participatory democracy, and building on the progress towards political rights like voting, I helped build a statewide grass roots campaign for economic democracy, pressuring the great corporations to become accountable.
Some of the issues we worked on were these:
• Protecting the right to local rent control, which saved Santa Monica residents alone about $500 million over little more than a decade.
• Stopping a nuclear power plant in Sacramento by a democratic vote of the people.
• Stopping a Liquified Natural Gas terminal on Indian land in Santa Barbara.
• Empowering neighborhoods to bargain effectively with big developers. Saving the oldest building in LA from the wrecking ball.
• Saving salmon, stream beds, wetlands, deserts and redwood forests from the power of developers and special interests.
• Trying to replace the war on gangs, mass incarceration and unconstitutional police misconduct, with gang peace processes and employment opportunities, from LA to El Salvador.
• Involvement in over fifty political campaigns at local levels, including some of the earliest elections of feminists, gays and lesbians, renters, Asian-Americans and former '60s radicals.
• Getting Hollywood celebrities engaged in supporting political causes and candidates.
It was said by Washington consultants that we had the greatest grassroots organization in the national Democratic Party. But it was also the '80s, and Ronald Reagan was invading Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua, and placing nuclear missiles in Europe. My world of domestic issues became small and secondary again, like my days in Newark when Vietnam was escalating. And I noticed that our foreign policy interventions were creating a wave of new refugees who could be exploited either as cheap labor or scapegoated as my Irish ancestors were the century before.
And so it has gone. Even when the Soviet Union collapsed. Even when Bill Clinton was elected on the strategy of "it's the economy, stupid," we soon were bombing the Balkans, inventing new doctrines of humanitarian war and expanding NATO. By carving Kosovo out of the former Yugoslavia, we were creating an incentive for Georgia to invade South Ossetia--and try to reignite the cold war.
Then came 9/11, and a legitimate security crisis was transformed into the invasion of Iraq along with the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan and perhaps soon Iran. The neocons and hawks applauded and funded Israel's ill-considered war with Hezbollah and Lebanon, completing a new battlefield of the war on terrorism to replace the cold war.
So there you are. We will have to go back to the lessons Roman and British empires to learn the painful lessons of imperial overextension. The lessons in blood bravely shed in lost or dubious causes. The lesson of a weakened capacity to fund healthcare, education, our children's futures. The lesson that democracy is diminished as the secrecy of the warmaking state expands. The lesson of being hated in a world where alliances are a necessity, not a choice.
For too long we have divided our movement labor between domestic and foreign policy issues. Sometimes there are contradictions, for example, when the cold war liberals--today's humanitarian hawks--believed we could have both guns and butter, the world's most massive arsenal, fueled by oil, combined with robust domestic initiatives on healthcare or the environment or inner city jobs. It just hasn't worked out that way. The richest country in the world still lacks a national healthcare program, still is pockmarked by ghettos and barrios, still has massive school drop out rates combined with the largest incarceration rate in the whole world.
And despite any evidence of significant success, the wars go on, the war on terror, the war on drugs and the war on gangs.
Despite the evidence, the organized peace movement is weaker than any other social movement, or network of NGOs, in America. The peace movement is a mainly voluntary expression of antiwar feeling that rises and falls depending on the body counts and media coverage. The peace movement is not institutionalized, not in comparison with the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the environmental movement. It is not funded by the great liberal foundations nor by the wealthy liberals of Hollywood or other moneyed circles.
The point I am making is that our progressive priorities are wrong. Any hope for transformational domestic change depends on reversing the entrenched interests driving the dual agenda of military and corporate empire, including the Pentagon and the oil industry and the narrow elitist thinking of most national security and economic experts.
The battle is between the empire, or whatever euphemism by which is goes, and participatory democracy.
Our adversaries, who once favored monarchy and then white supremacy, have done a successful makeover and attempted to steal the banner of democracy. For example, they are exuberant about imposing democracy by force across the Middle East and to the borders of Russia, but they show no enthusiasm for the democratic process sweeping away the former dictatorships that our government backed in Latin America. Our government is opposed to democracy on our borders if those democracies reject our military bases, our special forces and our corporate dominance over their resources and services. Venezuela, Bolivia and, of course, Cuba are being targeted for isolation and subversion, while Colombia is the American spear in the Andes.
Latin America is the brightest democratic spot on the planet today. But its democratic revolution is not enough; an enormous shift in global finance, investment and trade policies is needed to address underdevelopment and poverty. The resources to build a movement here against military intervention in Latin or Central America are sorely needed. An alternative to the Monroe Doctrine is sorely needed. An alternative to the top-down secretive WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA and FTAA models is sorely needed. The movement for immigrant rights and labor rights is where domestic policy and Latin American policy should meet.
I am campaigning for and voting for Barack Obama not because I agree with him on every foreign policy issue but because I think we need to unleash the energy of those who fight for justice and housing and healthcare and jobs and the environment here at home. The Obama movement is registering and mobilizing millions of new voters, young people, working class, people of color and poor. The mere fact of their being mobilized will create a pressure for new priorities on the economic home front against the present priorities of militarization abroad. The fact that Obama rose to his present position on the tide of antiwar sentiment forces Obama and the Congressional Democrats to pay greater attention to our needs at home or pay a political price. If he expands the quagmires in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we will have to oppose those wasteful wars as well.
So I am saying that domestic groups--organized around issues from civil rights to the environment--cannot afford to leave peace simply to the peace movement. And the peace movement has to point every day to the domestic costs, including energy costs, of the Iraq War and the larger empire. And we must define an alternative vision to the undemocratic structures of corporate and military power that promise security but bring us war, that promise jobs but lower our standard of living. We need a new model of political economy that is equitable and sustainable, not one that expects every country in the world to meet our needs, including our appetite for their resources. And finally, we must build a progressive movement inside and outside the Democratic Party, one that respects the autonomy of single-issue movements, that brings our community organizing experiences to bear on this frustrating political process, that can build and strengthen a progressive power base that can fight everyday for our needs, not the empire's needs.
It is not enough to liberalize the empire; the task is to peacefully and steadily bring it to an end, making democracy safe for the world as some organizers said fifty years ago. In place of empire, we need to understand the world as a multipolar one, and drive it towards participatory democracy through social movements. Those social movements will not only pressure their existing governments but energize a global civic society that can achieve enforceable new norms on human rights, a global living wage and corporate accountability, a healthy environment instead of global warming, and the steady reduction of nuclear weapons.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
124 Comments so far
Show AllThis is one of the more thoughtful threads I have read recently on CD. The question for me is how does a Nader vote bring us closer to peace or the dismantling of a corporate militarist US ? They won't even let him in the debates. It won't even get him heard. I will probably vote for Obama because he is less likely to begin using nuclear weapons. Truly a lesser of 2 evils. I don't actually think Obama is evil, he is just fading away as he holds onto the ring of power. I don't see Naderites on the streets. There are quite a few honest, common sense democrats in office and it does keep the damage down and sometimes makes progress.
Now the other side of me: When Obama voted to give immunity to the telecoms he was voting for fascism. He was voting to legitimize the collusion of government and industry in breaking laws and spying without due cause or warrant. He was taking the money of the lawbreakers to let them off . He also wants to do the same for Blackwater. He thinks it is OK to continue mountaintop "removal". He wants to continue the rule of the HMO's. How can I vote for this guy who says change but doesn't want to change anything. I respect Tom deeply but how can we talk about ending empire by supporting someone who wants to increase the military budget.
I think that Obama is getting very bad advice but he doesn't have to take it . He is trying to pick up votes by moving to the right but he is losing the base who wants a major change in direction and he is failing to pick up those who might be truly energized by a radical shift toward Kucinich, Wendell Berry, Lovins, Nader type ideas.
We are living with the the dramatically awful results of bad ideas. Is it so unthinkable that some good ones might catch people's interest?
Alan MacDonald
The following is from Chalmers Johnson's newest article on Empire in Mother Jones:
"In fact, the purpose of our overseas bases is to maintain US dominance in the world, and to reinforce what military analyst Charles Maier calls our "empire of consumption." The United States possesses less than 5 percent of global population but consumes about one-quarter of all global resources, including petroleum. Our empire exists so we can exploit a much greater share of the world's wealth than we are entitled to, and to prevent other nations from combining against us to take their rightful share."
Empire is an economic pathology (like Ponzi schemes) which is supported by militarism (and the political support for militarism) --- not the other way around.
The 'Economics of Empire' is at the heart of "The Problem of Empire" which Hayden either does not understand, or is trying to disguise.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_alan_mac_070319__22economics_of_empire.htm
A most excellent statement!!
"Empire is an economic pathology (like Ponzi schemes) which is supported by militarism (and the political support for militarism) --- not the other way around."
To understand the enemy, i.e. those who impose the burdens of empire on both American citizens and people all over the world, it is critical to ask the "Why question." Failing to answer "why empire" makes citizens vulnerable to the laundry list of false excuses provided to justify global bullying.
So, we start with two "whys" that could be acceptable to some.
First, terrorism. The bad guys are trying to destroy us so we have to get them first.
Second, resources (mostly oil). The bad guys are trying to deprive us of oil so we have to do the right thing for Americans by invading countries in the Middle East.
Both "whys" try to argue that US foreign policy is being pursued for the sole benefit of the American people. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Few readers of this website would accept either justification for empire even if they were the real reasons. Too many Americans, however, do.
Of course, these are not the real reasons for American empire. Even if they were, neither asks the necessary questions.
1. Why are the terrorists out to "get us"? Is it just remotely possible their actions, perhaps not justifiable, are in response to our own which are also not justifiable?
To say "we have a right to invade because they attacked us" fails to look at WHY they attacked us. Perhaps their actions are not just but their cause is.
2. Do other countries not have a right to refuse to sell us oil? Do we not boycott the goods from countries, e.g. Cuba, of which we disapprove?
To say "they were threatening us by refusing to sell us oil" fails to accept the autonomy of other countries and sets the rights of American consumers above the rights of foreign citizens to make their own economic choices.
Therefore, even if one accepts the justifications put forth for empire, the justifications offered fail to justify. The real problem, of course, is that the justifications are not the REAL REASON for the American empire.
Americans are sold the idea that our government, backed by our military, is fighting abroad to "protect their interests." Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth.
As the quoted phrase at the top of this post reiterates, "Empire is an economic pathology." The US does not export its war machine to benefit the American people; it exports its war machine and its economic power and its political power to exploit foreign resources for private commercial gain.
Put simply, regardless of the justifications put forth, American empire is all about only one thing. And that one thing, my friends, is: GREED.
The American government does not serve all its people; it serves only a very, very narrow spectrum of those who fund and control it.
You will never hear ideas such as these from Mr. Obama or from almost any other Democrat. And therein lies the rub!
DEMOCRATS + REPUBLICANS = IMPERIALISM
With appologies to any Momas and Papas still alive.
Creepy Alley
Tom and Katrina
Sat down between 'em
To discuss their irrelevancy
Progressives are massively
Responding quite passively
To Obama's candidacy
In 'trina's New York pad they sat,
Ponderin' how they gonna help
Elect this cat,
McCain and Palin are out their wailin'
against the media and all that crap,
Then an idea hit the two of them just like a slap.
We'll talk about "empire" and try to raise temper,
Of progressives demoralized,
By weavin' and bobbin we'll make empire the problem,
Not wishy-washy non-policy.
But what will we say about it?
Just that it's the problem, we'll scream and shout it,
So they conspired, this campaign to sire in The Nation
So you know where it's at--
And Common Dreams is helping it become a reality.
awwwwwesome! Lol, I love this post!
Leea, To call the human animal free is to ignore the miserable creature's body chemistry, early childhood influences, the society in which he lives, and the demands placed upon him by family, friends, authority figures, and even the God who keeps him guessing about what will happen to him regardless of his attempts to exercise his free will.
We all need our illusions and I would never say this to you if I thought you would take me seriously, but free will as that term is used in theological discussions does not exist.
Nietzsche....
....and neither did the wheel, nor democracy, nor abortion, nor any human achievement, good or bad, until it did.
Because free will does not exist as anything but an inspiring idea as far as one may realistically discern,it is no reason to stop believing.
Of course I take you very seriously, you are not here to waste my time or yours.
I must be taken with a handful of salt, because I often speak of what I think I know, not what I know for sure, with what I think I know for sure as my guide.
Thanks for your input, I value it greatly.
Man, this Cat missed his calling in life. He ought set up shop as a tele evangelist where he can make a good living preaching to the choir.
Are democratic citizens willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then they are not free. Are we able but not willing? Then we are malevolent. Are we both willing and able? Then whence comes evil? Are we neither able or willing? Then why call ourselves a democracy?
But to answer this question via bible speak:
Because if we have a free will, and if we believe it was a gift from god, and we betrayed his faith in our ability to be agents of good will by eating of the forbidden fruit, and we were evicted from his garden where he gave us everything we needed, and we were left to sweat and toil, and feel pain and want, guilt, blame and all the consequences of choosing bad faith over good faith. Our history of dealing with this up till now is imagine God as omnipresent, instead of admitting that God gave up his power of omnipresence when he gave us free will.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could finally admit the world we live in is of our making as agents of free will? Or admit our country is of our making as democratic citizens.
this country is not of our making as democratic citizens...the country we now inhabit has been very consciously forged in the manner now evident by very intentioned entities via various means of corruption\control...lies, graft, theft, slavery and murder have been the tools used by those key powerplayers that built this country, not democracy...just as democracy did not create, nor will it relieve...one still has limited power to make one's own decisions, but limited, indeed, and even those few options are being actively reduced...do you equate a vote cast with a vote counted? Not to relieve the individual of responsibility, as I am big on that topic, but one must also be realistic...we live in the age of the corporation, now...only so many things remain in the domain of the individual, and those dwindle...sadly, to purchase or not to purchase a governmentally-approved product of a corporation is the most apparent exercise of an individual's 'free will'...that still seems like a good place to start reversing things...stop buying things...
A few billionaires control America. Everything this country does it to profit those billionaires which include making permanent slave states to the South. Illegal immigrants are slaves. The big landowner's land is too big for them to handle, so they get slaves. How long has this been going on? Has it ever worked? Of course not.
Wars are fought for bankers and oil companies. Plain and simple. We need to tackle these billionaires. Banks and oil companies need to be nationalized. Obama won't do it, because someone needs a profit.
The reins of power need to be wrenched from the ridiculously rich who are both reckless in their pursuit of power, and remorseless.
The rich are not going to save the planet. Someone's got to make a profit after all.
We gotta get Obama elected. Our lives depend on it.
Sure they do?! Delusional thinking.
Obama is a change agent. He just changed and gave the election to McCain. In a foolish attempt to preempt Sarah Palin, Obama's campaign began running pro-aboriton ads. This will kill his chances in key Midwestern States like Missouri and Ohio among others. Abortion was the issue that elected George Bush in these states. The democrats have not learned and insist on forcing us into another four and possibly eight years of McCain/Palin thus insuring the continuance of war and economic hardship. Democrats ARE willing to sacrifice America to Fascism in a failed attempt to rescue abortion. To put it another way, women are willing to lose their freedom to maintain abortion rights.
None of the old left get it. Life is a larger issue than either abortion or war. Life is THE issue. Only a forceful commitment to LIFE including the elimination of poverty, rescuing the environment, ending unnecessary wars of imperialism, and ending abortion on demand excepting the life of the mother, rape, and incest, will be sufficient to lead us out of the Death Culture that we find ourselves in. Obama is not change, he is the old left just as Hayden is. These are sad days led by rigid idealogue's on both the right and left who fail to recognize that only a full commitment to LIFE can turn this country around before it fulfills the death culture's promise.
One change the Obama ticket brought was the move by the republicans to bring in Sarah Palin. God works in mysterious ways no?
So, how do we end abortion on demand? Would you care to explain your gameplan for this? The same way we've ended people's ability to obtain drugs on demand?
If we make it illegal, what punishment do you suggest for women who obtain abortions? For doctors who give them?
And what makes you think that women won't go out and take certain medications or use other more horrific, and less-humane means to induce abortions than what would have occurred in a clinic.
Be realistic. The only true way to cut down on abortion in this country, is to make a clear stand that you are not "pro abortion" you are "pro choice" and think that making abortion illegal will not prevent it, will forbid women from having control over their own bodies, and will put their health in jeopardy.
The reason people have abortions is because their circumstances don't warrant having a child. Lot's of times this is do to poverty and lack of community support. How about we provide free childcare to everyone, coverage for a long maternity leave, food for them and their kid, healthcare for everyone, and plenty of sex education and birth control in schools.
Besides, I think overpopulation is a much worse thing for all of us than abortion. In the face of that, it's virtually a nonissue. I'd rather abortions continue until we figure out how to get our population under control. We most certainly do not need more neglected and unwanted children in the world.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Mr. Hayden's credentials are impressive to say the least. He has a distinguished resume as a warrior for peace that many of us would be proud to own. Further, I hold no doubt that he would like to see an end to the empire he speaks about.
But Obama, Tom? Come on. I really have to wonder whether you're just refusing to admit you were dead wrong for endorsing Obama as a path to progress. You sound more like a man trying to convince himself than to convince others.
Supporting Obama makes no sense.
The only path to toppling America's corporate empire is to educate the American people about the real motives of their government. Change can only come about through education of the masses.
Does Obama speak about empire? Of course not.
Does Obama speak about the corporate stranglehold on the people's government? Of course not.
Does Obama question the MOTIVES Bush had for invading Iraq? Of course not.
Does Obama question why anyone from the Middle East might want to attack targets inside the US? Of course not.
Does Obama seek legal redress for the crimes of the Bush administration? Of course not.
Does Obama call for the dismantling of the military-industrial complex? Of course not.
Does Obama call for the closing of the more than 730 foreign military bases? Of course not.
Does Obama call for nationalizing the tyrannical and abusive oil industry, the banking industry, the pharmaceutical industry or the health care and insurance industries? Of course not.
Empire is about serving massive corporations and their greedy shareholders at the expense of the American people and people all around the world. Does Obama seek to change that in some way? Of course not.
The truth, Tom, is that Obama will never bring about the needed changes nor will he even try to educate the American people and rally them behind the cause of toppling empire.
While there is the most minute granule of truth in your argument that Obama may have inspired the next generation of activists, they are nevertheless following a false image of change. Obama may bring change from what we've suffered through in the Bush years; he will never bring the changes we need. He doesn't even talk about the changes we need. The idea that an energized youth movement following a false leader will somehow put us on the right path makes no sense. Rather, it seems to me, those currently energized will soon learn the bitter lesson that by endorsing yet another false change agent, nothing will change.
I have a sneaking suspicion, Tom, that you already know that. How you've gotten caught up in this Obama nonsense is truly a mystery.
"Empire is about serving massive corporations and their greedy shareholders at the expense of the American people and people all around the world. Does Obama seek to change that in some way? Of course not."
In the statement above, "Empire", has been isolated as a independently existing evil reality separate from the righteous American people reality.
Ok folks, lets do a little critical thinking.
Where does empire get it's money? Ok, Ok, some of it comes from our government, via lobbying etc. The eb and flow of the gov't coffers, who gets what and why is a huge part of the big money folks system. Some from tax breaks for those same wealthy.
Some from criminal activity. Some from other places I can't think of currently.
But without the consumer, and the consumed, empire stands on shaky ground. Take away this one crucial actor in the corporate success picture, and you take away enough of the picture that it become unrecognizable for what it is.
Who is the consumer? What percentage of our population (the American people), the voter, can fall into this particular category? At least 95 percent, i'd say.
This is not news to you intelligent critical thinkers, but it is news you often leave out of your analysis.
Just replace the people for Obama in the astute questions asked by welsh terrier above and you will know what empire's power rely's on. You and me. Sorry to say.
The American people are on the balance not doing the right thing, just like Obama, and McCain if you want to keep the analysis complete. This being a democracy of course, where the gov't serves the people rights.
So I, being a consumer and an American person, a servant of the evil empire? Yes, but wait, I know I am, and I'm trying my hardest to change that fact, to locally and personally ask those tough questions, and stand up for that change against what I see is wrong. I hope Obama and McCain do too, but I can't dictate their choices in a free and democratic country. As I've expressed in the past, democracy only gives us the right to choose, not the right choice.
The weakness of the theory of "Empire" story as currently told, is that the wrong doers are made up of a certain identifiable sector or political block of our society that we can assume to cull out like a disease. But in the larger analysis it would be cutting off our nose to spite our face, because that story is inaccurate to the truth. As the old saying goes. There is so much good in the worst of us, and so much bad in the best of us, it hardly behooves any of us to point fingers at the rest of us.
Humanity is "collectively" on the balance in the place of growth and learning that we see manifesting both good and bad. The only power we have left when we look honestly and humbly at this issue, is to find empire in our own heart where it assuredly resides and cull it out there. Then a new individual life and society may be created.
I'm trying in my personal life to cull out or as I would call it transform this negative "empire" weed, and that is the hard, scary work one may distract themselves from by finger pointing.
Nice post---I've been feeling just the same lately. While Amy Goodman is out there putting her body on the line, I'm sitting home posting this, thinking it makes some kind of difference. I don't think that many people read these posts, and I certainly don't believe my analysis is very special or incisive.
Excellent analysis. Thank you!
For heavens sake, there wasn't any meaningful difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They are both completely obedient to the power structure owned and operated by mega-corporations.
There were two candidates that truly wanted to affect real change: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. But, like usual, their messages of liberty and responsibility frightened the masses towards happy talk and pretty pictures. Unfortunate that.
Empires. like Ponzi schemes, do not ever end well --- they crash.
The global corporatist Empire, that currently fully controls our country through the most sophisticated two-party, virtual "Vichy" facade of democracy to ever exist, will collapse like all Empires (and Ponzi schemes) of its own unsustainable economic tyranny.
The 'Economics of Empire' insure the end of all empires.
Once this more modern, novel, and sophisticated 21st century 'corporatist Empire' of propaganda, that would make Goebbels weep with envy, collapses a second American Revolution, finally combining the essential elements of participatory political (as well as economic) democracy will arise.
ezeflyer writes:
"Hayden is an unsung progressive hero."
-----
Not while he can get to a keyboard.
How do major changes come about?
Let’s list some major changes for reference purposes.
• Voting rights for Women (Women’s Suffrage)
• FDR’s new deal (Social Security, Medicare, Disability)
• Bonus Army (G.I. Bill)
• Voting rights for minorities (Civil Rights Act)
Were these changes adopted by our Government without being forced? Of course not, We the People demanded them.
Real unity is where I am headed with this. Real change requires unity, movements require unity, Democracy itself relies on unity.
Without public interest and participation, We the People are effectively asleep at the wheel. However, public interest and participation is not enough to support change. Change requires that we collectively reach a consensus.
I don’t know about you, but in my experience, I seldom persuade another by berating them or by disrespecting them. I suspect that it is only through diplomatic discourse that we can find our common purpose.
Threatening harm to another in order to get one’s way, is the tool of a young child. I think that we can all agree that abuse and disrespect are not tools endorsed by mature adults. We have laws against child abuse, wife beating, animal cruelty, hate crimes, etc. No ethical adult condones a bully’s behavior.
Which brings me to the subject of War. I submit that War is largely the ultimate escalation of the young child’s tool or that of the bully, and should be treated as such. War should only be used in self-defense. Preemptive war is a child defending his actions by claiming “I didn’t start the fight! He hit me back first!”.
The only way that we the people can win the fight is by avoiding the fight. We must all work toward our common goals. That goes without saying, but how can we identify our common goals? Is It through unity that we reveal our common goals? Tolerance, respect, acceptance and inclusion support unity don’t they?
Clearly, we must promote leaders that pursue unification and ignore leaders that embrace division.
Lastly, listen for a tone of unity within the vision of those you select to represent you. Listen for tones that promote tolerance, respect, acceptance and inclusion. Shun those who spread messages that mainly divide us, divide, We the People!
UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL
Thank you, sincerely.
However, there is not a leader out there including Nader and McKinney that don't use division to lead.
Division is a main organ of our psychological process.
The division is not the problem, it is the intent of the division.
A pie can be divided up equally with love and respect.
Or it can be divided up unfairly, with the intent of the divider to get more for themselves and feel better and more powerful.
Always keep the why with the how. Because we have to divide things up to be humans but we must learn to make the division reflect an intent and desire for sincere betterment and satisfaction of us all.
If this is not done, resentment and need all the negative secondary activities that follow become the driver of your society.
Leea
Thank you for your analysis and pointing out the distinction between the action itself and the intention of the action. Well done!
A combined message may look like this.
Clearly, we must promote leaders that reflect an intent and desire for sincere betterment and satisfaction of us all.
I guess it’s true, two heads are better than one.
The problem is that there's too much power concentrated in the hands of too few people.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
Not Only Must We Change The World We Have To Do It Now
"Why now?"
"Time is running out."
"But how are we going to change the world?"
"We elect a president who's going to work with Congress and us to dismantle Empire-USA plus turning things around here at home."
"Could Barack Obama turn out to be such a president?"
"Depends."
"On what?"
"Whether he means it when he says change must come to (not from) Washington."
"If he does?"
"We got a chance."
"If he doesn't?"
"We'll have to rise up en masse."
"Otherwise?"
"No chance"
"What if John McCain wins."
"Is there any doubt?"
"Putting it all together?"
"Any chance is better than no chance at all."
"Meaning?"
"Either we elect Obama or get ready for the abyss."
If he means it when he says change will come from the outside, through the people, then his success will rely on our rising up en masse, not that we will rise up en masse if he fails to make the changes.
No matter how we frame this, the only chance for change that we have in a democracy is through the party the insiders serve, the outsiders.
If you believe that democracy is a government of by and for the people, that is.
In the declaration of Independence it is well stated when it is said that governments are instituted to protect the rights of the people (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) In our times both parties are admitting that there is entrenched corruption that is keeping this from happening. So as the declaration continues to say when a government so instituted no longer serves the ends that they were instituted to serve(securing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish those forms of government to suit their needs.
This is where the idea of change is coming from. Altering or changing the forms of government that are not working.
Sarah Palin, has claimed to serve these ends and has resolved that the government is a "servant" of the people.
Her heart seems good in this regard. But her heart serving as a administrative servant cannot alone change status quo.
She and McCain would also need the people to rise up.
No matter what it seems our next move is to rise up.
But what does rising up mean in our time? I think that is the problem and the solution.
For me in my personal life it has emerged in getting personally and politically active.I feel I am learning to rise up and find my power. I hope my fella and fellow Americans are too.
This is another Tom Hayden essay constructed along the lines of a strict formula. These essays aim to persuade the left and progressives to vote Democratic.
Here is how each essay is laid out, almost mechanically:
1. Hayden lists his credentials as someone on the left.
2. Hayden makes a pitch for the Obama vote (usually in the last two paragraphs).
Rinse, spin and repeat. Do it again and again until message received. Simple messages, repeated over and over.
The big problem is that Hayden is not making any argument to vote for Obama. He lists some positive actions and goals carried out by progressives in the past, but fails to mention that Obama is moving in the opposite direction.
The wars are a big thing, and Obama supports all of them. I don't think that Obama's war support can honestly be a small matter of disagreement, especially for Hayden. He should be opposing Obama for continuing to advocate more war.
By the way, a lot of Hayden's "accomplishments" have since been swept away. Rent control in Santa Monica has be weakened to the point of elimination. A liquified natural gas plant was built north of Santa Barbara. Los Angeles is currently undergoing massive gentrification as homeless people are being cleared from the streets by the LAPD and Democratic Mayor Antonio Villarogosa. Senator Diane Feinstein negotiated with Pacific lumber to let them clear forest lands, while saving just a small old-growth redwood patch. Finally, the police are now militarized beyond the imagination of even the sixties, perhaps.
Worse still, the Democratic Party has become an enabler of Republican crimes, including vote fraud, illegal wars, torture, massive spying on Americans, the destruction of the Bill of Rights via the so-called PATRIOT Act, and military Keynesianism drenched in an orgy of blood. Senator Diane Feinstein's husband participates by raking in millions from his defense stock investments while his wife dishes out the military contract monies.
Can there be anything more obscene than the Democratic Party? Yes, the Republican Party, but not by much.
Tom, hang it up. If you're getting paid for these essays, please send the proceeds to the legal defense funds supporting imprisoned DNC and RNC protesters - that is, if there's still a progressive bone left in your body.
By the way, Cynthia McKinney (Green) or Ralph Nader (Independent) represent more harmonious Presidential choices than Obama, based on your views expressed in this essay.
-TIA
Excellent points!
I'm glad some recognize Hayden for what he is.
We are largely in agreement, TIA, but without a positive plan for going forward, we do not offer much besides more anxiety. OK, Tom speaks with forked tongue, the Republicrats are outright criminals, and Nader and McKinney are slightly better, but what about a real strategy?
There is no defensible, stand-alone national strategy. We all have essentially the same needs, whether we are the blackest Pygmy young man or the whitest Norwegian great grandmother. Everyone needs peace, affluence, and personal freedoms. How can this come about?
150 years ago, Marx put it together and realized that the fundamental conflict in society was class against class, and this remains true today. Now, as then, a tiny minority of bourgeois owners lord over the masses of wage slaves, with or without a democratic facade - the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Marx and his political descendants constructed political parties whose intention was/is to awaken and mobilize the working class, and to lead them into their just role as the masters of society. One beauty of this formula is that it transcends nation, sex, and race, opening the door to a truly united humanity. Clearly, this task remains incomplete, and remains the singularly most fruitful endeavor for true lovers of humankind. If we are EVER to rise above war and poverty, their vision must be realized. There are no other solutions out there: build the party of proletarian revolution; integrate it into organized labor; and seize political power by coordinated labor action under good communist leadership. In an era of WMD, this becomes a do or die venture.
Sorry, I will take Tom’s credentials over yours any day.
TIA...what more needs 2 b said? Anybody care 2 dispute the statements...I didn't think so. Nicely put and accurate to boot.
mahalo
As this has become another Third Party vs Democrat type discussion, and some folks have pointed out that such discussions may be wasted energy, I think I've figured out where I'm at on this.
Honestly, I don't get down on people for voting for the Dems. In my mind, it's great they are smart enough to not be supportive of Republican policies (even if they are deluded into thinking the Dems represent something of substance). Their hearts, in my mind, are in the right place.
And yet, these Dems can not do me the same courtesy and at least think to themselves "well, maybe I think he's wasting his vote, but his heart's in the right place. At least he's not a McCain supporter."
Instead, what we Greens get, is a crapton of anger focused in our direction, and we get blamed for getting Bush "elected" and whatnot. Which, in my mind, flies in the face of all logic and fact. I am sure you all know the details.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is, fine, disagree with my vote. Think to yourself it's wasted. Whatever. BUT STOP BLAMING ME FOR DEMOCRATS LOSING. Stop telling me voting Green is the same as voting McCain, because IT'S NOT. The Dems are not losing my vote because they never earned it in the first place.
Think I'm a silly idealist all you want, but stop telling me I'm helping Republicans. As most Greens work their asses off at defeating the Republican mindset day in and day out, not just when running campaigns, this is highly offensive. I mean come on, we do more than just vote Green. We adjust our entire lifestyles to LIVE green. (At least a lot of us.)
Bottom line: we're all on the same side here, and when it comes down to it, the efforts we make to reshape our own lives and our own local communities have a bigger impact than which corporate party is elected. So yeah, let's stop bickering about this... but it starts with you Dems owning up to the failures of your candidates instead of blaming their losses on the handwork, dedication, and personal sacrifice of Greens who run campaigns with the odds stacked against them. You should be applauding these people as heroes!
Maybe my reaction is a matter of me simply taking things to personally... I don't know. It'd be nice to hear thoughts on this. But frankly, I get enough shit for being an "immoral atheist" I don't need more of it for being "a Green on the side of the Republicans."
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Voting Green is not enough! They know that we just sit on our butts and vote Green. They are just cracking up over our “I’m voting my conscience” crap.
I want change. However, I want it without carnage. As I read history….when the pendulum starts to swing back, the fields of freedom have always been sown with blood. Is each of us willing to sacrifice that much or are we just comfortable enough?
If changes are to be made, it had better be made soon or this country will be sewn up so tight you will not be able to go out of your front door without being monitored, cataloged, and discarded by any means necessary.
I suppose some sit on their butts and vote Green, same for Dems as well.
I, however, don't. I'm not trying to be self-righteous, but to list all the acts of activism, consciousness raising, and the building of positive, local alternatives I've been involved in would simply take too long.
That doesn't even touch on what I've changed about my own lifestyle. I mean, I don't even own a car!
So again, my main point, if you think voting Green is a waste of time, you are entitled to your opinion... but stop blaming voting Green for the election of Republicans. And at least throw some kind words in our direction for having some principles and sticking to them.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Nice call for peace within our ranks. I agree we need much more respect for each others views. In the end we all want the same thing---thanks perceptionexperiment.
Can it be that Hayden, after all he has lived through, doesn't understand that the problem is a matter of enforced capitalist class dominance? Can he really believe that imperialism could be voted off the map by 'participatory democracy'? It is hard to believe, and he seems like such s nice guy that I want to embrace him, but here he is - yet again - promoting the murderous Democratic Party! That says more than a thousand honeyed words, and marks him as the enemy of progress.
Don't be fooled by his good-cop endorsement of the party of slavery. He must know that the fundamental division in society is class. Surely he realizes that the fakir Obama and his sinister running mate will betray even the liberal principles of 100 years ago, if elected - or if not. In short, he must be aware that there is no solution to the scourges of war, bigotry, nationalism and poverty within capitalism.
The way forward is socialist. There is not even a THEORY by which capitalism can address the basic problem of hunger, much less a practice! Alas, the illegitimate billionaires are not going to hand it over based on some ballot measure. For those of us who want something more than imperialism with a soft voice, the solution is to build the party of proletarian socialist revolution, and integrate it into the organized working class. Whine and protest and cover your eyes if you prefer, but that is the solitary task of today's real humanitarians.
The Problem Is Democrats! And those like Hayden that support them no matter how badly they sell us out! We have no opposition party! Woe is us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Vote 3rd Party!!!!!!
But we do not need an opposition "party" - we need an opposition CULTURE.
We need people who LIVE in opposition to Empire, not people who "vote" in opposition to Empire.
Your life is far more significant than your vote. What are you afraid of? (That's the rhetorical "you", not you Ric).
"I am campaigning for and voting for Barack Obama not because I agree with him on every foreign policy issue but because I think we need to unleash the energy of those who fight for justice..."
-I wondered how deep into this self-adulation I would need to wade before Hayden started pushing for Obama. Longer than I thought it turns out.
The US is an empire. Empires survive through violently taking from less powerful nations the means to make wealth. Obama has applied for the position of Emperor. He needs to demonstrate that he is willing to shed blood in the furtherance of empire and hence his lurch to the right.
Obama: “And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?”
Obama: “We’re going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support,” Obama continued. “We’re going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We’re going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective.”
Obama:”Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.”
Obama: “We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator in the Afghan border region…etc.
Asking Obama to not seek imperialistic global domination would be like asking the quarterback on a football team to not run or throw the ball. It's their job stupid! That's what emperors do; they invade other countries that do not obey and submit and then rape and plunder them. Meanwhile the Military Industrial Complex grows ever richer and more powerful.
Is Obama calling for scaling back militarism? Hell no! He sounds as hawkish as a Publican. I cite his saber rattling against Iran, Pakistan and even Russia and his speech before AIPAC.
1. A vote for Obama will not end the occupation.
2. Obama wants to increase military spending.
3. Obama's advisers want to keep Bush's Defense Secretary Roberts Gates.
4. Obama wants more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones.
5. Obama wants to add an additional 90,000 troops.
6. Obama wants to intensify the war in Afghanistan.
7. Obama wants to keep over 60,000 troops in Iraq to guard "our" oil.
If you don't want imperialism then you don't want Democrats any more than Republicans. The PTB (powers that be) have them both in their pockets. Come on do you really believe if Democrats were against war they couldn't stop it seeing as all that is needed is 41 Senators to filibuster?
Democrats control both houses of the Congress and don't end the war because most of them aren't against it. If Democrats were actually against war they would have chosen a candidate like Kucinich instead of a hawk. All the Democrats have to offer is an escalation of war in Afghanistan and a continuation of the occupation in Iraq.
Almost half of the Dems are actually Republicans. Many call themselves Blue Dogs. Blue Dogs are as conservative as Pugs. A vote for Democrat is a vote spoiled.
If you want a CHANGE stop voting for the two duopolistic, mainstream, sold out, compromised and traitorous parties.
Hayden has sold himself out! Whatever fire Hayden had has long left him and now he's just a trumpet piece for the establishment which is personified by Obama. Instead of fire we get hot air.
Punish Democrats for their betrayal vote for 3rd parties! Go Greens! Go Nader! Go any 3rd party that is opposed to war, for people and against corporate and government corruption!
I work with a guy originally from the Soviet Union, now an American citizen. He has a Phd in Physics, and lived in Europe before getting to the U.S. When he finally came to the U.S. he said it felt more like home than UK or France. We both traveled to India together recently and had some good conversations. He said that nationalism is really hurting lots of the former Soviet countries. He's not from Russia, but considers himself Russian, because that is the culture, the language they speak, etc.
I noticed that we gave 1 Billion US dollars to Georgia recently. The US has been aggressive with Russia, trying to expand NATO to eastern Europe. Even in peaceful times, neither side seems to work towards peace, mutual respect. Instead, most of us walk around thinking we are "right", or we have the answer.
I watched part of the Republican convention tonight, which can seem really clumsy, the way the turn up the country music and chant USA. Tearful people saying they know John McCain will keep America "safe". i was inspired by the DNC in Denver last week, but maybe I was missing the same thing happening there as well.
The more one travels, the more one works on a daily basis with people from all over the world, the easier it is to see how foolish, selfish, shallow, and violent we are.
If only we could understand the deeper cause and effect between all of our actions. Even if one tries, its a difficult path, let alone multiple people, a state, country, or the world.
Change begins with each of us, in our own homes, with our own changed beliefs and behaviors. That is the most powerful thing you can do.
Absolutely!
All the venom spewed about who is going to vote for whom - wasted energy.
Like the Zinn quote - yeah, vote, for the two minutes it takes you, and then return to the life of struggle that is the real basis for changing the world we live in.
Change you can believe in, is change you make in your life.
You can - you must - change. Be willing to walk into your fear, and be the change you know is needed.
For one example - stop buying ANYTHING that you do not actually need.
Tried telling a chap wearing a nike sweatshirt and shoes who was getting down on me for being a Green that my boycotting such products has a bigger impact than who I vote for in the presidential race... He disagreed. (Maybe because he wants to keep wearing Nike?)
Thoughts?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Are democratic citizens willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then they are not free. Are we able but not willing? Then we are malevolent. Are we both willing and able? Then whence comes evil? Are we neither able or willing? Then why call ourselves a democracy?
But to answer your question via bible speak:
Because if we have a free will, and if we believe it was a gift from god, and we betrayed his faith in our ability to be agents of good will by eating of the forbidden fruit, and we were evicted from his garden where he gave us everything we needed, and we were left to sweat and toil, and feel pain and want, guilt, blame and all the consequences of choosing bad faith over good faith. Our history of dealing with this up till now is to call imagine God as omnipresent, instead of admitting that God gave up his power of omnipresence when he gave us free will.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could finally admit the world we live in is of our making as agents of free will? Or admit our country is of our making as democratic citizens.
i agree
Corporate Pie
Hey what’s that apple pie you willing to die for?
What’s that apple pie that’s killing the sky for?
What’s that apple pie you raise those logo’s high for?
Don’t you know, no don’t you know,..
It’s ain’t we the people any more
Hey Don’t you know,
no don’t you know,..
It’s ain’t we the people any more
What’s that apple pie anyway?
What’s that apple pie anyway?
Well If you don’t get some, the corporations gonna wonder why
As they trash and plunder to the sky.
(It’s the patriot way the corporate way, the we the mark way)
Those logos is empire pie..
Those logos is the empire pie
The American empire pie
Corporate pire pie
Patriot pire pie
For markets need marks
and empires need Terminators
They call them terms ……or terminate terms
And then They call them peace terms
Hey What’s that apple pie you willing to die for?
What’s that apple pie you willing to kill for?
What’s that apple pie that’s killing the sky?
What’s that apple pie you raise those logos high for?
Yah divvy up the pie as you raise them logos high.
Say you just working for the guy
No need to wonder why
just trash the sky
just trash the whole Gaia
the living Gaia
if she don’t shake us off first.
Hey Apple pie it’s just marking in the little guy.
Apple pie is just marking in the little guy.
So Tom,
Why did you endorse Obama if you're against empire. That's an oxymoron.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
suckerbeagle
from the article:
Latin America is the brightest democratic spot on the planet today. But its democratic revolution is not enough; an enormous shift in global finance, investment and trade policies is needed to address underdevelopment and poverty. The resources to build a movement here against military intervention in Latin or Central America are sorely needed. An alternative to the Monroe Doctrine is sorely needed. An alternative to the top-down secretive WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA and FTAA models is sorely needed. The movement for immigrant rights and labor rights is where domestic policy and Latin American policy should meet.
Fortunately, Latin Americans are taking care of themselves now instead of having the U.S. do it for (to) them. ALBA, an anti-NAFTA trade program launched by Hugo Chavez has Latin American countries trading goods and services with one another based on what a particular country has and what it needs. It is not based on the market value of any product, it's about neighbors taking care of one another. Also, there's Telesur, a "real" CNN type media that can quickly get the truth out everywhere. The Bank of the South has all but put an end to Latin American reliance on The World Bank and the IMF. Our South American neighbors are also banding together to protect one another from U.S. military intervention or U.S. inspired coups like the failed attempt to overthrow Chavez in 2002. Bravo!
Guess we can give up the white man's burden in that quarter.
Ask Iraq Vets Against the War about Obama's plan for Afganistan. Who's buying this stuff from the Democrats about Iraq being a mistake, the "wrong" war? I won't vote for the "right war". I'm voting Nader. No war!!
Jeanne
.
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!!!
End this war
Bring the troops home
.
Tom the next time you write an article like this you should include the black budget, the billions upon billions of dollars that are taken from the U.S. Treasury and spent, unconstitutionally, by the so called "intelligence" community. There is a book by Joseph Trento, Prelude to Terror - The Rouge C.I.A.
http://www.amazon.com/Prelude-Terror-Americas-Intelligence-Compromising/dp/0786714646/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?...
in his book Trento details the evolution of off budget activities. Well connected C.I.A. types used the black budget money as seed money to create for profit businesses which operate now on contracts from the U.S. to, for example, ship war material and personnel to and from theaters of war.
We can't have a democracy when our country is awash with billions of dollars of black budget money, some of which is sure to end up in attempts to influence the outcome of elections.
What to do, what to do!
"Democracy" - Leonard Cohen
It's coming through a hole in the air,
from those nights in Tiananmen Square.
It's coming from the feel
that this ain't exactly real,
or it's real, but it ain't exactly there.
From the wars against disorder,
from the sirens night and day,
from the fires of the homeless,
from the ashes of the gay:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming through a crack in the wall;
on a visionary flood of alcohol;
from the staggering account
of the Sermon on the Mount
which I don't pretend to understand at all.
It's coming from the silence
on the dock of the bay,
from the brave, the bold, the battered
heart of Chevrolet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming from the sorrow in the street,
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin'
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.
From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of God in the desert here
and the desert far away:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.
It's coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It's here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
It's here the family's broken
and it's here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming from the women and the men.
O baby, we'll be making love again.
We'll be going down so deep
the river's going to weep,
and the mountain's going to shout Amen!
It's coming like the tidal flood
beneath the lunar sway,
imperial, mysterious,
in amorous array:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sail on, sail on ...
I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
We are empire -- and we love nothing more than to watch gladiators do battle -- or pretend we are gladiators entitled to kick the world. Once we exhaust and deplete world we seek to conquer with the crude club of raw capitalism (with religious fundamentalists serving as entitled cheerleaders and grim reapers), we will beat and eat ourselves. This is what we are beginning to see more and more as the house of folly we create caves in on us.
Mendo Chuck
Mr Hayden him self has yet to learn from his own history . . . .
When you read his past and think about what went down and what was going on and the effort that was put forth to make change and you see what is happening today.
Well . . . Where is the progress?
As long as you support the limited two party system then it will remain the same.
Say what you will and vote as you choose but until the American Public changes its voting habits where will the change come from?
Please someone explain to me where is the change from the war profiteers of the 60's and those of today??? Except for the internet this is like stepping back into time to listen to the words being spoken and printed here today.
How suppose you Hayden hasn't learned? Seems to me he's been a patsy tool in the cabinet of the left for a long time ay? Writing here on the new MSM, his work having been in the old MSM for so long... The Empire take their recruits from the leftists they figure out how to corrupt. If he hadn't sold out, he'd be dead by now for sure. Maybe not blasted with 90 bullets like his old Panther buddies, but 6 feet under somehow. So, go vote Obama ya friggen traitor and await your trial for treason.
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
Enjoy the McCain-Palin nightmare. I'm voting for Obama's movement and message and intend to work to ensure that he keeps his promises.
Bravo to Tom Hayden.
I am amazed by the hatred spewed out against Obama on this site; fine to disagree but much of it is as mean-spirited as the far right.
We are talking about innocent lives here, peacegurl. Spewing "hatred?" How do you think the Palestinians feel about Obama's sworn support for Israel? Is it hatred? How do you think the Iraqi mother feels when she holds her blown to bits child in Afghanistan? Is it hatred? Or is it an intense feeling and desire to end this god awful suffering. Obama wants to increase the military budget and send more troops to Afghanistan. If that ruins people's happy-talk with Obama, so be it.
It's not that we expect perfection, but we do seek it. If we don't, who will? We will never have a perfect world but some draw the line at having innocents killed for a career - they've been mostly children, by the way. This is an intense reality to deal with, as a tax payer, as a human being with a voice and a brain. Yes, I feel like spewing something but it's not hatred, it's the bold truth. I want to pull the curtain down to see the system and it's enablers stark naked in the light. That way, maybe it can change.
And you say you will hold Obama to his promises? His promises to increase the military budget? Increase troop levels in Afghanistan? Take away our civil rights and let the government - with the help of telecom corporations - spy on us? You are for these things? Or you think they're not important enough to warrent a challenge to the candidate who promotes them? And about the lofty and extremely vague "changes" the Democrat talks about, just how are you going to "ensure that he keeps his promises?"
These are not superficial things. These are the very issues that define our freedom. Yes, the facts make us very nervous and sometimes "mean-spirited." BUT WE'RE NOT GIVING MONEY TO SOLDIERS TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE and occupy their countries, just to make certain powerful corporations more powerful.
Quoting from a recent article by Donna Volatile, entitled "The Obama Construct" http://www.counterpunch.org/volatile08282008.html --
"McCain is a war mongering bully who is in your face. Obama, on the other hand, is a smooth talker, whose own foreign policy positions aren't too far removed from McCain's, and one has to wonder which is worse, or indeed if there really is any difference at all. (The idea of voting for the lesser of two evils, McCain being the more evil, according to Obama supporters, seems ludicrous given that both of these candidates will ultimately do the bidding of their masters and the master plan is the same for both parties. This should be quite apparent by now and if it isn't, well, by all means vote for Obama and reap your just rewards...Do you really think 'Obomba's' idea of war will be kinder and gentler than McCain's?)
"Obama supporters will tell you “but he's honest and so sincere”, and “he's run a clean campaign” or “he's one of us” (that one always gets me) but they remain blinded to what is obvious to many on the radical left and many on the traditional conservative/libertarian right: Obama is a player and he is playing the game of the global elitists.
"Since he has all but secured his party's nomination, he's becoming more militaristic by the minute, in both tone and by his stance on several key Foreign policy issues.
"Obama and his VP Choice, Senator Biden, however, are not the crux of the problem but rather the mainstream voters are the problem as they continue to enable the corrupt two party system by consistently supporting the candidates being foisted upon them by controllers who select them in the first place and who are reinforced by the mainstream media machine in the second. These are not choices, these are lack of choices and if voters continue to participate in this sham, then they truly get what they deserve!
"With Obama supporters, the phrase “blinded by the light” takes on a whole new meaning. What part don't you get?! (This is the party threatening to place demonstrators at the DNC in recently erected detention camps and the party whose House majority leader, Nancy Pelosi, ridicules the anti-war movement and the homeless: “If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they'd be arrested for loitering but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment.” Funny how both parties get upset over that whole free speech thing.)
"What is most stunning about delusional Obama supporters is, when confronted by the aforementioned facts about Obama, they counter with this inane idea that Obama is only “saying” these things, he doesn't really mean them, it's only to get elected and once he gets elected the true altruistic essence of the man will save us all from tyranny! (Can we say reality check?!)
"Their indefensible support of this double talker is beyond comprehension. ...
"If you want to help put a stop to the rigged election game, if you really want to make a difference and you want your voice of disapproval to be heard, then VOTE! Vote for ANYBODY but the two buffoons, who have been pre-selected for you by the global elitist machine. Send a message, loud and clear: We refuse your choices.
"Vote Nader, vote McKinney, vote Ron Paul, vote Bob Barr, write in a vote, do whatever but don't support the corrupt system. Commit to a protest vote. Vote your conscience, do not vote under the “lesser of two-evils” threat because then YOU are part of the problem, not part of the possible solution. (We've been on this trip too many times before. From “hope and help is on the way” Kerry to Obama's constant harping on “Change We Can Believe In”, you have been sold a bill of goods from first to last. For all of Obama's talk of change, his words and actions show quite clearly, he means more of the same...)
"For those die hard Obama supporters who refuse to see the hand writing on the wall. ... YOU are the problem. ... For those die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters, promising to vote for McCain because your war-monger wasn't the chosen one, seek psychiatric help immediately.
"And one more thing. ... Evil is evil, bad is bad, wrong is wrong regardless of sex, race, creed or color.
"And another thing. ... If you vote for Obama, you are neither liberal nor are you progressive, so let's get that straight. If you vote for Obama, you are a neoliberal, so get use to it.
"Stop making excuses, there are none and time is running out as an even larger war may be in the making.
"Get those blinders off!
"This is your wake up call!"
(Words in parenthesis Ms. Volatile's)
I saw that too. Great article from Ms. Volatile!
The battle is between the empire, or whatever euphemism by which is goes, and participatory democracy.
Uh, no. There is a battle going on that could be described that way, and it is an important battle, but it is not the primary battle. The primary battle is internal to each person on this planet...it is the battle between leaving the planet in it's natural state, or altering it to suit one's fancy...even if we had the glorious representative democracy this article suggests, if we use it to continue to alter the molecular structure of our planet, turning the earth from living material to non, then the democracy thing doesn't really get it done, does it?
If we can live without altering the planet in this way, why wait? If we can't, who cares?
This is going to be a little odd but please give me your definition of "natural state"
and where are humans in this description. Many animals alter this planet to "suit one's fancy"
Natural...the way we found it...unaltered chemically by humans...all the way down to the primal uses of heat in metallurgy and chemistry...shall we begin the losing game of Compromise, now? But defense, but medicine, but electricity...but death...
Yes, other animals alter this planet...are you trying to imply there are currently other animals altering it in the same manner, with the same intent, or on the same scale as humans? Which ones, specifically, have you so concerned?
First of all we never "found it" we evolved along with "it" you make it sound like some divine being just dropped us here and off we went. Remember we came out of the same primordial goo that everything else on this rock evolved from. So how far should we go back? 10,000 years? Lets get everybody to tear down civilization and we'll live in the caves and trees again. Make fire, agriculture, medicine a crime because that would also be tampering. We can then all harmonize in peaceful unity and the planet will be saved.
As for the second part of your question: No, I don't have a problem with any of the creatures that tunnel, build or do many other incredible things. My problem is with your concept that we should no longer evolve.
If you feel that strong about what you just said, walk away from all your material goods (clothing included), bring no manufactured tools and go harmonize. If you survive, great. If you can't hack it, we'll have a salad and shower ready for you.
This Planet doesn't know and doesn't care what you do. You may show it love and that's fine but if you're not careful it will easily kill you and not mourn your passing even if you tried to "save it".
you claim I believe humans should no longer evolve...I would suggest we disagree on the meaning of that word...
Main Entry: evolve
Pronunciation: \i-ˈvälv, -ˈvȯlv, ē- also -ˈväv or -ˈvȯv\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): evolved; evolv·ing
Etymology: Latin evolvere to unroll, from e- + volvere to roll — more at voluble
Date: 1775
transitive verb
1: emit
2 a: derive, educe b: to produce by natural evolutionary processes c: develop, work out
intransitive verb
: to undergo evolutionary change
— evolv·able \-ˈväl-və-bəl, -ˈvȯl- also -ˈvä-və- or -ˈvȯ-və-\ adjective
— evolve·ment \-ˈvälv-mənt, -ˈvȯlv- also -ˈväv- or -ˈvȯv-\ noun
I have no problem with humans doing that. What I don't see is a definition that reads: to destroy the only planet able to sustain one's lifeform...in what sense would you suggest humans are currently evolving?
The premise underlying my position is: current human industrial\chemical activity is turning the only planet we have into a lifeless orb...
Based on that position, discussing changing current activity certainly seems wise...specifically, reversing our trend of turning living environment into waste riddled with varying levels of toxicity...it would seem addressing the purposes for these creations, and determining whether specific creations might either be eliminated or substituted with less impactful solutions, would be a good place to start, especially given that much of our existing infrastructure is directly related to a few industries (energy, shipping, autos, plastics, corn, livestock, etc.), some of which seem particularly ripe for examination...
While I believe strongly enough in what I am saying to have convinced my wife to work with me on a re-landscape of our small piece of northwestern US planet away from lawn and flowers to foodstuffs, that we are able to provide our own salads at this point, thank you, and to monitor\reduce our energy usage, I also recognize that our actions as individuals will have a negligible effect on human destiny here on the earth if not accompanied by the actions of many, many others that are thinking along similar lines, but I am finding most people consumed with thoughts of the current political arena, waste of braincycles that it is...
Incidentally, by 'found it', I was probably thinking of 'found' as 'found by Northern European explorers', who held a unique place in modern history as true invaders of distant civilizations...civilizations all too frequently dominated\decimated following the discovery, their lands confiscated and pillaged...this mentality of discovery\possession\development\destruction is the mentality I am trying to contest\reverse...
When, if ever, do we begin removing pavement and planting common food locally? When, if ever, do we discuss not having cars at all, for example, as opposed to cars that run on this or that? I know many of these changes will need to be phased in, but planning for such phasing could begin immediately...incidentally, I don't need to impale myself on existing nudity or trespassing laws to demonstrate my belief that ownership of property is inherently false, or that being naked is a completely natural state, just as my belief in the freedom to choose one's preferred substances doesn't require me to walk into the police department and light up......ultimately, I am simply stating that I would be willing to discuss evolving along with those living around me to live differently, less industrially, cooperatively, without most of what we think of as modern American amenities or economic arrangements, including those around property ownership...if that cooperative living includes evolving attitudes around nudity and sexual activiyt, along with potable water, edible food, and basic shelter from the elements, so much the better...survival will not just happen, we will need to make it happen...
"Incidentally, by 'found it', I was probably thinking of 'found' as 'found by Northern European explorers', who held a unique place in modern history as true invaders of distant civilizations..."
So what did the Europeans find roughly 500 years ago? A purely "natural" landscape untouched by humans? No. The native Americans were masters at manipulating their environment to suit their needs. They expertly tended this land. That meant making tools, killing animals for their needs and destroying parts of the wilderness to improve game hunting. So what the Europeans found was a "managed" natural state by humans. What happened to them is criminal but that is another discussion. Thousands of years before that this continent was mostly tundra and barren ground as a result of receding glaciers. Which natural state would you prefer?
"ultimately, I am simply stating that I would be willing to discuss evolving along with those living around me to live differently, less industrially, cooperatively,"
Well spoken. I would love to join you in that discussion.
"without most of what we think of as modern American amenities or economic arrangements, including those around property ownership...if that cooperative living includes evolving attitudes around nudity and sexual activiyt, along with potable water, edible food, and basic shelter from the elements, so much the better...survival will not just happen, we will need to make it happen...
The problem is stepping back a few thousand years in human evolution to the "basics". With the size of the population we have today, it would guarantee the destruction of better than half of us. I would rather move forward. We are a clever species and I know we will find a way to amicably sustain ourselves and the rest of the animal/plant population.
Where does, say, the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, Krakatoa, Mt. StHelens, etc. fit into the chemically "altering" the planet equation? The gases liberated in one such volcanic eruption, the toxic left behinds, ash, and the other deadly pollutants and green houses gases thrust upward and spreading all around the globe do more to chemically "alter" the planet than human beings ever have. Such eruptions are, of course, natural, so... enjoy! Then there is the great fusion reactor in the sky that has cycles peaking maximum burps (solar flares, prominences, coronal mass ejections) every eleven years (we are now at a minimum) blurting out cosmic rays, neutrinos, gamma rays, x-rays, etc., until, well, the burp that consumes us all. So yes, the sun is "green" but the H + H = He nuclear fusion processes contained therein are as natural as it gets. Enjoy it! Enjoy nature! Nature compared to the scale of human altering chemical process is a much bigger offender. And oh! Watch out for those asteroids and comets playing Russian roulette with the earth. One of these days..... BANG! A few months back one passed between the earth and moon. Close call.
_
September 2008 Earth-asteroid encounters:
Size Date Miss Distance Magnitude Size
2003 WT153 Sept. 7 5.8 LD 23 11m
1996 HW1 Sept. 12 53 LD 12 3.7 km
2003 SW130 Sept. 19 8.6 LD 23 7 m
1998 UO1 Sept. 26 25 LD 18 2.0 km
_
Notes: LD means "Lunar Distance." 1 LD = 384,401 km, the distance between Earth and the Moon. 1 LD also equals 0.00256 AU. MAG is the visual magnitude of the asteroid on the date of closest approach.
One wants to compare human activity to animal activity, now another wants to compare human activity to natural activity...neither animals nor nature act with the psychological or behavioral aspects of humans...they are unique, and this cannot be argued around...humans have an analytical mind, an awareness of choice and consequence, and, therefore, inherent responsibility for thought and action...
What behavioral or psychological responsibilities do you feel humans have, if any, to the preservation of this planetary environment or the myriad lifeforms living here, including themselves and each other, especially given the fact that there is no other readily available planet to inhabit? What changes in behavior or psychology, if any, do you see necessary on the part of humans to meet those responsibilities? Is current sacrifice warranted by future need, or does current gratification trump future need? Is it preferable to be subconsciously suicidal as a species rather than consciously as individuals, if the end result is the same?
As much as I appreciate what Hayden has done and continues to do, not to mention what he has gone through to get where he is today, there is one flaw that stands out in his thinking. It is the same flaw that the right to life people are just beginning to understand. Politicians will pander to anyone thinking they are going to get what they want by voting for these same politicians. It doesn't happen. The last real progressive movement went down in flames when they were convinced by the Republicans to go and vote for them or the democrats would win. They offered to work for pogressive issues to insure the Democrats wouldn't get in as a consulation prize. Unfortunately they were screwed over and the Progressive party died as a result. Who could or would trust a leadership that gave away the power they had only to insure someone else would win? The only thing that is going to change this politiacl system is to get people to believe they can have an affect on the outcome of policy by sticking to their guns and voting for people who aren't part of the status quo. I personally don't have much to say for Ron Paul, but the fact he is going to the wall along with his supporters and running for office is encouraging. The more groups that do the same, the sooner it will be those running will have to open up their platforms in order to get elected. I realize that sounds like a parlientary system, but at the moment, it might get us back on course and keep the politicans feet to the fire. At present, what is the difference in war and war light? That is what we are facing.
Quoting from the following July 9th article by Bill Van Auken, entitled: "Obama's Swing to Right Sparks Warnings From 'Left' Backers." --
"Among the left liberals who have assiduously promoted illusions in Obama, there are those who are deluding themselves and those who work quite consciously to deceive others. (Tom) Hayden clearly falls into the second category.
"He supports Obama not because of any misunderstanding of his own about the Democratic candidate's program, but because of candidate's ability to generate illusions in others. Rather than seeking to clear up these misconceptions, Hayden works to deepen them in the name of building a movement that can 'pressure' a right-wing big business politician from the left.
"Nothing could more clearly define the politics of cynical opportunism that characterizes the great majority of the so-called left in America. Worshipers of the accomplished fact, they are mesmerized by the supposed immutability of the two-party system and seek to paint the Democratic Party as some vehicle for effecting progressive social change, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.
"As an antidote to Obama's turn rightward, Hayden proposes 'a demand that Obama talk to legitimate representatives of the peace movement, not simply hawkish national security advisers.'
"This pathetic proposal is based on the false conception that Obama is merely being pushed to the right by advisers and can be brought back around with a good pep talk from the protesters. What a fraud!
"Obama's campaign itself is a creature of these supposed advisers. His presidential candidacy has been engineered by a section of the political establishment that sees it as an ideal means of putting a new face on discredited American imperialism and carrying out real but quite limited adjustments in American policy after eight years of the Bush administration. His brief though meteoric political career represents for these forces an empty vessel into which policies are being poured that have nothing to do with peace.
"The entire thrust of the politics pursued by the likes of Hayden is to tie those forces seeking a means of fighting against war and social inequality to the Democratic Party and thereby prevent the emergence of a genuine political alternative. In Hayden's view, fighting for such an alternative based on the political independence of the working class and the struggle for socialism means 'falling into the Republican divide and conquer traps.'
"Obama's rhetoric about 'change you can believe in,' his invocations of Martin Luther King's 'fierce urgency of now' and phony concern for the poor have always served to mask a right-wing capitalist program.
"When the candidate insists that he has not shifted on Iraq, he is essentially correct. His promise to 'end the war' always envisioned the continuation of the US occupation and the pursuit of the war's original predatory aims. His essential difference with McCain is over whether more troops should be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan to escalate the US war there and potentially extend it into Pakistan.
"As for domestic policy, the money that has poured into his campaign coffers from Wall Street, *nearly twice* the amount donated to his Republican rival John McCain, is based on the clear understanding that an Obama administration will faithfully serve America's financial oligarchy. (Asterisks added.)
"If the candidate is more openly promoting his right-wing agenda now, it is not in interests of gaining votes. Over two-thirds of the American people want an end to the war and the overwhelming majority is hostile to the Bush administration; he does not have to appeal to some vast right-wing constituency. On the contrary, Obama is making his pitch to the ruling elite, attempting to cast himself as 'presidential,' i.e., someone who is prepared to do whatever it takes to defend the interests of American capitalism, both at home and abroad."
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j09.shtml
Tom Hayden, how can you say that "empire is the enemy" when you support Barack Obama -- an enabler of the military-industrial complex, an enabler of US imperialism?
You and your "cruise missile liberal" friends over at The Nation magazine ARE THE PROBLEM!
Your electoral strategy of supporting "lesser-of-the-two-evils" candidates has resulted in the American political consensus shifting radical to the right over the past three decades.
Tom Hayden, I wish you would just come out and admit that you've gone from being a political radical to a DPAer (a Democratic Party Apologist).
You supported Gore in 2000. You supported Kerry in 2004. And now you're supporting Barack Obama.
Still! ... Still: even after Obama has cynically and opportunistically lurched to the right.
Tom, there *is* an alternative. And you know it. Nothing that follow should come as news to you ...
People who badmouth the candidacy of Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney or any other left-wing presidential candidate invariably get hung up on the idea that "they can't win."
But that's not the point; at least not in terms of the near future. ... The point is to *build* a genuinely progressive third party movement in the United States, and that takes time. ... That time-line could have started in 1968. Or perhaps 1972. Or perhaps 1976. Or perhaps 1980.
(That Tom Haydn is unwilling to be part of such a movement, well, what can one say? ... You will know them by their allegiances.)
Let's say that instead of receiving 2.7% of the vote in 2000, Ralph Nader instead received 5% of the vote. (Certainly not an unreasonable expectation.) And with that 5% of the vote, Nader would have qualified for millions of dollars in federal funding.
Then, let's say, with that federal funding, he tallied 7% to 8% in 2004.
And then let's say that this year Nader, McKinney and all other similar-minded left-wing candidates, combined, got 10-12% of the presidential vote. Maybe more.
Do you think 10% or more of the electorate voting for genuinely leftist presidential candidates wouldn't be a political force to be reckoned with NO MATTER WHO'S IN THE WHITE HOUSE?
QUESTION: What's pulling Obama to the left? ANSWER: At this point, very little. Why do you think he has so cynically and so calculatingly moved to the right in recent days? An Obama victory would be a triumph of form over substance, hype over action, corporate influence over democratic values.
In short, if Obama wins, democracy loses.
As far as Corporate America and the economic elite are concerned, an Obama victory would represent a triumph for business as usual. Do you know how delighted Corporate America would be with Obama's "happy face" out there shucking and jiving
-- while exploitation, domestic as well as international, continues unabated?
Or, put another way: Democracy doesn't thrive when evil prevails, lesser or greater.
Instead, your vote can go towards building a real alternative in American politics.
Let me make my point another way, by posing the following question to commondreams.org posters. ... Would you rather have a *right-leaning* Barack Obama in the White House or, by contrast, John McCain in the White House BUT with Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader and all other truly left-wing candidates garnering 10% to 12% of the November vote?
If leftists candidates this November, McKinney and Nader chief among them, were to garner 10-12% of the vote, McCain or Obama or any other corporate-controlled candidate would *have* to pay attention to their progressive agenda.
Of course that 10-12% tally is made difficult by the fact that the building of a progressive alternative to corporate-controlled politics is way overdue. It should have started *years* ago.
"The fact that Obama rose to his present position on the tide of antiwar sentiment forces Obama and the Congressional Democrats to pay greater attention to our needs at home or pay a political price." Tom. I disagree. Obama didn't ride on the tide. Obama subverted it! He took the thunder off the anti-war movement channeling energy away from it toward his primary bid to snatch the nomination away from Hillary Clint (I'm not a Clinton supporter). So what else is new? Electoral activism in a two Corporate Party State trumps most everything else. It appears Tom, that you now believe the Empire can be salvaged. Where did that delusion come from?
Come next January, it will be McCain or Obama lifting their right hand before the nation.
Now if you don't believe that it matters which one it is, you could practice gesture politics and vote for another of the list of candidates you will find on your ballot. And if you do that you are buying into electoral politics more than those of us who happily vote for Obama, because you think that someone will notice your futile gesture. Save some gas, stay home and pull the covers over your head.
The rest of us know that the election is only one small step in a long long process to put an end to this empire Tom speaks of.
There's just a faint hope that this election might help a few people think that the world doesn't have to be the way it is. Maybe it won't, maybe we will be completely disillusioned again. But hope isn't thinking it will all work out, hope is doing the right thing because it is the right thing.
"Hope is doing the right thing because it is the right thing."
Hmmmm you mean like voting for a third party from a place of hope, because it's the right thing to do, rather than voting for the lesser of two evils out of fear because it is the strategic thing to do?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
"...build and strengthen a progressive power base that can fight everyday for our needs, not the empire's needs."
This is a good objective, but one that is not winnable, nor is the struggle sustainable, within the corporate party structures.
If we are to remain (or become) a viable alternative counterbalance
to corporate power, we need a people-power entity built by participatory
democracy hands, independent of the Democrats/Republicans.
Green Parties across the country (and around the world) are
doing just that.
http://gp.org
"And the peace movement has to point every day to the domestic costs, including energy costs, of the Iraq War and the larger empire. And we must define an alternative vision to the undemocratic structures of corporate and military power that promise security but bring us war, that promise jobs but lower our standard of living. We need a new model of political economy that is equitable and sustainable, not one that expects every country in the world to meet our needs, including our appetite for their resources."
THE QUAKERS HAVE AN ACTIVE PRESENCE ON CAPITOL HILL WHICH HAS BEEN DOING THIS WORK FOR OVER 60 YEARS. CHECK OUT FCNL.org The FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION.
Tom, you're to be commended for your good work. Seriously.
But, it took over 50,000 (that's FIFTY THOUSAND folks) American soldiers lives along with people finally taking to the streets and raising hell and burning cities to stop it. And that--as much as people want in invoke Gandhi's name--is what took to stop the murder.
How many this time, Tom? How many? Please give me a number, Tom.
And after this sorry spectacle called the Vietnam War (made possible by your own party) they didn't change. They learned not one single thing, because you Tom, as well as the other hacks and writers (and filmmakers) decided it was all a game. (And you only won in '92 because Perot gave you the win.)
Your Party stinks of death, negligence, and complicity, Tom. This "congress" has done nothing to stop the hideous warmongering GWB lied us into. Nothing. Not one thing.
Promises, promises, Tom. Always tomorrow, huh Tom? "Give us a chance", says Tom.
You did many a great things, Tom. I applaud you. But you and your "liberal" friends in the media, somewhere got lost in the BS, stardom and buried in your own narcissist attitudes.
You hate us progressives who stand for ideals. You hate us for voting for who we believe will advance policies that will move our country, indeed humanity forward. You hate us for not wanting to support your failed candidates, whom we all know, are nothing more than rubber stamps for Wall Street & murderers for capitalism (in the name of "democracy"). You and others like you will back anyone with a donkey stamped on his forehead. Anyone. It could be Mickey Mouse. It could be Popeye. It could be Mr. Ed.
You did some good work--back then, Tom.
To all the young people out there, vote Nader or McKinney. Cast a vote for humanity, not more warmongering. We'll all win by doing the right thing.
Casting a vote for Obama is just another vote for more of the same.
"vote Nader or McKinney. Cast a vote for humanity" Tell me where the humanity is when your candidate---McKinney--- takes money from people at Exxon/Mobil?
http://www.opensecrets.org/
Where did you get that? I went to your link and couldn't find the info you asserted.
Damn. I agree! McKinney should give the money back when Obama gives back the money to Goldman Sachs. So there.
Fine article. Hayden is an unsung progressive hero.
Two points:
1. Participatory democracy optimized is direct decentralized Global Online Democracy (G.O.D.).
2. Unless conservatives somehow turn into enlightened liberals, instead of getting rid of nuclear weapons, a country's only defense against invasion and theft of their resources is to posses nuclear weapons.
beutiful!
thanx so much for giving me food for thought--and on hungry ramadan too...
(everybody is invited to fast between sunrise and sunset in solidarity)...
at the local coffeehouse here in sausalito, california yesterday, there were youngsters gathered in three of the four chairs usually occupado by the senior set...
i hit them with the idea that, "we better hope obama is lying"--at least with his talk of invading pakistan or compromising too much with the insurance companies on health care--and that after he wins the election he'll become Himself...
i feel badly today even thinking about it--to spread doubts of "hope" and "change," no matter where those vaporous slogans come from--better than "war" and "fear" unless we're telling scary stories around the campfire...
no campfires this week--it's red flag heat--summer blasting away--except where me and my friends live on our boats, barges and brigantines on the cool waters offshore...
thoreau's quote in an earlier comment is perfect--as was his young death at mom's house--valiant cries--and in another mood he said this,
"All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with
a slight moral tinge to it..."
still i will spend the two minutes to obama-size myself in november--and spend the rest of my time playing other games--allen ginsberg blamed many '68 radicals and himself for opposing hubert humphrey in that election--and bringing us the joy and wonder that was nixon...
i cover the waterfront...
jake
Hey Tom, we progressives here on the "radical" left agree we need to conclude the empire now. But how do you expect the chimp-in-chief to accomplish that? We propose to simply vacate the oval orifice for four years to prove we don't need a chimp-in-chief. We really don't.
"The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset the people would not have consented to this measure." - Henry David Thoreau
I don't get it. Mr. Hayden correctly points out that its a battle between empire and participatory democracy.
Then, just a few paragraphs later, he tells us that he's siding with empire in this election.
There's certainly no doubt that this is where Obama stands. I can't think of a word he's uttered that's critical of the notion of an American empire. The best way to characterize his campaign is that he says he can be a better manager of the empire than Bush and McCain.
There are no policies that support the empire that Obama opposes. The only place he gets close is on withdrawal from Iraq. But Obama makes it very clear that he supports this withdrawal only because he views this as a tactical mistake. He constantly just refers to Iraq as 'the wrong war'. Not that war is wrong, just that this was the wrong war. To make his position plain, he refers to Afghanistan as 'the right war' and promises to expand it.
And, just last week in Denver, I saw Mr. Obama's response to 'participatory democracy'. I saw the Democratic convention where the wealthy who've bought Obama are invited into the convention hall and the fund raising parties. I saw also the fences and razor wire and riot police and pepper spray that greeted anyone else who might have the gall to try to participate in a democracy.
So, this is what I don't get. Mr. Hayden gives a wonderful talk on participatory democracy, and he correctly points out that the battle is between empire and participatory democracy. The problem is that he then comes down strongly on the side of empire.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Zinn
The Progressive March 2008 Issue
http://www.truthout.org/article/howard-zinn-election-madness
"I'm not taking some ultra-left position that elections are totally insignificant, and that we should refuse to vote to preserve our moral purity. Yes, there are candidates who are somewhat better than others, and at certain times of national crisis (the Thirties, for instance, or right now) where even a slight difference between the two parties may be a matter of life and death.
"I'm talking about a sense of proportion that gets lost in the election madness. Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes-the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.
"But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.
===End clips
Ok; vote for Obama; better than McCain. Think about appointments to the Supreme Court. Beware: voting for a third party can recreate 2000.
But work tirelessly at the grassroots for restoration of the Constitution, for the Bill of Rights...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Not for sending troops to slaughter Afghanis, not for expanding wiretaps without warrants, not for a health care scheme which leaves corporations in charge and provides no coverage for many, not for failure to call for restoration of habeas corpus, not for blatant indifference to the violations of the First and Fourth Amendments in St Paul......
Obama supporters: what will you do to rotate your man's thinking?
I mean: really DO!
Fusion
The problem is that they can't 'rotate their man's thinking.'
If there was any time to do this, it was in the primaries. Back when Obama was in a historically close race for the nomination. That was when someone might have had the leverage to change Obama's thinking, because that was when he desperately needed the votes.
And we saw Obama's answer to this. Obama's answer was that he lied. Obama lied about what his foreign policy would be. Obama lied about what his economic policy would be. As soon as he got the nomination, Obama basically said 'Ha, fooled you', and started repudiating everything he had said during the primaries.
And, this illustrates Obama's attitude in general to participatory democracy. A democracy relies on some element of truthfulness from the participants. The process relies on a candidate saying what he believes in and what he'll do as President, then having the people participate and choose the candidate they like best.
When a candidate lies and deceives like Obama did in the primaries, he's telling us of his disdain for democracy. The Democratic primaries had the appearence of giving a choice between the Clinton center-right policies, or the alternative that Obama appeared to provide to the left of that. But, as soon as Obama got the nomination, he has revealed that he is at best supporting exactly the same policies that he pretended to oppose in the primaries. If anything, Obama now appears to be even further to the right that the Clintons.
This is giving the finger to the idea of democracy. Obama, through his lies and deceptions took away any opportunity for the members of the Democratic party to choose a new course.
So, what are the Obama supporters going to do to create any change? We've already seen the congressional democrats total disdain for the opinions of any but their big contributors. The members of the Democratic party want an end to the wars and impeachment. The congressional Democrats give us full funding for the wars and gave the Bush\Cheney administration immunity from impeachment.
When the congressional Democrats don't know they are on camera, they call us 'idiot liberals' and wish
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
What makes Hayden believe that voting for Obama will "force the Democrats to pay greater attention to our needs at home, or pay a political price"? The Democrats took control of both houses of Congrees several years ago -- and what did they do? NOTHING! but vote to support whatever the Bush wanted. It is time for them to pay the political price NOW! Out with the scoundrels!! Don't vote for more of the same! Want change? Vote independent!!
What makes Hayden believe that voting for Obama will "force the Democtrats to pay greater attention to our needs at home, or pay a political price"? I think it is time for them to pay the polical price NOW! The Democrats took control of both houses of Congress several years ago. What did they do? NOTHING!! (but vote to support what ever Bush wanted) They need to pay that politcal price now. Don't vote for them!! Vote for them and you'll get more of the same. Want change? Vote independent. Don't vote for a political party funded by the corporations and using our tax funds to protect the Empire. THe hell with the Empire!!! Let's take care of ourselves!