Nader Was Right: Liberals are Going Nowhere With Obama
The American empire has not altered under Barack Obama. It kills as brutally and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under George W. Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury to enrich the corporate elite as rapaciously. It will not give us universal health care, abolish the Bush secrecy laws, end torture or “extraordinary rendition,” restore habeas corpus or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of citizens. It will not push through significant environmental reform, regulate Wall Street or end our relationship with private contractors that provide mercenary armies to fight our imperial wars and produce useless and costly weapons systems.
The sad reality is that all the well-meaning groups and individuals who challenge our permanent war economy and the doctrine of pre-emptive war, who care about sustainable energy, fight for civil liberties and want corporate malfeasance to end, were once again suckered by the Democratic Party. They were had. It is not a new story. The Democrats have been doing this to us since Bill Clinton. It is the same old merry-go-round, only with Obama branding. And if we have not learned by now that the system is broken, that as citizens we do not matter to our political elite, that we live in a corporate state where our welfare and our interests are irrelevant, we are in serious trouble. Our last hope is to step outside of the two-party system and build movements that defy the Democrats and the Republicans. If we fail to do this we will continue to undergo a corporate coup d’etat in slow motion that will end in feudalism.
We owe Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party an apology. They were right. If a few million of us had had the temerity to stand behind our ideals rather than our illusions and the empty slogans peddled by the Obama campaign we would have a platform. We forgot that social reform never comes from accommodating the power structure but from frightening it. The Liberty Party, which fought slavery, the suffragists who battled for women’s rights, the labor movement, and the civil rights movement knew that the question was not how do we get good people to rule—those attracted to power tend to be venal mediocrities—but how do we limit the damage the powerful do to us. These mass movements were the engines for social reform, the correctives to our democracy and the true protectors of the rights of citizens. We have surrendered this power. It is vital to reclaim it. Where is the foreclosure movement? Where is the robust universal health care or anti-war movement? Where is the militant movement for sustainable energy?
“Something is broken,” Nader said when I reached him at his family home in Connecticut. “We are not at the Bangladesh level in terms of passivity, but we are getting there. No one sees anything changing. There is no new political party to give people a choice. The progressive forces have no hammer. When they abandoned our campaign they told the Democrats we have nowhere to go and will take whatever you give us. The Democrats are under no heat in the electoral arena from the left.
“There comes a point when the public imbibes the ultimatum of the plutocracy,” Nader said when asked about public apathy. “They have bought into the belief that if it protests it will be brutalized by the police. If they have Muslim names they will be subjected to Patriot Act treatment. This has scared the hell out of the underclass. They will be called terrorists.
“This is the third television generation,” Nader said. “They have grown up watching screens. They have not gone to rallies. Those are history now. They hear their parents and grandparents talk about marches and rallies. They have little toys and gizmos that they hold in their hands. They have no idea of any public protest or activity. It is a tapestry of passivity.
“They have been broken,” Nader said of the working class. “How many times have their employers threatened them with going abroad? How many times have they threatened the workers with outsourcing? The polls on job insecurity are record-high by those who have employment. And the liberal intelligentsia have failed them. They [the intellectuals] have bought into carping and making lecture fees as the senior fellow at the institute of so-and-so. Look at the top 50 intelligentsia—not one of them supported our campaign, not one of them has urged for street action and marches.”
Our task is to build movements that can act as a counterweight to the corporate rape of America. We must opt out of the mainstream. We must articulate and stand behind a viable and uncompromising socialism, one that is firmly and unequivocally on the side of working men and women. We must give up the self-delusion that we can influence the power elite from the inside. We must become as militant as those who are seeking our enslavement. If we remain passive as we undergo the largest transference of wealth upward in American history, our open society will die. The working class is being plunged into desperation that will soon rival the misery endured by the working class in China and India. And the Democratic Party, including Obama, is a willing accomplice.
“Obama is squandering his positive response around the world,” Nader said. “In terms of foreign and military policy it is a distinct continuity with Bush. Iraq, Afghanistan, the militarization of foreign policy, the continued expansion of the Pentagon budget and pursuing more globalized trade agreements are the same.”
This is an assessment that neoconservatives now gleefully share. Eliot A. Cohen, writing in The Wall Street Journal, made the same pronouncement.
“Mostly, though, the underlying structure of the policy remains the same,” Cohen wrote in an Aug. 2 opinion piece titled “What’s Different About the Obama Foreign Policy.” “Nor should this surprise us: The United States has interests dictated by its physical location, its economy, its alliances, and above all, its values. Naive realists, a large tribe, fail to understand that ideals will inevitably guide American foreign policy, even if they do not always determine it. Moreover, because the Obama foreign and defense policy senior team consists of centrist experts from the Democratic Party, it is unlikely to make radically different judgments about the world, and about American interests in it, than its predecessors.”
Nader said that Obama should gradually steer the country away from imperial and corporate tyranny.
“You don’t just put out policy statements of congeniality but statements of gradual redirection,” Nader said. “You incorporate in that statement not just demilitarization, not just ascension of smart diplomacy, but the enlargement of the U.S. as a humanitarian superpower, and cut out these Soviet-era weapons systems and start rapid response for disaster like earthquakes and tsunamis. You expand infectious disease programs which the U.N. Developmental Commission says can be done for $50 billion a year in Third World countries on nutrition, minimal health care and minimal shelter.”
Obama has expanded the assistance to our class of Wall Street extortionists through subsidies, loan guarantees and backup declarations to banks such as Citigroup. His stimulus package does not address the crisis in our public works infrastructure; instead it doles out funds to Medicaid and unemployment compensation. There will be no huge public works program to remodel the country. The president refuses to acknowledge the obvious—we can no longer afford our empire.
“Obama could raise a call to come home, America, from the military budget abroad,” Nader suggested. “He could create a new constituency that does not exist because everything is so fragmented, scattered, haphazard and slapdash with the stimulus. He could get the local labor unions, the local Chambers of Commerce and the mayors to say the more we cut the military budget the more you get in terms of public works.”
“They [administration leaders] don’t see the distinction between public power and corporate power,” Nader said. “This is their time in history to reassert public values represented by workers, consumers, taxpayers and communities. They are creating a jobless recovery, the worst of the worst, with the clear specter of inflation on the horizon. We are heading for deep water.”
The massive borrowing acts as an anesthetic. It prevents us from facing the new limitations we must learn to cope with domestically and abroad. It allows us to live in the illusion that we are not in a state of irrevocable crisis, that our decline is not real and that catastrophe has been averted. But running the national debt can work only so long.
“No one can predict the future,” Nader added hopefully. “No one knows the variables. No one predicted the move on tobacco. No one predicted gay rights. No one predicted the Berkeley student rebellion. The students were supine. You never know what will light the fire. You have to keep the pressure on. I know only one thing for sure, the whole liberal-progressive constituency is going nowhere.”
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
268 Comments so far
Show AllThe two sides together (one scaring the right into cooperating with the middle) got the compromise moves of concessions to the civil rights movement, gay liberation movement (Stonewall wasn't a Democratic initiative) labor and safety protections, the weekend, antitrust regulations, Glass-Steagall and other banking reforms, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, EPA, protection of hundreds of wilderness areas and forests, prairies, wetlands and water bodies, and has stopped hundreds if not thousands of bad things from happening or from being as bad as they would have been (TIPS ring a bell?)...
But it takes a viable threat from the left, enough to either vote the blue dogs out or make them think they might be if they don't straighten up.
Pushing the blue button got me a two dollar raise that at minimum wage is a relatively huge increase that made a direct impact in my quality of life. What has your side done for me?
And hey, you wanna work outside the system, go for it. I explained how you do that. "Kill the corporations", I like that. I take it you'll be making a visit to your local gun store to arm up for the fight? I wish you the best. Like I said, I'm not quite desperate enough to join you on the field of battle, but if things get bad enough you can count on me.
His side ended slavery and gave women the vote?
Well thank you Earthian for saving me a lot of typing. I think I'll just ask people to read your post twice and act like I said the same thing. :)
I'll add to this what I posted on another thread:
There are TWO options. Work within the system, and work outside the system. You can't have it both ways. A "third party" tactic is nothing more than playing pretend, pretending you're working inside the system when you're not in the system at all. Political votes for non-viable candidates are powerless. Voting for Nader, McKinney, Jesus or Superman is the same as voting Mickey Mouse or not voting at all. It's a button hooked to nothing, press it as much as you want but still nothing will happen.
Actually working within the system means mounting serious primary challenges to every sellout DINO and Blue Dog who votes against what we want and need. It means supporting the Progressive caucus with your money and votes, and helping it expand. It means defeating the enemy without, the Republicans (we've done a good job of that so far) and then turning our fire on the enemy within, the conservative DINOs. It took decades for the conservatives to finish taking over the Republicans, we've only been serious about this thing for a fraction of that. Be patient and keep plugging, we've made progress but we still have a long way to go.
Working outside the system means nothing less than doing real damage. Get weapons, numbers, and plans. Start blowing shit up. And realize you're probably going to die or spend the rest of your life in jail. That's what happens to revolutionaries. You have to decide if you have nothing to lose and if so, go ahead and take some of your enemies screaming to hell with you.
I think that, much like the civil rights movement, we're going to need some of both to achieve real change. MLK's peaceful movement would have never worked had not been for the Black Panthers and Malcolm X making people afraid that if they didn't accept the peaceful option they'd get the violent one.
But seriously, do one or the other. Or both if you can and feel you must. Me, I'm not desperate enough for option two. I have been working at option one for a while now.
But for fuck's sake, whatever you do stop pressing that damned third button. It doesn't connect to anything. It's just a distraction put there to keep you from doing anything actually effective.
you are wrong, there's simply no other way to put it. What does pushing the second button (the blue one, apparently) get you? a whole lot of nothing. you need to start analyzing the roots of the problem -- IE unfettered corporate power and control of our political system -- and do something about THAT. and, I'll tell you what, voting for ANY Democrat at this point will do nothing to change that system. the answer lies wholly outside of electoral politics, but I fear the only way most people will realize that is when we live in some world akin to our worst apocalyptic visions (think Brave New World, Brazil, etc.). Kill the corporations! (our survival depends on it)
Chris Hedges, in this article, is accurate about the problems and the goals. He's right about Obama. And Nader. And I normally like the thinking he demonstrates. Hedges is a true progressive.
But his proposed means to achieve our goals is tactically flawed.
He says:
"we live in a corporate state where our welfare and our interests are irrelevant, we are in serious trouble. Our last hope is to step outside of the two-party system and build movements that defy the Democrats and the Republicans."
This is flawed either/or thinking.
Cindy Sheehan's campaign, which I supported, is a clear example of the futility of operating entirely outside of the Democratic Party. It was an ideal test case. Nancy was unpopular in a very progressive district having defied a get-out-of-Iraq referendum in the district. Cindy was a very well known true progressive. But she abandoned the Democratic Party, and abandoned the Green Party, running as an independent.
She got 17 percent of the vote. Nancy got about 71 percent.
The root of this article's flaw is Chris Hedges' assumption that the Democratic Party is monolithic—one thing. It isn't. There are corporate Democrats. There are true progressive Democrats. And there are others. Hedges offers no scenario for the 2008 election other than the prospect of McCain/Palin winning if we did what he suggests. And Hedges offers no scenario for actually achieving the goals we have: a non-violent, constitutional progressive revolution that brings public policy to match public opinion, which is largely progressive.
We don't have to abandon the Democratic Party and rely wholly on the Green Party and movements outside the party. The Democratic Party, the party of Jefferson, the oldest political party in the world is a container, and of the two we have, the more amenable to progressives. Instead of the either/or, ineffective thinking Hedges offers for moving our agenda forward, I suggest that we can think more inclusively, and more broadly when it comes to electoral tactics.
Progressives can *both* support progressives in the Democratic Party, *and* can join the Green Party. I've supported both consistently where I live.
We can *both* pursue movements, as we should, *and* we can pursue electoral politics supporting and promoting progressives, especially promoting progressives against corporate Dems in primaries. We can *both* start or build our progressive caucuses in state Democratic Parties, *and* we can build our Green Party.
The flawed either/or thinking Hedges demonstrates will not move us forward far enough. Both/and thinking is what we need, leading, potentially to massive actions: a growing Green Party; a swelling of progressives in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and in State Progressive Caucuses in state Democratic parties; a huge, coordinated, robust movement for change; and ultimately, a non-violent, constitutional progressive revolution that overtakes the corporate regime by implementing the progressive agenda.
Earthian,
Cindy Sheehan, although a sympathetic person who has been through a terrible tragedy and come through it with strength and compassion, was a terrible campaigner. She never showed she was smart enough or politic enough to properly represent her district, and was going up against the speaker of the house, an extremely powerful position which gives the district a LOT of incentive to keep her where she is. People in SF may not have LIKED her, but they were not about to give up her powerful voice (in terms of pork, status--and political effect, at least in their deluded and uninformed view) for a barely-competent "housewife" (Not my view, but a strong undercurrent). It was not a good test case, it was a terrible test case.
When the only strategy we've pursued with any vigor for decades fails, maybe it's time to give up on it and try something else. Splitting our efforts might seem like a good strategy, and may help the system work for us, but it hasn't so far.
Non-progressive Democrats think they don't have to pay any attention to the left; they always think they can get enough votes on the right to make up for the very few they measurably lose to the Greens. Rarely, they do; most of the time they lose that bet and the election. Our coalition might do better putting together the Greens and other non-dualist (non-duelist?) 3rd, 4rth and 5th partiers with
1. people who have given up on voting entirely because their needs are never even mentioned, let alone met,
2. Democrats who, if given an early-enough chance to support a candidate they were excited about, might actually do so. Even if they expected to abandon the candidate later, if enough people disgusted with the 2-winged corporate party hung together, the media would be forced to cover the candidate and allow him or her into debates. We're looking for a snowball effect, and while everything will help some, when you have extremely limited resources careful choices must be made. A viable candidate who stayed in the race, with enough money and supporters and poll numbers to bring him or her to the attention of most voters, could use the snowball effect to pry loose even less-progressive people from the Dems.
This is a unique time to try. The country is fed up with the Republicans, even though they haven't gotten nearly enough blame for the multiple messes we're in (because the Dems haven't differentiated themselves with a progressive message). They are also likely to be fed up with the Dems in the next election or 2, since Obama spoke out of both sides of his mouth during the campaign and can only govern from one side, and it seems to be the right side. If there's no apparent place to go safely in the left people may well convince themselves the Republicans aren't so bad after all, but if they have an actual and perceived choice... might just come around. don't know who the candidate would be... I love Dennis, but he just doesn't have the good looks and lack of brains it takes to win on television. Peter Coyote's a good looking actor; maybe he can fake stupidity well enough to win. Leonardo DiCaprio?
Meanwhile, keep the Greens going locally, get involved in the Transition Town movement, and permaculture. Network and grow from there.
bgcd absolutely! bill maher keith olbermann rachel maddow
darlings all but its all about the MONEY! not to say any
of these folks are doing a bad job at all but its not
like they have a gig at the petroleum broadcast co. for
the minimum and all the side gigs they can hustle.
yup,
follow the money..
greed/politics..
too bad we can't shove a person in the president's shoes
who absolutely won't take no c#$p from nobody..
just need to find someone with guts,
I guess?
for now, the internal revenue service should get a look at
those people/companys/corporations/banks, with offshore tax
shelters, and shut them down immediately..
Face it. The 'Left' is nothing but an army with officers and no enlisted ranks. Everytime there *is* a movement the 'Left' is fast to show up and try to co-opt it. Try to lead it. Perhaps progressives need to listen more than they speak.
"We're the People's Front of Judea! The only people we hate more than the Romans are the Judean People's Front. And the Judean Popular People's Front! And the People's Front of Judea!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWymXNPaU7g
If Obama proved anything, he proved that the Plutocratic Oligarchy is and has been in control from the beginning.
The fact that if the "Founders" would have ' been told that a Black Man (well half black man) would be president; it most likely would not have bothered them in the least except for their concern that the 'Black man' was 'there Black man'.
That is the key to understanding the Plutocratic Oligarchy, they would put ANYONE in office as long as he/she was THEIRs.
They just love it when the 'people' think they voted for a 'president' to 'lead them', when in reality they, (the Plutocratic Oligarchy) are the ones who tell the leader exactly what to do, when and how. The same applies to all of the other elected offices, at all levels of government in Washington; and in most state levels as well.
If this one obvious truth has not been finally proved; then there is no convincing even the 'liberals/progressives' that the only REAL change that is needed is to eliminate the Plutocratic Oligarchy.
If that cannot be accomplished and soon, the USA has little or no chance of survival. The entire world had some 'hope' when Mr. Obama was elected, now it has been revealed that they can expect little or no positive changes in the most powerful, rogue nation in history. The USA makes war--'total war'(war against the civilian population and the infrastructure is 'total war') based on lies and deception.
Shedding innocent blood, destroying the lives and futures of anyone who is in the way. They constantly meddle in the international affairs of countless other nations. They cannot even manage their own financial affairs. Now they are in debt by trillions of dollars to the only surviving Communist Nation---and the shame of that should motivate them into immediate change: instead they continue to borrow.
Millions of people lost billions of dollars when the US Economy failed, and then they watched as the same people who had taken it down---made billions in 'bonus payments', and these people, the foreign investors have much longer memories than the average american. They are watching.
The world cannot possibly tolerate the USA much longer, and this is exactly why every american should be moving to make the changes needed to have a Democracy.
They do not have a moment to waste. But that is exactly what the Plutocratic Oligarchy wants them to do; waste time.
The "Great Rule of Life" simply states that 'whatever the hits the fan, it is never evenly distributed'---.
The members of the Plutocratic Oligarchy many of them 'multi-generational members' will simply move their 'accounts off shore'----and 'sail away' to other 'markets'---they have been around for a long time--much longer that Democracy---and they will survive 'somewhere' for a long time to come; and they know it. They view america and americans exactly like a child views a 'box of toys'---they can discard one toy for another on a whim.
Good Luck America.
Every four years, websites like these rally around the corporate status-quo Democratic candidate and become a sounding board for the perils of "throwing away your vote" on third party candidates.
Why people insist on "voting for somebody who can win," and then trying to "hold their feet to the fire," is beyond me. Hmmm, I think I'm going to buy a brand new car without wheels, because if I gather up a bunch of people, we can try to push it and move it!
The majority of Americans are uninformed and passive. They are deeply discontent with our federal government, and yet in the easiest and most anonymous way of expressing discontent with the government-voting, they fail to exert their power. Instead, they hopefully buy the same worn out promises each election, and each time they are lured into voting for the lesser of two evils, as if it's really going to make a huge difference whether Democrats or Republicans are in power. Here's what I predict will happen in 2012. Half the people on this "progressive" website who voted for Obama and are now complaining about him will vote for Obama AGAIN, because they don't want Sarah Palin or whatever establishment Republican hack they run. They'll nod their heads when they read this article, or maybe even post approvingly. But in October 2012, when the polls are tight, these same people will hold their noses and flood CD boards with solemn "pragmatic" posts, "I was going to vote Nader, but this election is far too close."
Every election is "too important" and "too close" for voting third party.
The United States is rapidly turning into a fascist third world country, and voting the lesser of two evils will do nothing to change this. The corporate power structure must be breached and this can only be accomplished by a united anti-establishment third party. Green Party, Libertarians, and Independents would have to give up their status as separate entities and unite under a banner of common ideals with a charismatic leader. Instead of preaching to the choir, or fighting over independent dissidents, true progressives should stop wasting their time with pressuring Obama, and instead should be pressuring all major third parties to unite for the 2012 election with the intention of WINNING.
Hear, hear!
"none were ever published on CD. Extremely unfortunate."
How about extremely deliberate? The monied interests are more heavily involved in the "progressive" media than most people realize. The ENTIRE media, left-right-center, is stage managed by the big money, and along with the politicians and governmental apparatus constitutes a full package of social and economic control.
Returning to the "going public" vs. anonymity issue: How depressing would it be if 12 CD posters all live within six blocks of each other, but don't know it, and therefore never founded a progressive advocacy organization in their community? What would it be like to find out that a regular poster is your boss, and that load is now lifted and you can speak freely at your job? We lose too much by hiding. Leave that to the people have something to hide.
Why do all candidates accept summonses to appear before church groups? It's because those groups are incredibly well organized. Around one hundred million of them meet, face to face, every Sunday morning, and also for recreational and proselytizing reasons. They send their kids to church schools and church summer camps to help ensure their organizations' continuance into the future. They don't just sit back, comfortable in the knowledge that 100 million people share their faith. They don't meet once a year on the mall in Washington. They meet every Sunday, in their own local neighborhood. They truly know each other, not just of each others' existence and shared philosophies. When they need a lift, or a meal, they have peeps all around them. Their leaders are invited to give speeches at Presidential inaugurations. That never happens to a peace leader, or any other progressive movement leader. The biggest reason for this is because we don't have any leaders that can bring candidates to heel, and the reason we don't is because we're not entrenched in the real world -- for the most part we exist in our minds, and in the virtual activist world, and a tiny percentage of us gather annually in a central location (and turn much of our meager resources into profits for Trailways and Amtrak). We have no reinforcing relationships. We don't exist In Real Life. We have to break out of that. We have to come out of our real and virtual closets. We have to hang out together -- regularly. We have to have names, places, and faces. We have to do things. We have to build institutions and stay active in them.
This is the root of the whole situation. Sarah Palin is an extremist; ill-informed, and a bit of a nut, none of which she's embarrassed to present publicly. But in Republicanland, it's the responsible "centrists" like Mitt Romney that are invisible, while Palin is polling at the top of all lists of potential Republican presidential contenders. By contrast, Dennis Kucinich is ignored in Democratland, even though his views actually parallel those of a significant percentage of Democrats, possibly even most of them. What's the difference? In Republicanland, the extremists, particularly the religiously oriented ones, are well-organized and extremely active, ready to respond, defend, and promote their interests at every moment. Before 1980 and Jerry Falwell's founding of the Moral Majority, and the successful (for both Falwell and the Republican Party) decision of the Reagan campaign (through operations led by then-youngsters Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff, and Ralph Reed) to tap into it, they played no meaningful role in American politics, where Nixon-Rockefeller centrist types had previously reigned over Republicanland. In Democratland, it's the centrists who are organized, and the leftists who exist only as a thought process, the exact opposite of the state of things in the 1950's & '60s. So Kucinich et al can be shrugged off by his party apparatus and the media alike, which, by extension, means the power centers can just take things like impeachment or single-payer "off the table" with hubris and impunity -- and regularity. We're powerless to stop it, let alone offer anything to replace it. It is the failure to organize and activate that Nader refers to in the comments he made to Hedges in this article. It's not like I'm coming up with this on my own. Deep down, all of us know it, but most are afraid to be the first on the dance floor. It is imperative that this stop, right now. We have to start organizing, and you can't organize anonymously.
I'm married with three kids, and live in a small town. I have as much to be concerned about as anyone. My name, address, photos, and phone number have been in wide distribution for seven years. I've never been called by a crank. I have been called many times by people seeking information to help with their own activities, reporters, and donors. The only abusive communications have been of the type you see on this page -- anonymous web trolls. They never call on the phone or show up at my door. People who use their real identities and speak face-to-face rarely engage in this kind of thing. That's another good reason for us to show our real selves -- it causes no problems, and solves many net-based shenanigans that reduce organizing effectiveness. Which brings me back to my blog, www.commonplans.blogspot.com. It's not about me. I don't have an organization for anyone to join, and I'm not the leader of anything -- or trying to be. There's no donation button. All that's there is a list of organizing tips that have succeeded for others that you might wish to apply to your own endeavors in your own locale. Take a look. By tomorrow night you could be holding your first gathering.
www.commonplans.blogspot.com
You can see that Steve Greenfield most certainly IS a disruptive crank. He is diverting a substantive political discussion on the Chris Hedges article into a bizarre obsession with hectoring people to out their personal identities--a twisted preoccupation that smacks of both Inspector Javert and Big Brother. His obsession with prying loose people's personal identities is not to promote political organizing but to harvest names to get money for his Web site--what a cynical, depraved fraud he is!
And what is his real motivation for this relentless off-topic hectoring? To promote his crank Web site. He wants people to publish their names to he can harvest them to dun them for contributions to his Web site. WHAT A CON MAN! HE IS SPAMMING THIS SITE WITH HIS WEB SITE, SEEKING DONATIONS, AND TRYING TO PRY PEOPLE'S PERSONAL INFORMATION SO HE CAN DUN YOU FOR CONTRIBUTIONS! DON'T FALL FOR THIS SPAM! REPORT HIM TO THE CD AUTHORITIES FOR THIS SELFISH INVASION OF OUR POLITICAL-DISCUSSION SPACE1
Before you consider giving this guy one penny or one minute of your attention, consider the following "highlights" of his resume:
1. Several years ago, he was appointed moderator of a discussion list sponsored by Greens for Democracy and Independence (GDI), a left-opposition group in the Green Party headed by Peter Camejo. Greenfield's stewardship of that list was so nasty, abrasive, and disruptive, generated so many complaints, that Camejo had to dump him from that position.
2. GDI was formed to combat the tendency of many Greens to give open or tacit support to Democratic Party candidates. GDI sought to steer the Greens in the direction of complete political independence from the Democratic Party. Apparently, however, Greenfield is not only a chronically disruptive force, he is almost sociopathically devoid of political principle. After huffing and puffing about the evils of the Democratic Party, he abruptly RESIGNED FROM THE GREEN PARTY AND REGISTERED AS A DEMOCRAT SO THAT HE COULD CHALLENGE HILLARY CLINTON IN THE NYS SENATE PRIMARY! Can you even begin to compass such brazen, self-serving hypocrisy, such sociopathic contempt for political principle?
3. Given his reckless disregard of political principle, he only consistent thread in Greenfield's modus operandi is relentless self-promotion--again to an almost sociopathic extent. This Web site of this "radical" consecrates the memory of the Republican militarist/imperialist Dwight Eisenhower! YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP.
Steve Greenfield is poison to any progressive movement or list such as this.
To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
Don't be fooled by this wacky egotist's con games. Ignore him--and above all DO NOT give him your personal information!
Actually, bold Mr. Anonymous, you can make this stuff up. You, that is, not me. There are no donation buttons on my website or blog, and no solicitations of any kind. Just observations on organizing techniques employed by highly effective organizations.
My website quotes Madison, too, not just Eisenhower. True, neither were socialists, but the specific remarks by them that I cite are even as relevant today than they were when stated, which means they contain some trans-ideological truth. As for the website's title, I find value in two elements of using it. 1) Has any chief executive, before or since, ever taken a special, extremely public moment to issue such a blunt warning about the risk of harm endemic to his own establishment? Did Johnson go out warning about the deadly consequences of the Cold War? Did Nixon warn us against surveillance? Did Carter use his farewell to warn us about oil companies and growing unrest in Central Asia? Did Reagan warn about rogue government enterprises? It's not done. Eisenhower did something extraordinary with his last moment at the American pulpit. It was the kind of thing that could have gotten him assassinated had he done it while still in power. But instead of waiting for a college lecture or magazine interview five years down the road, he said it, and in very stark terms, at the full national pulpit. And he was right. 2) his name has resonance beyond the choir. That matters, because the choir is very small, and most people not in the choir don't respect this info when it comes from voices they've been trained to fear. If it comes from Eisenhower and Madison instead of from you, there are people out there who will hear it who otherwise would not.
Again, to repeat, I have no organization, I have no bank account, I lead nobody, I seek to lead nobody, and I do not now, nor have I ever, requested money through my blog or website (unlike, say, Common Dreams, which requests and gets lots of money all the time). Common Dreams is an information clearinghouse, not an organization. If you're interested in organizing instead of typing countless thousands of posts to internet message boards, take a look at the blog, which contains solid lessons I've learned by watching the success of others. www.commonplans.blogspot.com. If you're specifically interested in starting a peace group in your neighborhood, some issue-specific tips are offered at www.eisenhowerproject.org. Please do not send money. Use whatever money you have to build your own organization.
If these suggestions disappear from Common Dreams, thank Mr. Vanmungo when you're trying to figure out why the right and the center are so well-organized and achieving so much of their agendas, but the left is in perpetual disarray and moving further away from power every day.
Steve Greenfield, New Paltz, NY
(A real person, a real town)
Go away, you unprincipled, disruptive crank.
Why would anyone listen to a sociopath who spent a year bellowing about the treacheries of the Democratic Party only to turn on his heel to register as a Democrat to run a joke vanity candidacy against Hillary Clinton in the primaries?
People saw you were a crank then--that's why you were buried by the far better-qualified Jonathan Tasini, that's why you have become persona non grata among the Greens.
Go troll with your loony self-promotion on some other site.
Maybe you can get a side gig with the CIA? That would lead you to people's personal identities out here much faster than mere hectoring.
Go away, crank.
I plan to read Greenfield's site and decide for myself. In the meantime, not having had the time yet to read it, I must admit that he makes a far better initial argument than you, Vanmungo. Regardless of who prevails with the better reasoned case, it is you who is coming across as a vicious crank.
What's Greenfield's "better argument," Mr. Sock Puppet? That leftists out here should make the work of the FBI and the CIA easier by publicly divulging their identities?
That independent leftists should abandon their principles at the drop of an opportunist hat and run as a Democrat in the nearest primary to get their name in the newspaper for one week?
It's not enough to toss around your casual opinion that someone made a better or worse argument. Any five-year-old can do that.
Let's hear your facts and logic-explain your reasons behind your opinion--or are you too intellectually lazy to develop your own argument?
Without some elaboration, your one-sentence, tossed-off, lazy-ass opinion is worthless.
Put up or shut up.
Yo. chill.
Yo. chill.
Me Tarzan. You Jane.
Now try putting a grammatically complete sentence together so we can all benefit from the riches of your subtle intellect.
Switch and bait is all they got apparently. Thanks.
Elohim:
Everything being reported about me by this crank is false -- as false as his assertion that I'm raising money through my blog and website, which anyone can see by looking at them. I haven't even actively used the blog or website in a really long time (look at the dates on my posts) because I'm very busy being on the school board, and fire department and raising my kids.
Peter Camejo never had anything to do with the listserve in question. In fact, I founded the list with two other people. So nobody was able to kick me off. Peter may have posted to the list five times during its year of existence. Yes, some people (perhaps six out of around 130 subscribers) were removed for repeatedly posting the kinds of things you're reading here when the membership of the list wanted posts to be geared towards organizing around our topic, following repeated warnings. It was a moderated list -- that's how it was announced, and everyone who joined was aware of it before joining.
Sure, eventually, as the Cobb faction came out on top and GPUS was imploding socially, ideologically, and financially, I went out and ran against Hillary. Somebody had to do it -- no Democrats were coming forward, and that could not be allowed to stand. It was my farewell to national electoral politics, one last desperate act before returning to my wife and kids and the chance at more effective work within my own community. The fact that no Dems were coming forward to primary against Hillary was being decried in Common Dreams and throughout the progressive press at the time. My time to be productive with the Greens had run its course. I was leaving regardless of the Hillary situation. Eventually almost everyone involved with GDI left, because we gave it our best try, but we lost -- the influence of Democrat-sponsored "lesser evilism" was too deeply entrenched, and remains the dominant electoral philosophy of what's left of the Green Party of the United States. My article that helped launch GDI is here: http://www.counterpunch.org/greenfield03192005.html. My co-authored article with the core leadership of GDI, reporting on the loss at Tulsa and the uncertainty of GPUS' future is here: http://www.counterpunch.org/smith09222005.html. If it really is of concern to you, you could figure out for yourself whether there was a bait and switch, or if we just have an angry internet troll on our hands who's still mad after all these years that 130 people didn't want this kind of thing clogging up our inboxes while we were trying to organize resistance to the Democratic Party takeover of GPUS. He shames the life and memory of Camejo by even dragging his name into this. Camejo had nothing to do with the list, he never was angry with me, and we remained in regular communication right up until his death.
So I went to the local Ulster County Board of Elections in Kingston, NY, changed my party enrollment, and announced it in one of America's tiniest and least-noticed media outlets. But some guy at the Oneonta Star, another small-town paper, just happened to be Googling for this kind of thing, and he called me at home. And someone at the AP bureau in Albany gets feeds for human interest stories from the Oneonta Star, and couldn't believe what he was seeing, since it was accepted by then that Hillary would be unopposed. That's exactly how it unfolded, and all because I used my real name and phone number. An hour after the AP photographer left my driveway, the story was on the "Top Stories" banner of Yahoo news (and generating hundreds of thousands of message board posts, which Yahoo was still using back then). As soon as that effort ran out of steam by mid-spring of 2006 (mostly due to PDA interference, sadly) and I turned the reigns of the primary against Hillary over to the well-intentioned but tragically ineffectual Jonathan Tasini, I dropped the Dem registration, and have not been enrolled in any party since. I won election to the School Board last spring, where I serve to the best of my ability.
I have no regrets beyond not having been able to get PDA support for what I was doing and how well the mainstream media was receiving it. Nor have I yet had it rationally explained to me why I should.
Now why is this even being discussed in this thread? If you want to go further into this, you can email me through the address given on my blog that promotes no organization and solicits no donations -- www.commonplans.blogspot.com
The reason your personal history is being discussed in this thread is that you have launched out on a frenzy of totally weird self-promotion in the intervals of your equally weird obsession with having people out their real identities--right out of the FBI/CIA playbook.
You most certainly were dumped as moderator of the GDI list, and Camejo knew about it and approved of it. You wrecked that resource with your abrasive, hostile "immoderating."
Your joke vanity candidacy against Hillary Clinton made a hash of all your professed militancy against the Democratic Party. Someone had to run against Hillary in the primary? How about someone who was both qualified (not you) and personally engaging (also not you). That person was Jonathan Tasini. He did a fine job. After the first week, no one even took note of your joke vanity campaign.
I doubt that anyone has witnessed anything approaching the mad spew of stream-of-consciousness self-advertisement with which you have marred this thread.
If you want people's names and addresses, go thumbing through the phone book or hook up with your handler at the CIA or FBI or NSA or whomever you're working for. People out here have more important issues to discuss.
Hey, quit hectoring him.
Anyone who runs against Hillary gets a plus in my book.
And personally I detest the Greens--at least in my neck of the woods. The world was their damn oyster--all the issues were theirs and they are off having elitist gatherings at some upscale coffee house, I don't know, discussing suburban bike paths while over development increases flooding, the air is ubreathable and the water is undrinkable from the largest landfill on the East Coast down here in the Lower County. They could care less about the untouchables in the Lower county. Being Green around here is like a fashion statement--other than that they are totally irrelevant. Don't get me stated on the Greens. My guess is they were infiltrated and neutered. But, hey, in your parts maybe there is hope for the Greens so I will keep my mouth shut--now you keep yours shut about this guy. He has a right to do his bit--so keep your priorities in place and don't make it personal.
I don't know the greens in your neck of ex-woods, but do you think there's a better way to begin to make the air breathable and stop flooding and development and reduce the amount of junk (including junkers) thrown away and reduce sick-industry profits and stop climate catastrophe than bike paths and encouraging people to ride a bike? The fact that you don't like where they meet is pretty much irrelevant to politics, although it might reveal something about your prejudices and projections. There's really nothing more personal than that.
Do you actually think mutual silence is helpful in any way? Thoughtful, feeling criticism helps us improve. If you can't get past your prejudices about the Greens outside your area, start a Green party IN your area. Be effective and bring in votes and then get them to help with the issues you think are important. Imperfect as they are, is there a better hope for this country and world than the US Green Party? And yes, I'm a member. I see plenty wrong with the party and have my own frustrations with the Greens, but where else should we turn? Democrats? Socialist Labor Party? Socialist Workers party? Communists?
Like others have noted, I've been banned prior to the election for using my real name on this site. It is pretty clear that CD started allowing some minor dissent after their man got elected. CD has also banned Cindy Sheehan from publishing and posting here. They are getting as tyranical as the Obama Administration with their censorship when the critique hits a little too close to home.
And that's why a message board on here would be very useful, as I've mentioned a few times.
I'm one of the people who was banned. Not just banned, but had all my earlier posts cut and dumped in the "memory hole." But that was when I was using nicknames -- I registered four or five times, and got dumped each time after a couple of posts. I archived some of the original pages as "evidence," and it's been documented elsewhere on the 'net. In fact, my barely used blog was originally created in a fit of anger against Common Dreams (hence its name, "Common Plans." (www.commonplans.blogspot.com) It hasn't happened yet since I've joined as -- myself. When it was happening, it was happening due to content, not names. Not to say it won't again, but even if it does, it's not a big deal. This is the most time I've spent posting on message boards in years. We spend too much time posting on message boards (some posters here literally have thousands of posts on message boards, even though the material was covered by the original author and validated by the readership -- people really like to write, and to think people are reading it and being improved by it, and this is the greatest harm to organizing caused by the 'net). I stopped reading Huffington Post when they opened their message boards. The whole idea that so many of us would be enticed into spending time perfecting our message board posts so as to achieve "fans" and maybe someday get to post a guest column is anathemic to me as an organizer. In reality all you're doing is allowing Huff Post to show more potent traffic stats to its advertisers. You Huff Post posters should unsubscribe, maybe just read some of the articles, and spend that extra time making phone calls looking for affordable meeting spaces. Turning off the TV helps, too, and gives you an extra $65 per month to spend on organizing.
Instead of posting I organize in my town, and I fight fire and extricate people from vehicle wrecks. It's been a pretty rewarding effort on both fronts -- far more successes than failures. My politically active friends in my town use listserves, but only for little things, like "when and where is our next meeting" and to offer opinions on the most visually appealing font on a proposed bumper sticker, or to find a volunteer for some task that needs to get done, and stuff like that. Sort of like a more powerful telephone, and one that can be used even when the actual phone would wake someone up. That's it. In fact, when the mission of the group is concluded (election over, resolution adopted, report written, whatever the mission was), we dissolve the listserve, and start another when we choose a new mission. We don't use it to argue with each other, or to trump each other with more powerful debating points and citations, as is the tendency on the 'net, including right here on CD all too often.
In other words, if this post right here is the one that gets CD to dump me again, so be it. CD is an information clearing house, not an organization, and we posters are not members of something simply because we subscribed to have posting privileges here. Use your real name -- nobody in the Common Dreams office is after you, and neither is anyone in the government. But there might be someone in your own community who'd love to meet you, or someone you already know who doesn't recognize you behind your nic, and you should do everything you can to facilitate that. Use your real name.
Organizing tips here: www.commonplans.blogspot.com
You can see that Steve Greenfield most certainly IS a disruptive crank. He is diverting a substantive political discussion on the Chris Hedges article into a bizarre obsession with hectoring people to out their personal identities--a twisted preoccupation that smacks of both Inspector Javert and Big Brother. His obsession with prying loose people's personal identities is not to promote political organizing but to harvest names to get money for his Web site--what a cynical, depraved fraud he is!
And what is his real motivation for this relentless off-topic hectoring? To promote his crank Web site. He wants people to publish their names to he can harvest them to dun them for contributions to his Web site. WHAT A CON MAN! HE IS SPAMMING THIS SITE WITH HIS WEB SITE, SEEKING DONATIONS, AND TRYING TO PRY PEOPLE'S PERSONAL INFORMATION SO HE CAN DUN YOU FOR CONTRIBUTIONS! DON'T FALL FOR THIS SPAM! REPORT HIM TO THE CD AUTHORITIES FOR THIS SELFISH INVASION OF OUR POLITICAL-DISCUSSION SPACE1
Before you consider giving this guy one penny or one minute of your attention, consider the following "highlights" of his resume:
1. Several years ago, he was appointed moderator of a discussion list sponsored by Greens for Democracy and Independence (GDI), a left-opposition group in the Green Party headed by Peter Camejo. Greenfield's stewardship of that list was so nasty, abrasive, and disruptive, generated so many complaints, that Camejo had to dump him from that position.
2. GDI was formed to combat the tendency of many Greens to give open or tacit support to Democratic Party candidates. GDI sought to steer the Greens in the direction of complete political independence from the Democratic Party. Apparently, however, Greenfield is not only a chronically disruptive force, he is almost sociopathically devoid of political principle. After huffing and puffing about the evils of the Democratic Party, he abruptly RESIGNED FROM THE GREEN PARTY AND REGISTERED AS A DEMOCRAT SO THAT HE COULD CHALLENGE HILLARY CLINTON IN THE NYS SENATE PRIMARY! Can you even begin to compass such brazen, self-serving hypocrisy, such sociopathic contempt for political principle?
3. Given his reckless disregard of political principle, he only consistent thread in Greenfield's modus operandi is relentless self-promotion--again to an almost sociopathic extent. This Web site of this "radical" consecrates the memory of the Republican militarist/imperialist Dwight Eisenhower! YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP.
Steve Greenfield is poison to any progressive movement or list such as this.
To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
Don't be fooled by this wacky egotist's con games. Ignore him--and above all DO NOT give him your personal information!
Obama clones pull out every obfuscation in the book seeking to perpetuate their fantasy life in the Burbs. They simply do not want to give up their connection to state/corporate nexus power from which they derive their livelihood. They don’t want to give up their SUV’s, they don’t want to give up conspicuous consumption or change their lives to sustainable solutions for all.
Nor do they want to give up their precious illusions (what Daniel Quinn writes about in his many fine novels); they don’t want to give up their elite big pharma plans, and medical plans if it means universal care to include marginal populations.
Mostly though, they lack personal empowerment save for their knee jerk reactions on message boards like this one; as Hedges so prophetically notes they are in a perpetual state of apathy dictated by the Power Elite; it is a form of symbiotic relationship of a parasitic host thriving of the cancerous body politic.
They have morphed themselves into a comfortable irrelevance and march lock step with state nexus power elites who call the shots. They are tethered to the corporate machine and if it comes crashing down, so too, will their sad illusions.
Hedges work is prophetic precisely because of his creative efforts. And what we see that follows in various sterile comments are those ignoring his call prefering cultural angst. Hedges and other cultural visionaries offer creative efforts that leave others uncomfortable, and we treat those who abide by their own inner vision, norms, or activism, as abnormal only because it challenges their own entrenched and comfortable lives, void of the creative impulse, and call to individuation.
Many hear the 'call' but few if any ever act on it. No one wants to take the risk of thinking outside of the cultural box. True creators suffer punishment for breaking someones rules about what is, or is not, acceptable in any realm of engagement.
When we worship at the alter of the petty tyrannical gods of culture, we become unoriginal and uninteresting people whose soul has long been stolen by the forces of conformity.
The creative individual is a master of courage not afraid to upset someone else, and his or her confining borders of irrelevance. Such people are those who shout out, "The emperor has no cloths" when everyone else is either too afraid to speak, or has a vested interest in the status quo.
Well said. I agree wholeheartedly.
Nanoo
We must become as militant as those seeking our enslavement. No wonder guns sales are threw the roof. People here worry about ID'd ammo. I think Katrina taught the people one thing, you're on your own. Gardening is way up so that's good.
Yes, I feel with summer quickly passing, the opportunity for masses to unite is slowly fading away.
Commondreams did do a disservice by endorsing Obama. I remember RichM and even myself were banned for writing in support of Nader.
"Our last hope is to step outside of the two-party system and build movements that defy the Democrats and the Republicans."
Hedges is a deep thinker who has seen a lot of what this world has to offer. This article, which will surely make him a pariah in the mainstream media, should be taken very seriously.
We have to organize from the grassroots up. The media will not pay attention, and when they do, they will not approve. That's okay, we can make our own media, as did the Populists and Progressives. The political establishment will fight us every step of the way. It won't be easy, or quick. We won't elect a president and congressional majority in 2012.
Nonviolence, social justice, grassroots democracy, sustainability - are these your values? Do you want to support candidates who refuse corporate money? Then get active with the Green Party today.
Jennifer Bedingfield, if indeed she was referring to my comment, needs to slow down a bit and read better. I in no way endorsed Obama. Obama ran as a theocratic corporate militarist, and as the cranky vanmaungo seems to agree, this DLC-style pro-Reagnism, resolutely poll-driven, got him elected by the spittle-dribbling majority.
So then I give CD this original term, the New Ascetics, that describes the takeover of genuine political opposition by folks with some good ideas, some long-ago initiatives, and a whole cavalcade of traditionalist egotistical nonsense that has kept the US Left unable to function. And that gets called a lack of "substance." That is a common failing of the New Ascetics, like vanmungo, who are so hermetically sealed in their own imaginary moral and intellectual superiority, that they cannot relate to others, and really are not capable of response to anything but an echo.
No, I read your post carefully. While you may acknowledge the problem of Obama and the rest of the party, you still go into supporting them by making it look like Obama would have lost had he moved to the left and not the right. I'm sorry but this is typical Obama apologist talk.
Call it out, Jen. You go girl!
Hedges asks the right question, "How do we limit the damage the powerful do to us?" but the question does not go far enough. We must not simply limit damage, but end their power to damage us and our fellow human and natural beings. This is implied in his statement, "We must articulate and stand behind a viable and uncompromising socialism, one that is firmly and unequivocally on the side of working men and women." The uncompromising socialism of Eugene Debs would be an excellent place to begin.
Mr. Hedges now says prominently what I -- a journalist long ago blacklisted to obscurity -- have been saying to a small circle of friends and colleagues since Obama keynoted his inauguration with an invocation by the notorious theofascist Rev. Rick Warren and thus revealed to the world the bitter truth about "change we can believe in": that it is just another Big Lie.
I applaud too Mr. Hedges' unabashed call for rebellion: "We must articulate and stand behind a viable and uncompromising socialism, one that is firmly and unequivocally on the side of working men and women." Indeed -- with the upraised fist of the working class -- I salute Mr. Hedges' declaration of his awakening.
However Mr. Hedges errs in one not-so-small matter. The history of the Democratic Party as the party of lies and betrayal did not begin with Bill Clinton. It began instead with Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964.
After LBJ's elevation to the presidency as a result of the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, he campaigned for the ‘64 election as the Peace Candidate. But even as he promised peace, he and his henchmen were plotting the bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident, by which they the justified the Vietnam War and its huge payoff to Big Business -- that is, to the ruling class.
Since LBJ, the entire history of the Democratic Party has been a history of betrayers and betrayals: the theocrat Carter's restrictions on reproductive freedom; Clinton's conversion of the socioeconomic safety-net into an apparatus for euthanasia by abandonment and neglect; and now of course Obama.
Thus the post-Kennedy United States: a one-party nation in which Democrats and Republicans represent nothing more than cliques or factions within the ruling class and hide their single-minded tyranny behind smokescreens of meaningless controversy; a one-purpose nation ruthlessly devoted to the expansion and perpetuation of capitalism: absolute power for the ruling class, the total subjugation of all the rest of us.
Again, Mr. Hedges, thank you. And welcome to the Resistance.
"The history of the Democratic Party as the party of lies and betrayal did not begin with Bill Clinton. It began instead with Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964."
Nah, it goes back at least to Wilson. Read Thomas Fleming's "Illusion of Victory: America in WWI". He occasionally goes a bit over the top with applying the tar-and-feathers to the old schoolmaster, but it's well worth the read.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." - George Orwell
Beautifully stated! I wish you were still a working journalist!
Do you have a blog where you publish your current work or archive your past work?
Thanks for a deftly turned, concise summary of our national decline and fall.
"We must opt out of the mainstream"
Ooooh them words is a hot tamale.
Cadillac Escalade or Chevy Suburban?
Nader said,
"I know only one thing for sure, the whole liberal-progressive constituency is going nowhere.”
Yeah and fast. Sadly I think a few people on the left are content to let the country slide into an all out fascist state just to say to people "I told you so."
On a slightly different note, without Green/ Independent party members in Congress what could Nader or McKinney do as president anyway? You see what the right is calling Obama...imagine what they would call Nader!
You serious?
He could ORDER the military out of the Middle East. He could ORDER the military to stop discriminating against gays. That's two more wins than you get out 4 years of Obama on the first afternoon.
He could appoint an AG with teeth. He could go after the Bush crimes.
He could hammer at healthcare, peace and happy puppy dogs with free access to the world's largest bully pulpit 7 days/week for 208 consecutive weeks.
He could submit an awesome budget to Congress that would give people real options in life that would be damn hard for many in that body to veto and get reelected.
He could show 300 million Americans what leadership looks like.
Other than that, yeah, not much...
Succinct.
If Nader could get enough votes to get elected, the whole political profile of the country would be radically different--different enough to elect a far more progressive Congress.
You can't think abstractly about such things--you have to situate them in real politico-cultural contexts.
That way its harder to come up with rationalizations for simply signing off on the status quo, as you seem to be doing.
in the meantime --
read and contrast the facts from two NY times articles:
the first - a report commentary by BOB Herbert , columnist, on
The SCARY REALITY - "priority number one" in USA _ growing joblessness - whose millions jobs lost are replaced with LESSER quality and lower wage jobs....counting everything:
full joblessness, half-time workers because most can't find full-time, those that haven't reported themselves as jobless and given up out of discouragement, growing joblessness among 24-38 yr olds, "catastrophic" joblessness among teens and black youths...equals
19 percent US Jobless Rate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/opinion/11herbert.html?ref=global-home
==========
with
"NEW US GRADUATES Finding Jobs In China (MAndarin optional)"
including young americans starting their own businesses IN china for as low as 17,000 dollars start-up....or actually starting their working lives in positions 3 steps HIGHER than they would be allowed in the USA.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/business/economy/11expats.html?ref=global-home
---------
and they said those communists are very bad people because they want to destroy the american way of life.........
connect with the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/business/global/12asiaecon.html?ref=global-home
"FOR ASIA, DATA SHOWS a SLOW CLIMB OUT OF RECESSION".....
maybe one of these days -- the world will REALLY have to RESCUE the American "worker" from the USA.......(and developing countries might have to SUBSIDIZE them too...since THEIR subsidizing the US Empire has been turning out to be such a DRAG on the WORLD ECONOMY)....
"Going nowhere" is too kind. How about "getting the living hell kicked out of you in the most public and degrading way possible"?
I want formal apologies for kicking Nader off of the ballot in Pennsylvania. You Obama idiots DISENFRANCHISED me and tens of thousands of others and I will never forgive you for that.
You can start making reparations for your damage by campaigning for independent and third party candidates in 2010, if not sooner.
Interesting, isn't it, that Hedges' articles attract such high numbers of comments so quickly. Perhaps he's making more sense than most, and not obfuscating his theses, his arguments with journalistic niceties.
I agree with Steve Greenfield on the use of names. Are that many people here concerned about federal or corporate surveillance? Go ahead - be afraid, be very afraid. As if it will do any good. So the alternative is to get a grip on your fear. Remember when people wrote Letters to the Editor? They used real names 99% of the time. Now why was that? Because there was less to be afraid of? Because they hadn't learned to be afraid? Or because they were too bone-ignorant to realize that there was plenty to be afraid of?
But now this irony: the only democratic medium of communication/dissemination of information left, and we're all just crazy in love with it. But afraid to use our real names. But hey, we're Americans, and we're so brave and valiant, saving the world from evil and all, with our gigantic whiz-bang techno jar-headed (what the fuck is WITH those hair-cuts??) Christian military and the best (sic) country on earth and our power of pride and our support-the-troops-no-matter-what-evil-sons-of-whores are-giving-them-their-marching-orders-and-no-matter-how-many-of-their-fellow-female-soldiers-they-brutalize-and-rape-and-no-matter-that-too-many of-them,-including-their-superior-officers-are-brainwashed-with-'Christian',-male-and- American-brand-bullshit, and all this freedom we're choking to death on and of course God (whoever the fuck HE is) on our side. But we won't use our real names. Jeez, we're not THAT brave!
Either way, I support the use of real names for the same reason. Fuck the feds and their surveillance. After all, I'm doing my own surveillance. And if these pricks want to jail me for free speech in the filthy political/social/anti-intellectual climate we live in, they'll still have to kill me to shut me up. But by then I'll have convinced another soul or two to shoot their faces off. And as Peter Gabriel said in 'Biko': 'you can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire'.
And Lifer, you're right - most people are just that: brain-dead and lovin' it. As Bertrand Russell said: 'Many people would sooner die than think. In fact, they do.'
Judging from what Mr Nader says about the apathetic poulation of America, and judging from the evidence all around us, and the degree to which apparently decent ordinary people slink away in abject fear and disgust, as though you'd just thrown up on them, when you say anything critical or dissenting of practically anything, there'll be no shortage of corpses when thinkin' time comes.
Here's one thing: You're gonna miss Ralph Nader when he's gone. (I miss George Carlin and Hunter Thompson terribly - Jesus we could use them). Isn't it funny how Americans are happiest when they have an enemy, even 'progressives'. But for everyone who's ever pissed on Nader, I do believe that despite his own shortcomings, he'll have the last laugh as he's proven right, and right again, and right again.
And hey, he uses his real name!
Way to get suckered into Greenfield's red herring diversion--he's doing the work of the ruling class by shunting the discussion into a dead end about Net anonymity.
People don't use monikers out here because they're afraid of corporations--there are all kinds of nuts in Virtual Land. It's a rudimentary precaution.
This should be the end of this dopey digression.
If you think Greenfield is right, then publish your name, address, and private phone number right now so we can all discuss the issue with you in person--either by phone or by dropping by for an unannounced visit.
Exactly. Our government knows all about us. They know our names, addresses, IP addresses and probably when we take a shit too. It's the reasons you mentioned that we don't give out our details.
Thank you
My two cents. I KNOW PTB, govt, THEY could know instantly if they wanted to who, what when where etc I am. I assume they do. My dad was a gov. computer subcontractor and used to have fun voicing key words in our phone conversations to mess with their algorithms. After all, I grew up "down the street" ( CIA worker obfuscation for where they work). People in my community here already know these initially regarded as 'peculiar and pinko' positions I hold that they too have in many cases progressed to thinking of as practical. They even know my posting name on the internet. I don't think it is necessary to give out information I withhold as a basic internet safety precaution to build strong connections locally. Crime and internet crime is real and while I don't blame the victims, I believe it foolhardy to tempt fate by posting security information.
I have tremendous respect for Ralph Nader but I'm still not sure that he would have known the political system better than Obama. He has great ideas but so too did Obama. I read all the comments along with the article and I understand the anger but it could have been worse had Mccain/Palin been in office. I only know so much about Obama. If not Obama, who would lead? My niece always says Kucinich but he's not going anywhere. Maybe there is a fundamental reason that we chose Obama and not Nader. For 8 years, George W Bush and the Republicans took away our happiness and self-esteem. By the end of last year, our expectations were so low that what would have looked like nothing 10 years ago looks like a big accomplishment. Let's say that a healtcare reform bill passes. For so many of us who have been used to living unhappy and without expectations, this will look like sweeping reform. Maybe it might be only slightly better than what we have or maybe it will be worse but so many will see it as a sweeping reform whatever the reason. I ask for single payer health care too but maybe most of us out there don't know much about it or what to expect of health care reform. How about the war? We're pulling out of Iraq I think even if my niece keeps saying that we're not. I ask her to prove it and she emails me articles about Obama planning on replacing troops with mercenaries. But most of us won't be lucky to know that. I don't know much about foreign policy but I do know that withdrawing troops is easier said than done. Obama is also being pressured to do something about the Taliban in Afghanistan. I hope he doesn't bomb Afghanistan but if conservatives and people worried about their security have their way, I'm afraid Obama could do it but I hope he won't. I don't know what will become of Obama in 2012 but if Obama is doing bad, then the Republicans are prepared to do worse and that's my fear. I would like to apologize to Nader and Greens for misunderstanding them and not listening to them but how are we going to get third parties to win because without winning, they can't govern?
"I would like to apologize to Nader and Greens for misunderstanding them and not listening to them but how are we going to get third parties to win because without winning, they can't govern?"
Huh? VOTE FOR THEM! Don't do the same friggin' thing, i.e., voting for the lesser of two evils every single time. This is not hard to understand.
Except Nader and McKinney were not on the same ticket. So, how do we decide to split the vote? And if that happens, there's even less than a snowball's chance in hell one will be elected.
This is hair-splitting. It's not just about electing them. It's about mobilizing a movement and making a showing. That would be a victory well short of electing them, even if that is the ultimate goal.
This is why I run for office. To mobilize, to educate, to model participation and change.I ran for school board in a town I had lived in for only 5 years. "ONLY 5 years minnow? Five seems like a long time to me?" Not here, not if you weren't native. I'm not. I lost to a native, 3 to one margin. It sucked. I hate losing. Even to a nice lady like my honorable opponent. It sucked for about 1 week. Then I started getting the positive feedback. They liked my thinking about funding. They liked my thinking about technology. Some liked my thinking about not paying coaches in order to fund the sports programs. I'm for the programs for the kids gifted with spacial/kinesthetic abilities, that's why I don't want to cut the number of programs just to keep in coaches funding. Hell, I knew my neighbors and husband all have great coaching abilities, they all tell us so all the time, they grew up following Vince Lombardi and Dick Bennet and Hank Aaron. I'm sure we'd be beating off the volunteers with sticks.
And even though I'm a teacher's kid and work with teachers at school, I know how they can come off to parents at school. I've been plenty offended at policies directed at parents "for the good of the children" that involved participation the parents WERE NOT in a position to provide. What did I accomplish by LOSING a school board election? I got a paid position advocating for children and parents with the teachers at school. I got respect from the teachers and administration and other school board members, I might be their boss or peer one day. I showed the community hey, you don't have to have a good job or money or health insurance to make a difference and to care even if you can't help out right now. We got an afterschool program at least one day a week. Last year, we saved summer school and this year got it expanded in kids served, offerings and paid and volunteer opportunities. EVEN WITH BUDGET CUTS. That's off the top of my head.
I am strongly considering running for county DA. "Why, you're not a lawyer" 'Yup, and that's a good thing. Maybe there would be better resolution rates to our murder cases and other victim crimes if someone not of the system were privy to the facts of cases. Someone who isn't trying to make political hay of the position. My motivation,"Serving fellow victims of crime, presenting the people's evidence even if it isn't a dead certainty I'll win the case, having faith in the jury pool after careful honest presentation of the facts.Some one who makes the follow up calls before lunch instead of after dining with the local party leaders, movers and shakers. Some one that listens to those I don't particularly respect, maybe I'm wrong. Even dumb asses can get lucky. Stop prosecuting non violent drug offenses. We have better things to do with our money and time. Get the violent ones treatment and jail. I tell people my platform and they don't laugh. Some think I don't have a prayer with some of my positions and 'lack of qualifications'. OK. G~d has a sense of humor and knows I like to get things done. Maybe He'll use someone else's time, efforts and money to see I get what I want.
Running for office is one way of extending the dialogue about what life around here should look like. I want to get people used to thinking of their community measuring up to what Catherine Austin Fitts calls the popsicle index. The likelihood in percentages of a child of six or seven who knows how to cross the street, taking money to the ice cream vendor or store in town and getting back home in one piece with the ice cream. Every one (except predators) wants to live in a place with a high popsicle index. By taking baby steps, each of us can raise it just a little bit more. Just caring raises it, then risktaking in the caring raises it, then decision making with caring raises it.Encouraging people to replace you raises it. Losing elections is also about reconsidering how others' needs fit into you meeting your own needs, to make win-win scenarios. It builds skills and makes connections with people. Losing the election improved my life because the stakes were more than me. Winning it I hope would do the same, we'll see.
Awesomeness.
And good luck!
True enough.
See? It's people who traffic vaguely in personalities rather than knowledgeably in issues who are most vulnerable to being suckered by the Democrats.
This poster needs to study the issues--where Obama really stands, and where progressives really stand, and what the difference is.
Right now he doesn't have a clue--especially if he thinks it's hard to withdraw from a country and that the U.S. is withdrawing from Iraq.
I mean--where do you begin with someone like this?
Perhaps, as a starting point, he should read Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" and take it from there.
double post
"I mean--where do you begin with someone like this?"
Great question! And, the answer (or possible answers) should be seriously discussed if we are to have any chance of breaking through to the brainwashed masses.
As to a possible start: I would add... TURN OFF YOUR TV!!!
I also agree with your recommendation of reading Zinn's "People's History of the US."
I would add this book as well... "Understanding Power - The Indispensable Chomsky"
I remember when I first felt the urge of trying to understand politics and what was really happening in the world - beyond what the TV told me. My brother-in-law suggested that I read "Understanding Power - The Indispensable Chomsky" I went out and bought it the next day. It blew me away!! And it started the process of unraveling all of the complete BS that I had learned (or rather, had been brainwashed with) in my brief 28 years.
Well, that's what I'm here for. To study the issues and see where Obama stands and details about it. My father served in Vietnam and withdrawing troops was not easy even in the 1970s. It took more than a decade to withdraw all troops and who knows how long it will take for withdrawing from Iraq. Getting into a mess is quicker than getting out of it. I will keep that book you mentioned in mind.
Uh, it's not as easy as boarding planes and leaving the country. 6 years' worth of vehicles, weapons, ammunition, other equipment, etc doesn't just get packed up and shipped out via Fedex overnight. It'll take a very long time to get everything out of the country.
zmann, thank you. My father who served in Vietnam told me all about withdrawing from a war. It took more than a decade to withdraw all troops from Vietnam. Who knows about Iraq?
Uh, YES IT IS AS EASY AS PACKING AND LEAVING, and 6 months is PLENTY of time to do that. The call FOUR YEARS AGO was for us to be out in 6 months!
You know who showed us how easy it is to get the US military to back up? The Viet Cong.
I beg to differ. My father served in Vietnam and from his experience I can tell you that withdrawing is easier said than done. The Viet Cong only told us to stop fighting. Withdrawing from Vietnam took more than a decade. I do want to see our US troops brought home but these people are not going to get their chance so fast.
No one ever used the excuse that it would take too much time to invade and occupy. Claiming now that it would take time to get out is just about the lamest rationale they can muster as cover to put off leaving once and for all. They can stretch that one out forever. That is like Obama's completely pathetic excuse that we can't consider single payer because Americans were happy with their present plans. If that was the case there would be no need to reform it.
if one were considering "leaving properly" as in -
getting all one's belongings, packing nicely, neatly, all items listed from A - Z, putting the cap on forward, marching properly...why yes -- it can take years........
if it means being FORCED to LEAVE UNCEREMONIOUSLY because the landlord said ;
"buh- bye -- don't let the door hit you on the way out".....
it happens quite FAST.
all one has to do is ASK THE US IMMIGRATION - er -- HOMELAND SECURITY service......
when they DECIDE an "alien" is negligible -- why - they just WHISK him away without knowledge of his baby, wife, mother, grandfather....friends, even employer....
"OFF to mexico or wherever you came from" with you!
so WHY should it be THAT difficult for the USA? ITS great airplanes and AIRSTRIPS it built and dozens of camps it built are SUPPOSED to SERVICE American MOVEMENT so SWIFTLY FOR WAR
with all its PRECIOUS ORDNANCE...and they did it GOING to IRAQ in a mere few weeks --
COZ THEY WANTED TO.
the REVERSE is just as good!
IF THEY WANTED TO. whether the IRAQIS ASKED them to leave or
KICKED THEM OUT like the vietnamese eventually did!
MODERNITY is SUPPOSED to make things MOVE SWIFTLY and the USA is the paragon of modernity , especially IN WARFARE, is it not?
so why NOT LEAVE QUICKLY - even as QUICKLY or MORE quickly then they came in?.
they can do it - if they WANTED TO.
the only answer is - THEY DON'T want to. they INTEND - as they INTENDED in vietnam to run the clock and SEE if they can KEEP extending their UNWELCOME stay as an EMPIRE - thinking it is a launching pad for MORE expansion --
or expansion of MORE chaos and warfare and devastation - just like they DID in vietnam, then cambodia, then laos.
the reason they are in iraq and "taking time to leave" is not because "it takes time to LEAVE"
it is because they INTEND to EXPAND into Iran as they already have into Afghanistan and Pakistan..on the way to Central Asia, and THEN surround Russia and China and THEN -- maybe, just myabe
INTO russia AND china.
it's the M.O, of the USA - EMPIRE.
the only way the USA will "Leave" is when , WHEN , it is KICKED OUT - or its EMPIRE BUBBLE finally bursts for GOOD..just like its Housing, Finance, Wall Street, Banking, Money printing, bubbles, ..........whichever comes first.
Once the decision to leave was finally made--not until 1975--it took a few months to evacuate all troops.
Read the Zinn book--you have a lot to learn-or unlearn about the propaganda that has invaded your brain.
I was also counting the MIAs and POWs still out there.
Read the book, "MIA Minsfomed In America". The purpose of the so-called MIA movement was a ruse not to pay reparations. There are a few MIAs and unaccounted for. But the orchestrated myth continues.
I shall check that book out. Thank you.
Once the decision to leave was finally made--not until 1975--it took a few months to evacuate all troops.
Read the Zinn book--you have a lot to learn-or unlearn about the propaganda that has invaded your brain.
Exactly. I watched those choppers landing on carriers and then getting shoved off to make room for more on TV. We left billions of dollars of equipment and supplies in Nam. And it all happened because the congress said NO MORE MONEY.
And then we would have had to spend billions more to replace all that lost equipment. I'd rather divert our resources towards building clean energy infrastructure and mass transit than replace several armored regiments' worth of equipment.
WHAT? Why would we have to "replace" that "lost equipment"? Couldn't we scale back the entire Empire in conjuction with a withdrawal from Iraq (maybe Afghanistan)? Without the overseas hegemonic Empire and the military installations to uphold it, we would need much less of this "equipment" than we currently have.
This whole discussion is moot in any case. A withrawal from Iraq would be FAR more orderly than the withrawal from Vietnam was -we have an ALLIED Government in Iraq, for starters. Also, the established bases could easily me sold to the Iraqis themselves on a more gradual timescale than the withrawal of the bulk of combat and combat-support units both military and mercenary.
"the established bases could easily [b]e sold to the Iraqis themselves"
excuse me? isn't that like saying we could sell Manhatten to the "Americans"?
(the European-Americans, that is).
SEPTEMBER 1, 1939
by W.H. Auden
I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.
Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy,
And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analysed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.
Into this neutral air
Where blind skyscrapers use
Their full height to proclaim
The strength of Collective Man,
Each language pours its vain
Competitive excuse:
But who can live for long
In an euphoric dream;
Out of the mirror they stare,
Imperialism's face
And the international wrong.
Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.
The windiest militant trash
Important Persons shout
Is not so crude as our wish:
What mad Nijinsky wrote
About Diaghilev
Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone.
From the conservative dark
Into the ethical life
The dense commuters come,
Repeating their morning vow;
'I will be true to the wife,
I'll concentrate more on my work,'
And helpless governors wake
To resume their compulsory game:
Who can release them now,
Who can reach the dead,
Who can speak for the dumb?
All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.
Defenseless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.
Transcendent.
Yes, the tragic monstrocity of the worst part of humanity mocks, laughs, grins and leers at the weak, good people praying for harmony and respect.
It's still not over.
Thanks for those words. We all need to be reminded of how timeless the forces of good and evil are.
The Greens remind me of that lady who writes in the Bangor Daily news, when she was promoting a Racino and Race track in Maine for Big money..
The Greens have yet to raise a legit issue. They repeat over and over, "We can do it better than you", That is not an issue,
it is a sign of desperate former machine politicians trying to get in power again.
Ralph simply does not know how to connect with the working classes. He should run against Sen Dodd in his home state of Ct. As a Senator he would be in a position of power to bring issues to the front of the Senate.
We still have not been told how Bubba Clinton sold out the
working classes by outsourcing our industrial base to China.
Jeez Freddie. All you have to do is visit the Green Party website to know that they are (and have been) talking about all the issues we talk about here. It has always been a mystery to me why well-informed people get all vague about the Green Party.
As much as we love Ralph, Cynthia McKinney was the Green candidate for president.
The Green Party is not perfect, but it's simply ignorant to claim that they "have yet to raise a legit issue." This means that this poster considers the following critical issues to be "not legit": single payer health care; immediate unconditional withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan; repeal of Taft-Hartley antiunion laws--all of them ruthlessly opposed by all mainstream Democrats.
As for Nader not being able to connect with the working class, did you ever consider the fact that he was not funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollard by corporate interests and so could not by TV ad time? That the corporate media boycott candidates to the left of Attila the Hun?
Sorry . . . but that one gets a "duh."
No American has effected more progressive change in the twentieth century than Ralph Nader--from auto safety laws to the EPA to the Freedom of Information Act to OSHA to the whole apparatus of modern consumer and worker protections. Can you name a single Democratic hack who has had a similar impact on people's lives for the better?
Didn't think so.
Oh I don't know. I think there is a new Zeitgeist, paradigm change going on. This is a tidal wave. The elite won't try to stop it with a retaining wall. They'll try to divide it into small managable pieces.
The issues are clear. Ron Paul would agree to stopping international adventures, closing the overseas bases and reducing the size of the military to a national guard type of force. So there we could get the Libertarians on board. Would they balk at an HR676 national health care? Maybe but the wedge issue here to keep them on our side is that the MIC is breaking the backs of the people. The health care would be cost efffective in providing a future reduction in health care costs by preventive procedures present in readily available health care for all. That's not a hard sell regardless of the media noise machine. Campaign finance is a lost cause. We need to turn that on its' head. We need to show people that those that get lots of corporate money are, by definition, corrupt and sold to MONEYED interests. We need to make the word "MONEY" a death sentence for a political campaign. I know that's a tall order but nothing else will give us the edge. When bought and paid for shills try to hide the fact that they are on the take, we expose them through forums like CommonDreams.
We want peace and prosperity. We have the knowledge and skills to accomplish that in the USA without buying or bopping every other country in the world with the poor and middle class people's money. That is our message. And please spare me all this patriarchal, matriarchal, who's on top, who's getting shafted stuff. Stop this talk about gays ,abortions, mobs, and other frothing at the mouth. Most people are straight, white and somewhat bigoted in the USA. That's reality. If you want to fight that with the "progressive" handle, that's fine. But social behavior modification programs is just the thing to stir up mob fears that repubs love to aggravate.
We can eliminate hydrocarbons as a fuel and use it only for lubricants. We can take apart the plastics industry that gave us shitty houses, furniture and other products.
That is big. People want us to take on big oil. They don't want to hear about Matreiya and God or atheism. They want good transportation, harmonious social groups and jobs. The enemy are the corporate elite, NOT THE DOOFS that the elite has gamed along with the rest of us.
The only people we don't want in our tent are the ones who say that money isn't everything but it's way ahead of whatever is in second place.
THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA IS TO HELP THE PEOPLE, NOT TO PUSH YOUR LIFESTYLE.
End of rant. Let's get together.
Glenn Beck is having great success at organizing genuinely motivated people at the grassroots without the kind of funding you'd think is necessary. The only problem is he's organizing them pretty much to overthrow our government and install a fascist theocracy...not to mention he has 4 hours of free live airtime daily, plus newsletters, plus books, plus a website, and has an audience of probably more than 10 million people.
So how can we run a campaign like that?
We are already doing it at CommonDreams. Hey moderator, would you please tell zmann how your hit count and visits have been spiking? This may not be THE biggest site but it's well on the way. This is our town hall.