EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Triage on Uncle Sam
As is clear to any doctor, new age healer, medicine man or back alley quack, Uncle Sam is in terrible shape. Though his organs are barely vital, save one, his head remains strangely swollen, and his priapic condition is more steely than ever, to the world’s dismay. Like a hybrid dipstick and divination rod, it always shoots straight for the oil, usually Muslim-owned. America’s current motto, LEAVE NO SHI’ITE OR SUNNI UNTURNED.
Long overweight, he has always sought to expand his eating horizon. Starting with the blasé turkey, he moved on to spicy Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Filipino and Okinawan, etc. Lately he’s been stuffing his face with all-you-can-eat helpings of hummus, sharwama and sheikh mahshi. Yummm! But no earth is big enough to satisfy this infinite growth appetite, so with his overseas options dwindling, the fat man is consuming his own body. America is eating up its own young and future.
What to do? When a country is this sick, how do you go about curing it? And what should we tend to first? Among presidential candidates, the only one with anything like a sensible platform is Ron Paul, who insists on bringing all the troops home, restoring our raped Constitution, and lopping off the Federal Reserve, thus castrating our thieving banksters, but since Paul threatens the beast so directly, there’s no way our military/banking complex will allow him to win.
American electoral politics is modeled after game shows, sit-coms, professional wrestling and Jerry Springer, with everything well-orchestrated and media sculpted, but should the masses fail to cheer, laugh, tear up or become indignant on cues, there’s still the Diebold voting machine to yield a preordained result. Even with a fair shake, however, voters may still reject Ron Paul because of his opposition to social programs and abortion, as well as his laissez-faire stance towards big business.
As for third party candidates, the last one to have even the remotest chance of winning was Ross Perot, in 1992, but he ended up with zero Electoral College vote! As for Ralph Nader, his best showing was 2.74% of the popular vote, in 2000. In short, we don’t have a viable candidate to lever us from this quicksand. The system simply won’t allow it.
It won’t allow it because it’s not there to serve us, silly. This is no government for the people. Where have you been? While we had a brief moment occupying a few plazas, dusty lots and parks, they continued to occupy everything else. With their nonstop media pollution, they occupy your very mind. So what are you going to do about it?
Many of us just want to get off this death train. In 2008, a Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans believed that “any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic.” A growing number would rather be a citizen of the Second Vermont Republic or Cascadia, etc., and in Wyoming, lawmakers just narrowly voted down a “doomsday bill” that would have prepared the state to function independently of Washington. Though it was posed as an emergency measure, it sounded suspiciously like a secession plan, what with the state having its own currency, army and even aircraft carrier.
Aspiring Cascadians chafe having “to put up with indifference and condescendence from distant seats of power,” but you can live in Washington DC itself and feel exactly the same way. Just ask the many homeless sprawling on the sidewalks within sight of the US Capitol, or the people of Adams Morgan or Anacostia. Like those in Bagdad or Kabul, they are not being served by the war criminals who huddle daily on that hill. So the distance is ideological and not necessarily physical. In the latest poll, released three weeks ago, 86% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing. Some may see their “representatives” as incompetent, but many Americans already know that they are being ruled by an alien government that only got elected through a rigged system and lying.
The more illegitimate they become, the more flags they display, and the bigger the flags, though they care nothing about what the flag stands for. To them, the American flag is just something to drape over your coffin, after they’ve sent you to commit mass murder for Big Oil, Big Banks and Israel, after they’ve used you thoroughly to enrich themselves. Isn’t it time we bury this grotesquely corrupt and bloodthirsty cabal? The big question is how?
Strategies, strategies. Recognizing that one-day protests accomplish nothing, the Occupy Movement sought to disrupt the system by occupying Wall Street. It didn’t happen that way, of course, because hundreds of cops were brought in to protect the New York Stock Exchange for months on end.
Thwarted, the occupiers moved to a park, and that became the model nationwide, but you can occupy as many parks as you want and the system will not change. As you sleep outside and become symbolically homeless, your sneering masters will continue to ruin lives by starting wars and ripping people off in plain sight.
And so the first stage of our rebellion is over, and though I fully applaud the courage and sacrifice of those who endured prolonged discomfort or police brutality to rouse America from its slumber, we must now aim for tangible results and not symbolic victories. Since time is short, we must get deadly serious. No more hedges.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
69 Comments so far
Show AllIf you have read Toynbee, pessimism is sure to dog your steps:
"Crystallization of a new order of civilization into an uncreative minority of powers that be leads to deterioration and ultimate collapse, despite the intervention of creative saviours."
Or one might choose to believe the line from the movie "Lawrence of Arabia":
"Nothing is written"
Truly we are in new territory - in every sense that matters.
====
marx said it best - the capitalists take all the money - sooner or later everyone else starves and when a man or woman see their kids starving they are ready to take some action
and that is where it is at the moment - the calm before the storm
and the owners have seen it coming - they have deployed the 3rd army for domestic unrest, declared anyone to the west of fascist nazi a terrorist, passed the ndaa, have put out the bids to manage the fema camps
they know that occupy will be more serious this time around and they are all set to shoot upon the citizens, especially the arab loving terrorists
they've done all that before
mark twain was not an amerikan he called himself "the amerikan" and i am glad that this great amerikan and citizen of the world never lived long enough to seethe mess mr rockefeller made of this once beautiful, now toxic hellhole
"We shall have to say right here and now that the hand of imperial finance shall not go farther into its strangulation of the American people and that the hand of imperialistic banking control shall be decentralized instead of centralized in America."
— Huey Long, Senate floor speech, January 5, 1933
"We ought to take care of every single one of the sick and disabled veterans. I do not care whether a man got sick on the battlefield or did not; every man that wore the uniform of this country is entitled to be taken care of, and there is money enough to do it; and we need to spread the wealth of the country, which you did not do in what you call the [National Recovery Administration]."
— Huey Long on FDR's opposition to the Veterans Bonus, Share Our Wealth radio address, February 23, 1934
"“Giv’em a yacht! Giv’em a Palace! Send ‘em to Reno and give them a new wife when they want it, if that’s what they want. [Laughter] But when they’ve got everything on God’s loving earth that they can eat and they can wear and they can live in, and all that their children can live in and wear and eat, and all of their children’s children can use, then we’ve got to call Mr. Morgan and Mr. Mellon and Mr. Rockefeller back and say, come back here, put that stuff back on this table here that you took away from here that you don’t need. Leave something else for the American people to consume.”"
huey long 1932
of course they killed him...
Many thanks for mentioning one of the greatest and most sincere populists in American history. Huey was a genuine populist that singlehandedly brought highways, bridges, higher education, hospitals and a respect for all citizens of Lousiana in a struggle against the vested interests that had always oppressed them. He might have done that for the entire USA but, like so many other American politicians that challenged the status quo, he was struck down by a "lone assassin", apparently a disease that effects friends of working people. Let us try to find another Huey Long. Tony Vodvarka
Another insightful commentary, although it will annoy those who simply can't abide even a nuanced appearance of a good word about Ron Paul.
"No more hedges", eh? Is there more to this closing phrase than meets the eye?
I was wondering the same thing. What exactly does "no more hedges" mean? Anyone? (I'm ready for the big bang!)
I read it as "no more evasion - let's get right to the nitty-gritty". But it still leaves the question hanging: "How?"
Excellent piece though! I too love the sex, food and TV show metaphors.
I agree, but go further -- that Linh is very likely, clearly aware of the number and scope of character assassinating attacks on Chris' article, about the Black Bloc being like a cancer on occupy.
Perhaps he's adverse to being so OBVIOUSLY bold as Chris was, and that Linh refuses to be pilloried with several hundred similar counter-postings, for explicitly stating what he implicitly agrees with.
IWO, Linh perhaps believes concretely in the massive agent provocateur presence (at occupy & at CD) and therefore its destructive influence -- so he choses to obliquely avoid such on this thread. By making the events of Hedges' article AND those massive responses, represent something bigger (like branded Kleenex representing all tissues).
So, there's HEDGES (a person), and doing a Hedges (the article), and getting unrelenting hedges (the hundreds of responses) when touching the third-rail of COINTELPRO agency.
I agree, that '"no more evasion - let's get right to the nitty-gritty",' is a solid meaning consistent with the article
I read it as no more get arrested and go to jail and nothing changes Chris Hedges.
Well, I don't think he's referring to Chris! He's talking about lesser evilism and all the other fear induced, pathetic, hedged schemes of the left. He's suggesting we mow down the hedges that stand in our way.
from phrases.org.uk, origins of hedging:
"equivocate; avoid commitment'. An example of this comes in Shakespeare's Merry Wives of Windsor, 1600:
"I, I, I myself sometimes, leaving the fear of God on the left hand and hiding mine honour in my necessity, am fain to shuffle, to hedge and to lurch."
"To hedge a piece of land was to limit it in terms of size and that this gave rise to the 'secure, limited risk' meaning. Hedge funds, much in the news nowadays, take their name from their method of limiting, i.e. hedging, their risk. "
I don't wish to quibble, rvrwalker.
I'm aware of what it means to "hedge".
But consider that Dinh chose to write "No more hedges" instead of "No more hedging". People may reasonably disagree, but to me this smacks of deliberate double-entendre.
Why stop at two ?
Wait, you mean it wasn't just an anti-shrubbery comment? lol
I, too, wondered exactly what he meant.
Yes, of course it refers to "Do not hurt property when you overthrow a flailing barbarian fascist empire" Chris Hedges (AKA Mr. Violence Wedge). What is bold is the line before "deadly serious", I hear Uncle Ho speaking.
<<" "No more hedges", eh? ">>
I interpret that, as possibly implicitly acknowledging what Hedge promulgated (non-alignment disappointedly hedging of bets), whilst also adding his point of view, that it's perhaps like its time to take off the kid gloves ?
Or perhaps, as in the futility of pretenses of merely triangulating, against huge fortifications ?
That we need massive urban protests, over the top of the non-urban hedges of subservia ?
Or perhaps, humorously, that because some parks have lawns and hedges, that forget using parks ?
Great piece of writing. The sexual and food metaphors fit the Bloated Empire. Loved the first paragraph.
As to the Cascadians and their frustration with distant seats of power, George Clinton (aka Cato) addressed this issue 225 years ago. The so-called anti-federalists should win the Nostradamus award because they got everything right -- congress made up of plutocrats; the supreme court of and for the plutocrats, a standing army that would become an empire and oppress its own people, etc.:
http://www.thevrwc.org/antifederalist/antiFederalist14.html
Er, the "Cascadian" state of Washington has a rather reactionary government too. It scored #1 in the Center for Tax Jusice's tax-inequality study.
In most cases, state politics are even more under corporate influence than the federal politicians are.
It seems the right wing corporatists have conquered every region of the USA.
I am impressed yet again by the very precise and scathing writing. That first paragraph, a gem.
A hypothetical Ron Paul presidency may or may not end US militarism, or it may simply replace it with mercenary forces hired directly by the unfettered wealthy. But we can be certain that Ron Paul would assure there is a big increase in the poverty, urban blight and homelessness that Linh Dinh takes so many photographs of.
Linh, I am saddened that you seem to be hanging around the Ayn Randish, capitlaist-"libertarian" "end the Fed" crowd.
You are a sick fuck for trying to equate this piece to Linh stumping for the Ayn Rand crowd. I am so tired of people like you using undermining tactics and straw men to take away from what this essay is actually about.
"...the only one with anything like a sensible platform is Ron Paul, who insists on bringing all the troops home, restoring our raped Constitution, and lopping off the Federal Reserve, thus castrating our thieving banksters, but since Paul threatens the beast so directly..."
That is praise for Paul, a regurgitation of his dishonest and misleading campaign themes, and that promotes Paul. Promoting Paul is "stumping for the Ayn Rand crowd."
This article is about the sickness of this country and how to "bury this grotesquely corrupt and bloodthirsty cabal" that owns and runs this nation. And since the "system simply won’t allow" a third party candidate and /or a Ron Paul victory... what are we going to do to "aim for tangible results and not symbolic victories."
Do you care to discuss that, or would you prefer to re-direct the discussion away from that point and into meaningless blather about whether he is stumping for the Ayn Rand crowd?
So, you beleive that capitalism would lead to high levels of economic equality if we only get rid of the US's central bank, and do away with all regulation of capitalism, while restoring to some kind of literal interpreaation of a document by and for the benefit of aristocratic, slave holding white males?
stick to the point of the article... your attempt to re-direct energy away from the point of the article, and the logical fallacies you are using to do so is the problem here.
We have been talking about the point of the article.
You cannot bully people into talking only about what you think the point of the article is.
"We have been talking about the point of the article."
-- No, you haven't. You have only made comments in regards to this article being some sort of slick undercover promotion for the Ron Paul campaign. That you think this is the point of this article is ridiculous. I guess that is to be expected from the person who just a few months back was trying to push some ridiculous idea that George Orwell was an undercover cop. And when you were thoroughly called out for this BS you scampered away like a little fucking coward. Now I will eagerly await some more of your shucking and jiving...
He used this article, which would otherwise have been good, to stump for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is, ideologically, just Ayn Rand without the atheism. And, supporting Ron Paul is inconsistent with Linh's photo-advocacy of the poor and down-trodden of Philadelphia and other places.
This article is about the sickness of this country and how to "bury this grotesquely corrupt and bloodthirsty cabal" that owns and runs this nation. And since the "system simply won’t allow" a third party candidate and /or a Ron Paul victory... what are we going to do to "aim for tangible results and not symbolic victories."
Do you care to discuss that, or would you prefer to re-direct the discussion away from that point and into meaningless blather about whether he is stumping for the Ayn Rand crowd?
The assumption - which you are promoting here - that Ron Paul is an antidote to the "sickness of this country" and would "bury this grotesquely corrupt and bloodthirsty cabal" if only the system would allow him to do so is what I am objecting to. That is not off-topic.
Please don't put words into my mouth. It only makes YOU look like a total ass bag. The only thing I'm "promoting" is the idea that you should discuss the POINT of the article - that being: This nation is sick and the system won't allow for real change, regardless of who you vote for, or what park you decide to occupy. And what are we gonna do about this to get the real tangible change that is desperately needed? THIS is the discussion that is needed right now and NOT your nonsensical blathering assumptions that Linh is stumping for Ron Paul.
What we are "gonna do about this to get the real tangible change that is desperately needed" is something I think about and talk about and post here about every day.
You cannot make a serious case that I am trying to avoid that. I am engaged in heated debates all across the site with people attacking me because I AM saying that "the system won't allow for real change."
Perhaps you simply do not wish to see Paul's campaign themes challenged?
I'm addressing what you are doing here, in this particular comment section.
"Perhaps you simply do not wish to see Paul's campaign themes challenged?"
-- Perhaps you are drawing for straws here to try and undermine my comments. And the fact that you are trying to pigeon-hole the idea that ending wars, dismantling the empire and taking the power out of privately controlled central banks as being just a Ron Paul theme is strange - considering you call yourself a leftist/progressive. Prominent leftists, such as Chomksy, Howard Zinn, William Blum, Sheldon Wolin, etc, have been advocating for these things for decades now. Why are you trying to conflate this "theme" as only being in support of Ron Paul? What agenda could you possibly have to want to do this? You do a serious disservice to those who want to truly end the empire and the wars by conflating this with only being a Paul "theme." Is that your intention?
I think that pjd412's point is very well taken which makes it all the more reason why Americans and especially progressive/leftist Americans should vote for Stewart Alexander, the Socialist Party's candidate, for president in 2012.
Unless I am mistaken, even "the system" will allow one to vote for a candidate like Stewart Alexander.
Erroll,
No, his point is not very well taken.... and even he admits below that he was wrong for calling out Linh for stumping for Ron Paul. And, of course, the system will allow you to vote for a candidate like Stewart Alexander. Did Linh say otherwise? No, he didn't. I think a few of you folks need to re-read this essay...
Eric A. Blair
You appear to believe that you and only you can possibly know what is right and what is wrong. I originally agreed with pjd412 when he appeared to me on March 5 at 3:54 pm to criticize the capitalist system which I think is worth criticizing. Despite what you seem to think, I along with anyone else certainly have the right to do this. You then go on, like so many people on the Internet, to lash out by claiming that I was attacking Linh Dinh. If you, to borrow from your words, were to actually re-read what I had written, you would, probably to your amazement,, actually discover that I had never mentioned Mr. Dinh. Instead, what I was referring to were the words that you, Eric A. Blair, had written on March 5 at 3:53 pm, which stated:
"And since the 'system simply won’t allow' a third party candidate and /or a Ron Paul victory..."
This may perhaps come as a revelation to you but I was not attacking you for what you had clearly written Instead, again, I was merely stating that one can indeed vote for a third party candidate such as Stewart Alexander if one so chooses. Why you were so perturbed by this obvious truth is beyond me.
To again borrow from your words, please don't put words in my mouth and do try not to be so quick to make accusations. Instead, it would be more wise to think with your head, if you are capable, instead of your heart.
"You appear to believe that you and only you can possibly know what is right and what is wrong."
-- Absurd. I was pointing out that pjd's comment was not very well taken, and that even he admits that he was wrong for saying... "[Linh] used this article, which would otherwise have been good, to stump for Ron Paul." This is the comment you replied to so I have to assume that this is the comment where you believe pjd's comment is very well taken. It's not, and pjd himself states below that he was wrong for saying so when he wrote, "OK, I agree. Linh was talking about politically-puerile movements like Ron Paul, Secessions and to some extent, the Occupy movement, which served its purpose, but must be replaced with something else, perhaps revolution." So, your first sentence is flat out wrong, thanks
"I originally agreed with pjd412 when he appeared to me on March 5 at 3:54 pm to criticize the capitalist system which I think is worth criticizing."
-- Great. I also agree with pjd about criticizing the capitalist system. But in this particular discussion I was talking about how Linh was not stumping for Ron Paul. THIS WAS THE ONLY POINT I WAS MAKING! And I asked pjd to stay on point but instead pjd412 then decided to take it another step further and used a logical fallacy to state that because I pointed out that this article was not about stumping for Ron Paul that that equated to me "beleive[ing] that capitalism would lead to high levels of economic equality if we only get rid of the US's central bank, and do away with all regulation of capitalism, while restoring to some kind of literal interpreaation of a document by and for the benefit of aristocratic, slave holding white males." This kind of shit pisses me off, and deserves to be called out.
This is the discussion I was having with pjd412 and you appear to have jumped into the wrong debate and now are accusing me of "believe[ing] that [me] and only [me] can possibly know what is right and what is wrong." Thanks, I appreciate that... [sarcasm]
"Despite what you seem to think, I along with anyone else certainly have the right to do this [criticize the capitalist system]."
-- Did I say otherwise? No, I didn't because I was writing about how this article was not about stumping for Ron Paul. Stick to the point of this particular discussion, please.
"You then go on, like so many people on the Internet, to lash out by claiming that I was attacking Linh Dinh. "
-- My apology. I should have stated, "Did I state otherwise?"
"Instead, what I was referring to were the words that you, Eric A. Blair, had written on March 5 at 3:53 pm, which stated: "And since the 'system simply won’t allow' a third party candidate and /or a Ron Paul victory..." "
-- Those words are paraphrased from Linh's article (I even used parentheses around the exact words he used) , and this sentence conveys a summary of what he was saying about Ron Paul and other third party candidates - that the system won't allow them to win.
"Instead, again, I was merely stating that one can indeed vote for a third party candidate such as Stewart Alexander if one so chooses. Why you were so perturbed by this obvious truth is beyond me."
-- I agree that one can still choose to vote for a third party candidate. I never stated otherwise, and I'm not perturbed. Please stop putting your own projected emotions into my comments. And, again, this didn't have anything to do with the original point I was making to pjd that Linh was not stumping for Ron Paul.
"Instead, it would be more wise to think with your head, if you are capable, instead of your heart."
- Why not learn to use both? I am. And, btw, that's a nifty little undermining attempt to suggest that I am not using my head. But, hey, I'm sure it helped you feel like a bigger person...
Eric.A.Blair,
Your courageous efforts are enormously appreciated, as the vicious bullying is unconscionably counter-productive, and worth (far) less than constructive discussion of relevant details.
Attempts a hijacking the thread, needs to have it's own acronym.
Perhaps, taking a page from LOL - we might use HOL,
or perhaps HOLLOL ?
Perhaps, for fallacious Straw man logic - we might use SOL,
or perhaps SOLLOL ?
There's a HOL lot of earth shaking going on,
SOL let's just forget what we're here for ?
For the particular problems Linh is talking about, Paul ("...insists on bringing all the troops home, restoring our raped Constitution, and lopping off the Federal Reserve, thus castrating our thieving banksters") would certainly offer a solution. That Paul would like to gut Social Security, remove federal abortion rights, and commit a whole host of other social crimes (in my opinion) is not part of what Linh is talking about. My own strategy is to vote for Paul in the California primary, so his good positions can contrast with Obama's bad ones and his bad ones can contrast with Obama's good ones.
I don't plan to vote for either of them in November, although if I had the (unlikely) chance to vote for Paul, I might consider it as a sort of "national salvation from police state" option. I really hate US gangster imperialism and the ever-increasing moves towards fascist control at home. And, on the other hand, Paul's efforts to bring about some of his anti-people ideas might be what the Democrats need to grow a filibuster backbone. If Paul's libertarianism isn't enough to get Democrats fired up in the right direction, then it would confirm that the Democrats plan to continue to act as junior partners to gut social programs and labor, so all we'd have left as time goes on if the Dems are elected is some lukewarm support for dwindling social liberalism (gay marriage, women's rights, etc.)
Ron Paul is someone who wants to abolish the minimum wage, end collective bargaining rights for workers, deny women's reproductive rights, end workplace safety protection, end environmental protection. I have to question what a plug for this person is doing on a progressive (and very useful and important) magazine/blog.
Paul's "libertarianism", which actually masks an intense localized authoritarianism, is simplistic and only serve to confuse and misdirect people looking for answers and an alternative independent politics.
The various US "successionist" movements also serve to confuse opponents of the Empire.As shown from previous periods of working class struggles in the 1870s-90s. the 1930s, and the 1960s/70s, progress comes from united struggle from below, both embedded in communities but in solidarity with other struggles nationwide, not in local parochialism.An independent "Cascadia" or "Vermont Republic" will still have to deal with the global crisis of capitalism.
As the demise of the Eastern bloc showed,"socialism in one country" was unworkable, even more so is any system based in one or a few US states.
Obama actually will do all those things, while Ron Paul never could get it done because the Democratic Party would oppose him.
Ron Paul wants to end war, the single most destructive thing going on today. No one else wants to end it. I will vote for whatever anti-war candidate has the best chance. If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, I will vote for him. Yes, he does have a lot of simplistic ideas, but Obama has a lot of mass murderous ideas. Which do you prefer?
Liberal Americans think the lesser of two evils attitude will make the 1% come around to peace and love and flowers, and so they vote for Obama because he will give them a little bone, like a supreme court justice, or some pseudo-liberal person like Elizabeth Warren.
Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, but he could split the electoral college if he could get a decent percentage of the vote. I think if he runs as a third party candidate many from the left will join him, despite his "ideas" that liberals hate. What is more racist, Ron Paul's 30-year-old screeds, or Obama's daily slaughter of innocent Muslims?
tomcarberry
I'm a Canadian, and so tread lightly when discussing American politics. But a general point seems to me this:
We should set the bar higher.
Always we vote for the lesser of the evils - Simon & Garfunkel's song about losing no matter who you vote for.
Isn't it time to demand the very best - to settle for nothing less?
=========
I agree, Michael, we should set the bar higher. But you have to crawl before you learn to walk. First we have to dig the bar out of the cesspool the 1% threw it into.
And what about the somewhat more likely scenario of Ron Paul and a Republican controlled congress?
And no, Obama is awful in a lot of ways, but he is not proposing abolishing the NLRB, the EPA or minimum wage.
I used to work for the NLRB. It hasn't helped labor in a long time. The EPA works directly for the corporations and the minimum wage is a joke.
We need to change and first we need to stop war. Nothing else comes close to war in causing human misery. Sure a lot of Americans don't have jobs or shelter or enough to eat, but millions of Muslims live in abject terror of US war machines and soldiers. A dead child -- or in the case of the USA thousands of dead children -- outweigh the needs of Americans. We have to choose -- our creature comforts or the lives of innocent Muslims. I for one would live on the streets if it meant ending war.
Great piece, thank you! And now what, people? Are we to wait for our murderous government to launch yet another war against untolds thousands of innocents, all the while it has been arming its police and preparing its gulag archipelago here in the homeland for the dissident masses who grow more restless and unhappy by the day? Had enough of the Big Lie and all its concomittant bullshit? Very interesting times these. Soon we will see who the True Patriots are.......
It is stunning to see Ron Paul promoted on a "progressive" website.
No, it's not. We've seen this before, and you have taken part in seeing and discussing Ron Paul being mentioned on a progressive website. What's not stunning, and is perfectly predictable, is a certain crowd of people showing up here to use straw men and undermining tactics to re-direct attention away from what this article is actually about -- and it ain't about promoting Ron Paul. It's about elucidating on the sickness of this nation and asking tough questions on how to "bury this grotesquely corrupt and bloodthirsty cabal" that owns and runs this nation. And since the "system simply won’t allow" a third party candidate and the "military/banking complex" will not allow [Ron Paul] to win... what are we going to do to "aim for tangible results and not symbolic victories."
OK, I agree. Linh was talking about politically-puerile movements like Ron Paul, Secessions and to some extent, the Occupy movement, which served its purpose, but must be replaced with something else, perhaps revolution. And his no more "hedges" was meant to have double meaning - referring to equivocating and to that infamous essay by a certain Chris Hedges opposing diversity of tactics as "violence" - which has been quite a bombshell that continues to echo in activist circles.
I don't care if you admire Paul. I don't care if you vote for him. Nor am I surprised that anyone would.
What I object to is the use of the Paul campaign for the promotion of an extreme right wing liberation and privatization agenda, and the misrepresentation of that as being "anti-war." yes, it is stunning that this agenda gets any traction here at all.
I agree - it is not about promoting the candidacy of Ron Paul. The Paul campaign in an excuse to promote a certain agenda that would otherwise be accurately perceived by people here for what it is and rejected.
I don't care what you admire either. After all, all of my comments were NEVER about what I admire, or who I will vote for. That was never the point I was trying to make when I responded to you. But, I see it's much easier for you to avoid that point. And for what?
What I care about is YOU sticking to the point of the article - that being: the nation is sick; the system is broke; it doesn't matter who you vote for; it doesn't matter what parks you occupy; the nonstop media pollution occupies the majority of brains in this nation; and then ... "So what are you going to do about it?"
Do you wanna get deadly serious about discussing this very real question? Or would you prefer to continue the nonsensical blathering assumption about this article being just a mere campaign promotion for Ron Paul?