Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Tyranny on Display at the Republican Convention
St. Paul is a window into our future. It is a future where, as one protester told me by phone, "people have been pepper-gassed, thrown on the ground by police who had drawn their weapons, had their documents seized and their tattoos photographed before being taken away to jail." It is a future where illegal house raids are carried out. It is a future where vans containing heavily armed paramilitary units circle and film protesters. It is a future where, as the protester said, "people have been pulled from cars because their license plates were on a database and handcuffed, thrown in the back of a squad car and then watched as their vehicles were ransacked and their personal possessions from computers to literature seized." It is a future where constitutional rights mean nothing and where lawful dissent is branded a form of terrorism.
The rise of the corporate state means the rise of the surveillance state. The Janus-like face of America swings from packaged and canned spectacles, from nationalist slogans, from seas of flags and Christian crosses, from professions of faith and patriotism, to widespread surveillance, illegal mass detentions, informants, provocateurs and crude acts of repression and violence. We barrel toward a world filled with stupendous lies and blood.
What difference is there between the crowds of flag-waving Republicans and the apparatchiks I covered as a reporter in the old East German Communist Party? These Republican delegates, like the fat and compromised party functionaries in East Berlin, all fawned on cue over an inept and corrupt party hierarchy. They all purported to champion workers' rights and freedom while they systematically fleeced, disempowered and impoverished the workers they lauded. They all celebrated the virtue of a state that was morally bankrupt. And while they played this con game, one that gave them special privileges, power and wealth, they unleashed their goons and thugs on all who dared to challenge them. We are not East Germany, but we are well on our way. An economic meltdown, another catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil, a war with Iran, and we could easily swing into an authoritarian model that would look very familiar to anyone who lived in the former communist East bloc.
A few of those arrested in St. Paul, including eight leaders of the RNC Welcoming Committee -- one of the groups organizing protests at the GOP convention in St. Paul -- now face terrorism-related charges. Monica Bicking, Eryn Trimmer, Luce Guillen Givins, Erik Oseland, Nathanael Secor, Robert Czernik, Garrett Fitzgerald and Max Spector could get up to seven and a half years in prison under the terrorism enhancement charge, which allows for a 50 percent increase in the maximum penalty. This is the first time criminal charges have been filed under the 2002 Minnesota version of the federal Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act, which was put in place as much to silence domestic opposition as to ferret out real terrorists, has largely lain dormant. It has authorized the government to monitor our phone conversations, e-mails, meetings and political opinions. It has authorized the government to shut down anti-war groups and lock up innocents as terrorists. It has abolished habeas corpus. But until now we have not grasped its full implications for our open society. We catch glimpses, as in St. Paul or in our offshore penal colonies where we torture detainees, of its awful destructive power.
The commercial media told us that what was important in St. Paul was happening inside the convention hall. The vapid interviews, the ridiculous soap opera sagas about Sarah Palin's daughter and the debate about whether John McCain or Barack Obama has proprietary rights to "Change" divert us from the truth of who we have become. You had to search out "Democracy Now!," TheUptake.org, Twin Cities Indymedia, I-Witness, along with a few other independent outlets, to see, hear or read real journalism from St. Paul.
It does not matter that the RNC Welcoming Committee describes itself as an "anarchist/anti-authoritarian" organization. We don't have to embrace a political agenda to protect the right to be heard. Shut down free speech and radicals only burrow deeper underground, splitting ossified political systems into fractured extremes. We may well end up with the Christian right on one side, with politicians like Sarah Palin providing an ideological veneer to a Christian fascism, and embittered leftist radicals who turn to violence on the other.
St. Paul was not ultimately about selecting a presidential candidate. It was about the power of the corporate state to carry out pre-emptive searches, seizures and arrests. It was about squads of police in high-tech riot gear, many with drawn semiautomatic weapons, bursting into houses. It was about seized computers, journals and political literature. It was about shutting down independent journalism, even at gunpoint. It was about charging protesters with "conspiracy to commit riot," a rarely used statute that criminalizes legal dissent. It was about 500 people held in open-air detention centers. It was about the rising Orwellian state that has hollowed out the insides of America, cast away all that was good and vital, and donned its skin to shackle us all.
- Posted in
189 Comments so far
Show AllI saw coverage of this on Democracy Now! I no longer watch any corporate media (i.e. mainstream) - was there any coverage of it or is the corporate media complicit in their silence?? How do we make people understand that we are allready there and it's not something in the future?
Weren't similar tactics used against protesters at the Democratic Convention?
The ruling class (fronted by both democratic and republican party leadership) not only lack the desire to listen to the general public's concerns, they have the power to exclude public participation by any means necessary, including violating basic constitutional and human rights. Why should they worry their pretty little minds thinking about injustices that occur in their quest for profit and power?
It is why I cannot, nor will not, support the corporate candidates Obama or McCain. Both fail to meet the minimum standards of supporting basic tenets of peace, justice, and liberty for all.
By voting for Obama, you are lowering the bar again of what you find acceptable.
Vote Green Party, vote Nader.
Thank you for your support of a third party movement.
Elections, especially presidential elections, are a *risky* time for the political establishment. ... Why? ... Because those in power -- the oligarchic-few -- know that while they have the power and the wealth, the democratic-many have the numbers. Indeed, in terms of sheer numbers, the democratic-many *dwarf* those in power, the oligarchic few.
This is why the oligarchic few fear elections. Because casting a vote is the easiest thing an average citizen can do to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo, i.e., "things as they are."
The average citizen, to express their political dissatisfaction, doesn't have to march ... they don't have to picket ... they don't have to boycott ... they don't have to lie down in front of trains (as Gandhi led people to do in India) .. they don't have to go to jail ... they don't have to bear arms. ... All they have to do is cast a ballot.
And because this is such a easy thing to do, such a conveneint thing to do, such an *accessible* thing to do -- to vote -- the ruling class is in constant fear that, with one simple election, the general public may get wise and vote in great numbers AGAINST the status quo.
So how do they solve this problem? How do they keep the masses in line? ... The answer is found in the incredible apparatus, hidden and apparent, that one might call "The All-Powerful Propaganda Machine."
This propaganda machine exists not just in the media but also in terms of how children and adults are educated, how they are socialized on the job, how they are socialized in their places of worship. ... The goal is to make sure that the general public remains sheeplike. Specifically, that they don't take advantage of the simplest thing they can do to revolt, and that is not just to vote but TO VOTE DIFFERENTLY, to vote outside the confines of what the status quo dicates.
And so, witness how the Democratic Party went after Ralph Nader, especailly in 2004. They attacked Nader with far more passion and fervor than George Bush. Why? Because a third party movement is a much greaater threat to them than are the Republicans.
The Democratic-Republican duopoly doesn't care who gets into office, just so long as it's either a Democrat or a Republican. Were an "outsider" to become an electoral threat, THAT'S their greatest fear.
Just so long as the political consensus stays where it is -- and *BETTER YET* just so long as the political consensus keeps moving to the right, as it has over the past 40 years -- then it matters not if a Democrat of a Republican wins -- the point is that the *duopoly* wins. And that's all that matters.
So if you want more of the same, vote for McCain or Obama. If not, do what those who have made the world into what it is today -- and who have put you in the situation you're in -- do what they DON'T want you to do.
Makes sense?
They've got that covered now. They control the voting machines. Voting is even more than ever a meaningless ritual, like throwing salt over your shoulder, or knocking on wood. At one time, these things meant something, but no more.
wagelaborer,
Referring to your post, the one just before this one ...
I strongly, STRONGLY disagree with the cynicism -- and, holy crap, the *despair*! --inherent in your comment.
People in other countries have achieved broad-based, progressive victories with absolutely NO democratic mechanisms in place. Whereas, we in the United States have a great many democratic tools at our disposal -- but, for the most part, we don't use them.
That a democratic tool such as voting has become corrupted by the political establishment is no reason to give up that democratic tool -- to assume that voting is now and always will be corrupt and therefore useless to the general public.
People have fought and died for the right to vote. And I don't mean soldiers on the battlefield, who only fought and died for the selfish wants of the economic elite. No, I'm talking about all those who fought non-violently, and with great courage, for the right to vote.
Lech Walesa and his comrades created a revolution in Poland -- peacefully, and with absolutely no democratic tools at their disposal. None. No free elections, no open courts, no access to media, no Bill of Rights, no history of free speech and freedom of assembly. Yet they brought the Soviet Union to its knees.
History is filled with similar examples. What democratic tools did Gandhi have at his disposal? India was a colony. What democratic mechanisms could he and his supporters utilize? Yet, they were victorious. ... Why? ... Because the people who were with him were cynical and pessimistic? Because they said: "Hey, we suffered a setback, so now let's all go back home and give up." Of course not.
Yes, the voting process is the United States has been corrupted. So what should we do, allow that to continue? Is that a done-deal, as far as your concerned?
I'm afraid your post gives a great deal of comfort and satisfaction to the oligarchic-few. Your pessimism and negativity are exactly what they hope for. THE PESSIMISM AND THE CYNICISM OF THE GENERAL POPULATION ARE THEIR LIFEBLOOD. They can't survive without it.
As Ralph Nader put it: "Pessimism is a function of inactivity." And inactive, pessimistic, cynical ... sheep ... are precisely what those in power want the general population to be.
'm afraid their response to your post would be: "Mission Accomplished!"
Quoting from an article by Donna Volatile:
"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 do 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!"
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.counterpunch.org/volatile08282008.html
In short: if you are negative, pessimistic and cynical, I guarantee you, you're going to be passive, inactive and easily manipulated. In which case, YOU are part of the problem.
AMEN......and well said!
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Excellent!
Today's people power victory in Thailand is another example of this.
But what will it take for the USAn population to rise up? And if they do, there is more reason to believe it will take the form of fundamentalist-chtisto-fascism rather than social democracy.
And the easiest, most convenient, most accessible way to "rise up" is to vote for a progressive third party candidate.
Let's say the Election in November is, again, rigged (and keep in mind that elections in the US have been rigged going back many, many years) -- let's say the Election in November is again rigged; that still doesn't take away the dramatic effect a strong showing by a third party candidate would have on the political status quo.
What if before the Election, Nader and McKinney are, together, polling, say, 8-10%. If the polls indicate that they're at that level, then it would be hard to "fix" their vote-total at anything signifigantly less than 8-10%. And 8-10% of the electorate represents a vote-total that neither the political establishment nor their Sicilian messenger boys, the mainstream media, can ignore.
So the short-term goal is not to win -- at least not for now -- but, rather, to increase Ralph Nader's 2000 vote total of 2.7% to, say, 5% or 6% -- or, along with Cynthia McKinney, to get the combined progressive vote to, say, 8-10% of the electorate.
And that's a realistic, do-able short-term goal.
Time to read IRON HEEL by Jack London.
Hoa binh
The future the christofascists want is more like Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. From the wikipedia summary:
"The novel explores themes of women in subjugation, and the various means by which they gain agency, against the backdrop of a totalitarian evangelical-Christian theocracy which has overthrown the United States government in the near future. Sumptuary laws (dress codes) play a key role in imposing social control within the new society."
The Handmaid's Tale is one of the most frightening dystopian novels that I've read.
It might also be time to read or re-read Orwell's 1984.
Why did this come about? WAR. War justifies virtually every power government grabs for itself. Makes no difference which of the major parties --- or, more precisely, which faction of the War Party --- is in power, so please don't expect roll-back from Obama, should he win.
And as for McCain, expect it to get worse -- and quickly.
“The vapid interviews, the ridiculous soap opera sagas about Sarah Palin's daughter and the debate about whether John McCain or Barack Obama has proprietary rights to "Change" divert us from the truth of who we have become.”
Were the protesters not treated in a similar way at the Dem party affair? It should be instructive to Americans to see how easily McCain parroted Obama’s empty “change” mantra. Indeed, not surprisingly, the Democratic policy positions can just as easily serve the Republicans seeing as they emanate from the same moneyed interests.
"Parroted" is the operative word. Everything that his party does & that he's pledged himself to do demonstrates that they believe that it's an empty slogan; and the people who keep saying that Obama's use of the word is empty are doing Karl Rove's work for him.
Obama is a meliorist, which means that there will be real changes, some decisive, some negotiated, some deferred. To believe that science is a reliable guide in making public policy decisions would be a real change from an executive branch staffed with people who do not believe that evolution is a fact or that human beings are in fact responsible for climate deterioration. It would be a real change to have an executive branch whose officials do not believe in that all authority flows from the executive branch, and who believe that they are above the law pertaining to all other citizens. It would be a real change to have officials who do not believe that God has granted them power to compel women to bear every child she happens to conceive.
"and the people who keep saying that Obama's use of the word is empty are doing Karl Rove's work for him."
So criticizing the corporate party means I'm secretly a Republican, gee, we've never heard that one before.
Saint-Just, I hear your concern about the theists. I find them hard to understand as I live in a democracy and we don’t have their like here. Do you know why? It is because we vote for parties that give us what we want like peace and decent healthcare and not for the “lesser of two evils”.
In Canada health care came because of Tommy Douglas and the NDP, a party that has never been in power. The NDP forced the liberals leftward and has kept doing it ever since. The result is a leftist tendency in Canada (tendency only). Had the people concentrated exclusively on wether the NDP could realistically win (it cannot and never has) this would not have happened. The system in Canada punishes third parties, but the NDP survives to this day and continues to do a good job of pulling the Liberals leftward to prevent the NDP's growth. Of course, it must be granted, Canadians are not as obtuse........................................lizard
Chris Hedges is one of my heroes. Amy Goodman is another. A lot of what they writes scares the shit out of me, but it is scary because it is true.
I just want to quibble a tiny bit, though. CH writes: "The Patriot Act, which was put in place as much to silence domestic opposition as to ferret out real terrorists, has largely lain dormant." I personally believe that the Patriot Act was MOSTLY intended to be a tool of domestic oppression, and any effect on "real" terrorists was pretty much accidental.
In other words, our rulers consider us to be their real enemy. They realize that a bunch of Arabs with IEDs in the Mideast are small potatoes compared to a well armed (their NRA makes sure we are armed!) civilian uprising here.
War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.
"The Patriot Act... has largely lain dormant."
I do not agree with CH on this. The PA (and PA II) was the most sweeping and imporatant legislation that has been written in this country for over 60 years (and that includes the Bill of Rights). Almost everything that has changed (or got worse) in the last 8 years has it's legal basis in the PA. Military tribunals, extraordinary rendition, Gitmo, FISA on steroids, signing statements and executive privilege, handling of non-permitted demonstrations, probable cause search and seizure, Blackwater and privatizing war, embedding journalists, ban on pictures of returning dead US soldiers, no-fly lists, the polarization of America ("you are either with us, or against us"), etc, etc, etc.
And above all, implementing the tactics of FEAR.
The Bush administration has absorbed top level KGB and Stasi personnel since 2001. No surprise that the government is now behaving like the Soviet and GDR governments.
You become what you hate.
Links please? I don't doubt you for a minute but I'd like to read more about this, thanks!
"It does not matter that the RNC Welcoming Committee describes itself as an "anarchist/anti-authoritarian" organization. We don't have to embrace a political agenda to protect the right to be heard. Shut down free speech and radicals only burrow deeper underground, splitting ossified political systems into fractured extremes. We may well end up with the Christian right on one side, with politicians like Sarah Palin providing an ideological veneer to a Christian fascism, and embittered leftist radicals who turn to violence on the other."
The 'right to be heard' IS a political agenda; and it can only be backed up by resistance when christofascists proclaim that God authorizes them to beat, imprison, silence, and kill enemies.
It's strange that the author doesn't realize that he himself would be regarded as an "embittered leftist radical" merely for his book "American Fascists".
The people who cheered the fascist rally in St. Paul love the forces of order; and all resistance merely proves to them that they were right, while non-violent resistance proves the same.
.
http://www.libertyforlife.com/jail-police/us-concentration_camp-locations.htm
Where do you live?
44 States listed…
http://www.libertyforlife.com/jail-police/us_concentration_camps.htm
.
Problems with this article: No references provided. No author listed. Why should we believe it?
• KBR has been awarded a contract announced by the Department of Homeland Security’s United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) component. The Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contingency contract is to support ICE facilities and has a maximum total value of $385 million over a five-year term. The contract provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the United States, or to support the rapid development of new programs.
_______________________________________
Excerpt from a Halliburton press released linked at the site, which I just visited to see what, if any references were provided. I guess the next question from the "Devil's Advocate Generator" is "How do we know it's a genuine Halliburton press release?"
And so on, ad infinitum.
The listed "camps" appear to be existing facilities that have been around forever. The contract is a *contingency* contract. The photos aren't attributed to any particular place, the claim that the camps are staffed is unsupported. Nothing listed here by the unknown author indicates anything has actually been done yet. It's a big nothing from the looks of it.
Even funnier, if you read on to some of the other links it refers to 300k Soviet troops already here...
That being said, a concentration camp is very easy to build. They're cheap, can be set up in a month and are not likely to be near cities. But why use them if you don't have to? The media is doing a wonderful job at convincing the yanks that tyranny is freedom, war is peace and that ignorance is strength.
Thank you Chris. It's important for all of us to get back to the street. Virtual protest is invisible protest.
John McCain = Robert Mugabe. Sarah Palin = Ma Barker. Rudolph Giuliana = Max Schreck. Mitt Romney = Frank Hackett (see Robert Duvall in "Network"). George Wanker Bush = Emperor Joseph II (see Jeffrey Jones in "Amadeus"). Cheesedick Cheney = The Joker ("Some people just like to watch the world burn"). Barack Obama = Woodrow Wilson (minus the racism). Joe Biden = Frank Nitti. The United States = The Island of Lost Souls.
The equation of obama with Woodrow Wilson is the most accurate I've come across. But he's a Wilson at the twilight of empire rather than a Wilson at the dawning of one.
The US isn't an "island of lost souls": we're a nation saddled with a jury-rigged system comprised of some extremely advanced principles and some extremely antiquated ones. We have a Bill of Rights, but we have an electoral college; we have a balance of powers in theory, but in reality a militarist authoritarian state, as attested by the use of "Commander-in-Chief" as the most frequent description of the office of the president. We have access to all available perspectives from around the globe through the internet, and yet we have no real discourse with the people around us, in our own neighborhoods. A neofascist propaganda organization has been allowed to function as a news organization, and yet an openly gay married woman has just earned a prominent spot on a network supported by one of the largest moneyed-interests in the country.
Possibilities abound because threats are pervasive.
Use the opportunity available to create more opportunity.
I feel like a teenager masturbating behind a closed door when I post on this website, like I'm doing something illicit or somehow socially objectionable.
Craig Brown said that "the tone and level of discourse by a few was driving readers away." Now our comments are hidden so that progressive readers' delicate eyesight and intellect won't be offended by new or different ideas. Sure, it's easy to click on the button "show all" whenever I want to see readers' comments, which is always. But now it has become a furtive act, and I don't think I want to post on a website that is ashamed of free speech.
Chris Hedges speaks the truth, by the way. Maybe Common Dreams should hide articles like his by default, and require readers to click a "show all" button to read them, so they won't be exposed to Chris's opinions by mistake.
Yesterday I posted on a cbsnews.com forum entitled "Russian Prez Puts West On Notice." The forum was dominated by a pack of yahoo thugs who were urging war with Iran and Russia, and labeling all those who opposed them as traitors. As soon as I pointed out to them that starting a nuclear war with Russia because our leaders tell us to hate Russia is not only immoral but national suicide, the CBS editor banned me. I'm also banned from contacting the editors about my ban.
I refuse to be ashamed, or afraid, of the truth.
"Sure, it's easy to click on the button "show all" whenever I want to see readers' comments, which is always. But now it has become a furtive act, and I don't think I want to post on a website that is ashamed of free speech."
Sorry... I don't see it that way. Anyone who has ever moderated a site (controversial or not), that allows individuals to post opinion, will know that there are people who absolutely do NOT want anyone to challenge their viewpoint... and will manufacture any number of reasons for censoring.
There are many tasks that moderators must deal with. most often, one of them is repeatedly addressing the grievances of those who do not understand that the only reason they are allowed to post, is for the same reason which they are advocating against... free and open speech.
The absolute defense against that kind of stupidity is to insure that it was their choice to expose themselves to other viewpoints... and only their choice. There is no counter to that defense. It shuts them up immediately and totally invalidates the basis of their belief that words can hurt them (or more often... others, in their assumed role of "protector").
"Free speech" is not absolute, nor does it manifest without reasonable balance. Get over the mouseclick. A good moderator does not need to deal with that kind of crap on a daily basis. It's counter-productive.
I have been scrubbed or banned from so many sites... including Huffington. I appreciate (so far) the degree of latitude that CD offers, and don't feel one mouseclick is too high a price for that "freedom". I like the changes.
""Free speech" is not absolute, "
Agreed, and one might consider that CD doesn't have to provide an interactive forum and could just pull the plug anytime they don't think it's worth the hassle.
Nah. Our hypothetical "offended" progressives have a choice: read or don't read the comments. There is no counter to THAT defense. Unless you want to equate debate with pornography and claim that the sight of it on a page is objectionable to you.
Of course no one has a right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, but that's a reductio ad absurdum that has no applicability to written comments. With respect to so-called "balanced" free speech, it's a strictly mythical beast that exists only in the minds [sic] of wannabe censors who cannot tolerate dissent or diversity.
Oh, yes, and the mouseclick requirement, as I stated in my post, is not the problem. The problem is the mentality behind the requirement, which apparently assumes that progressives are simply unable to contend with free speech.
"Unless you want to equate debate with pornography and claim that the sight of it on a page is objectionable to you."
Although you seem to want to point to one group (progressives), I can attest that the desire to control through censorship is one that crosses lines, but yes... that's just about the childish extent of the claims at times... and as you might guess, they can go way past "bothersome" when it's a coordinated attack. For a moderator to continually deal with the adolescent crying or political tactics behind many of those demands for censorship, is as I previously posted... counter-productive.
"...reductio ad absurdum that has no applicability to written comments."
Are you saying that there is nothing that you can't write that would exceed the boundaries applied to free speech? I would disagree. Even if you are merely joking... there are specific prohibitions that violated, can lead directly to legal action against you or the blog owner, or the service provider (or all).
"Oh, yes, and the mouseclick requirement, as I stated in my post, is not the problem. The problem is the mentality behind the requirement, which apparently assumes that progressives are simply unable to contend with free speech."
Again, I do not agree with your assessment of the change and certainly not the finger point to one group. Have you ever moderated? It only takes one paid troll to create an enormous headache for a moderator... not so much as to what that person posts, but that individual's almost certain demands for censorship that usually follow.
By requiring one mouseclick, the act effectively insures that individual is not EVER required to view ANY commentary... that it takes an active choice on the part of any individual to access it, defeats most any call for censorship. Choice is the determining factor.
That it is only one mouseclick, makes your objection seem like you are whining about nothing... to me. But then, it's been so long since I was a teenager masturbating behind a closed door that I've forgotten what you must be experiencing on a continual basis. I'm guessing that you'll get over it, or go away "mad".
No, toast. I repeat from my previous post: "our hypothetical 'offended' progressives have a choice: read or don't read the comments."
Yes, I've moderated forums. It's easy to deal with defamers and trash-talkers without punishing everyone else as well.
I'm not singling out, or pointing at, progressives for being intolerant. Progressives are by definition tolerant. Ergo: those who are offended by diverse opinions are not progressives. Am I mad? No, disgusted and disappointed would be more accurate. Will I get over it? Emphatically no. But let those who don't mind having their opinions hidden continue to post their opinions largely unnoticed. When you demonstrate against war criminals, go to caged areas, like obedient sheep, so the war criminals’ delicate sensibilities will not be wounded by the sight of all those nasty protesters saying all those nasty things.
ha! You seem to believe that I can't grasp what you are attempting to say. I get it. I just don't believe you really have any argument. This one mouseclick tool is probably a better option for dealing with those who opt for censorship as a tactic, than any other easy option. Your attempt to equate its acceptance to that of compliant caged sheep is beyond absurd. It is childish. You are exchanging with someone who has lived in the street as a war protester since 67. It's NOT the same thing. It's not even close.
You are whining about nothing. You might better serve your viewpoints by focusing on issues that are important.
That mouseclick keeps the trolls at bay by rendering ineffectual, one of their most often used weapons of protest. One that often leads to censorship. They now have no real basis for complaint, as the choice is TOTALLY theirs. It allows a less constrained dialog. That you refuse to concede that point is telling.
And obviously, we have had entirely different moderating experiences. Read or don't read SHOULD be enough of a solution, but almost never is. That one mouseclick stills that particular debate.
Either you can't grasp what I'm saying or you're ignoring it. Whatever. Continue to post your hidden comments without worry of offending any innocent eyes or minds [sic]. I agree that you don't have to worry about getting censored anymore, because you already have been permanently censored. Obviously "balanced" free speech is good enough for you. If it works for ya, run with it!
It is actually a brialliant manuever to diffuse those who might wage an organized effort to sabotage progressive discussion--by making it a choice to participate.
Off the top of my head, I can think of two instances presently in the news where this relates. One, the insistance by Republicans to gag MSNBC's KO in particular and the deliberate effort to sabotage any protest action via infiltration. That is the mentality sites like CD are up against.
I have experienced a few glitches when posting and my inclination was to become paranoid and jump to conclusions, but eventually realized it was technical rather than deliberate--at least not by CD. I have been on other computers that allow access to the threads, but not the ability to post.
I disagree slightly. I WAS banned from here earlier for advocating for the 2nd amendment from a hard left Chavez like position. As I said then lets try non violence FIRST ala Ghandi and Dr. King but realize it may not work. You all realize that Chris Hedges is talking about a fascist police state here, right? The next step is cattle cars, I for one will not be peacefully or tranquilly loaded on a cattle car I'll use the shooting skills I learned growing up in the woods to go down fighting, YMMV and I respect that, but when push comes to shove I am a survivor not a saint. I of course hope it doesn't get to that and we are able to turn the tide with good hearted non violent protest and eloquent words.
Remember though, even in Starhawk's Fifth Sacred Thing there were snipers in the woods...
Go ahead and ban me if you feel you must be I will keep saying MY truth up until you do...
Yeah,
And I was banned from CD for posting a link to a copy of an letter, and in other posts, the text, of a letter Senator Obama wrote to the UN last year, fully supporting Israels Gaza brutality.
Let me try it again with this new system:
http://jewishstandard.net//content_images/ObamaLetterbig.jpg
And, for a while, merely having "banned words" like "Zionist" or "General Strike" amongst others, in your post sent it to a moderation queue, and usually, the trash.
Hey General Strike shows up now that is an advancement because it's something we REALLY need IMO.
Really? If you were banned for such innocuous comments, the how is the following comment still posted?
"Posted by Nancy_Naive
Hopefully just america and its puppet allies will be extinct. Russia will survice, as will other parts of the globe. america doesnt have a hope. Probably a good thing for humankind too the way they have been going since the 50s."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/06/world/main4422709.shtml?source=search_story
Did anyone else notice the rediculous and HUMOROUS costumes the troops were wearing? Talk about being "overdressed" I hope someone had the courage to ask them if they knew how STUPID they looked.
Anyone who witnessed, or watched the video of, that poor woman being pepper-sprayed by an Imperial Stormtrooper merely because she was holding a flower out to them would need a LOT of courage to tell them how stoopit they looked.
They are rehearsals. Nothing stupid about that............lizard
I do not believe that there is anyway out of this.
When I saw a tape of Governor's Palin's speech and the crowd responding to her dripping contempt for her opposition by unified chants of "USA ! USA!", and also being aware of the police state tactics going on in St. Paul, I felt transported to a version of Nuremberg, 1934, except I do not believe that the Republicans had a talented film maker such as Riefenstahl at hand.
Collapse into tyranny, disorder, and economic crisis is at hand, and changes in political leadership will not reverse the process. In a perverse sort of way, it may actually work out better for an unabashed militarist and apologist for the status quo like McCain to win rather than a faux progressive like Obama who is just as much an apologist but who is only much smarter and slicker.
At least the blame will land where it belongs, small comfort as that is.
Craig Brown said that "the tone and level of discourse by a few was driving readers away." Now our comments are hidden so their delicate eyesight and intellect won't be offended by new or different ideas. Sure, it's easy to click on the button "show all" whenever I want to see readers' comments, which is always. But now it has become a furtive act, and I don't think I want to post on a website that is ashamed of free speech.
This unwelcome change took place immediately after the death of Lina Newhouser. That was no coincidence. Will moderation of comments soon follow? If so, then Common Dreams will become a truly Republican website and you will have been prescient in abandoning it. The day after the death of Tim Russert I made unflattering comments about him (all of which were thoroughly deserved) and got ripped a new one by several commenters for speaking ill of the dead, showing lack of decorum, etc. Those are the kind of sentiments which gave impetus to these changes on CD. George Carlin and Bill Hicks would not be happy.
Not completely. Ever been to the Nation? Their comment section is a swamp of Republican goons who camp out on the threads for a little liberal bashing sport free-for-all. Basically, they smear feces all over the place. On the other hand, Democratic Underground traditionally bows to Centrist-Zionist pressure to silence the progressive Left. Since the last time I posted here, I noticed an increase in Freeper types with an obvious agenda, missionary zeal and circle jerks as the amen chorus. Where do you draw the line?
Vern, all our comments weren't hidden from view to deal with troublemakers, unless you want to characterize all CD commenters as such.
I don't really know what purpose it serves, other than to suggest to those who complain that they have the option not to participate by not clicking.
It makes it easier for those hounded with whiners to deflect complaints.
They always had the option of not participating, or not reading the comments if they're so offended by them.