|
|
 16 Jul 2004 @ 19:51, by ming. Politics
Al Qaida couldn't dream of a better government in the U.S. than George Bush's. They're a splendid help in the direction of destroying the United States, in providing plenty of new places to have terrorist bases, and plenty of new well-motivated recruits. And Bush could sure use another terrorist attack to boost his ratings. Quite some win-win synergy there. So, what do you say are the chances for that happening before November? Or, even better, around the election itself? Bush's people seem to be planning for just that. Cancel the election, declare a national state of emergency, and just stay on as a dictator. That's a great plan.
It would be quite appropriate if the U.N. would monitor the U.S. elections, like a group of congress people proposed. The U.N. unfortunately said no. And the Bush government wouldn't have let them, of course. The system probably wouldn't stand up to any kind of organized scrutiny. You know, faulty voting machines without a paper trail, run by companies that support the Republican campaign. Plus the long list of other tricks and irregularities. The kind of stuff that Congress strikes from the record if somebody dares to mention it.
Anyway, just wanted to complain a bit. I'm no longer there, but the state of the U.S. unfortunately affects the rest of the world greatly.
Oh, and for something more to be freaked out about, Thomas mentions this story about a lady who believes she experienced a dry run for a terrorist attack on a plane, and the apparent inabilities for the system to respond well to that, because of rules for political correctness, etc. For example, an airline can't take aside more than two middle eastern people at a time, or they get big fines. More >
|
|
|
|
 15 Jul 2004 @ 12:29, by jazzolog. Politics
In the photo Dana, Ilona and other guests at a houseparty "interact" via computer with Michael Moore.
The universe is like a safe to which there is a combination, but the combination is locked up in the safe.
---Peter De Vries
June gone, now, July's moon.
I age: how many more to meet?
Won't let mind linger on the endless things beyond me.
I'll try to finish this one small cup.
---Tu Fu
Nothing is often a good thing to do and always a good thing to say.
---Will Durant
It's hard to follow Professor Durant's witty truism with a Log entry, but I'll promise at least to be brief. Whitman wrote the great American poem and called it Leaves of Grass. In this political season we are reminded the leaves turn brown and die without healthy, well-nourished roots. This is the election of the grassroots in America! More >
|
|
|
|
17 Jun 2004 @ 15:37, by ming. Politics
Via Wealth Bondage, here's this from the Cato Institute: An ownership society is a society that values responsibility, liberty, and property. An ownership society empowers individuals by freeing them from dependence on government handouts and making them owners instead, in control of their own lives and destinies. In the ownership society, patients control their own health care, parents control their own children's education, and workers control their retirement savings. Yes, too bad you don't qualify. What a chilling bunch of crappy double-speak. What it means is: This is why you have no healthcare insurance, why the public schools are enormously underfunded, and why the social security fund has been depleted years ago. It's because you're supposed to do all of those things yourself. Because that's what it means to be a free person: that the government isn't doing anything for you. If you pay for everything yourself, you're in control. I guess that's a particularly American illusion. Or a conservative political ideology, or whatever we'll call it. Pretty much from the same people who've increased the U.S. taxation and national debt and corporate welfare, orders of magnitude more than any of their democratic counterparts who were actually expected to do so. A couple of Republican presidents have succeeded more than any communist revolution would have. The reality of an ownership society unfortunately became that for 99% of the population, somebody else than you owns you and the output of your creativity and productivity.
If it were for real, it would be nice of course. I.e. that people can be in control of their own lives, and own what they do. And be responsible and free. But that requires real ownership and real freedom. Not just that the government takes half your money and doesn't give it back, and you're free to have a mortgage and buy a big car on credit, and that you just barely can afford your health insurance. No, rather real freedom and real democracy and ability to live by your own devices. Owning your own life. Co-owning society. Would be a nice idea. More >
|
|
|
|
 9 Jun 2004 @ 13:23, by quinty. Politics
Is there any truth in this? What this author says doesn't seem inconceivable to me. Now this is not intended to be a jab at the president, George Bush. Nor do I gloat in putting this article up. It is because this man is so powerful that if he hiccups tectonic plates shake. That his state of mind is too important to the world for us to merely pity him if the pressure, which he himself created, is causing him to crack up. If what this author says is true then this is serious stuff.
From Capitol Hill Blue More >
|
|
|
|
 26 Mar 2004 @ 10:31, by ming. Politics
Noam Chomsky has a blog now, called "Turning the Tide". And, as always, he speaks hard-hitting words about things he knows well about. Here's one sample:What can we do about it? Just about everything.
The IMF is hardly more than a branch of the Treasury Department. Economist Jagdish Bhagwati, no radical, refers to the IMF- Treasury-Wall St complex that is a core part of de facto world government. The Treasury Department is part of the US government. If we had anything remotely resembling a democratic culture, actions of the government would be under the control of citizens, which would mean that citizens have to at the very least know something about them. And beyond that, we would have mechanisms to engage in political action. And in a more democratic society the third component, Wall St., would not exist in anything remotely like its present form, and what would exist would be under popular democratic control.
But any of this requires constructing the basis for democratic participation, which has been very badly eroded in the US, creating what's often called a "democratic deficit" when we refer to others -- in our own case, a huge democratic deficit.
People in the more civilized sectors of the world (what we call "the third world," or the "developing countries") often burst out laughing when they witness an election in which the choices are two men from very wealthy families with plenty of clout in the very narrow political system, who went to the same elite university and even joined the same secret society to be socialized into the manners and attitudes of the rulers, and who are able to participate in the election because they have massive funding from highly concentrated sectors of unaccountable power that cast over society the shadow called "politics," as John Dewey put it.
But it's up to us whether we want to tolerate this, and if we could begin to approach the level of democracy of, say, Brazil, we could do quite a lot about IMF conditionalities. And it doesn't happen by just showing up once every four years to participate in an "election". More >
|
|
|
|
24 Mar 2004 @ 11:00, by craiglang. Politics
Last weekend, I attended the local DFL (Democratic-Farm-Labor party, the Democratic party in Minnesota) convention, where we selected delegates to the state and congressional-district conventions. Politics is always a fascinating thing both to participate in, and to observe, and this time was no exception. At this convention, I noted some very interesting dynamics between the people involved. More >
|
|
|
|
2 Mar 2004 @ 20:36, by craiglang. Politics
A fascinating evening at the Minnesota Democratic caucuses. Several things things truly impressed and amazed me.
1) The number of people who turned out to the caucuses. There were about twice as many people present as I normally see at a precinct caucus.
2) The intensity of the feeling in everyone present.
There was a powerful feeling of coherence there - a single focus, returning control of the country to the people. I found that consensus was formed very quickly on resolutions, although there was discussion on nearly every point. It appeared that everyone was focused on an objective, rather than on political division, or making smaller individual points. There was the sense that there is too much at stake.
It is the same wherever I look. The deep-seated political division in the USA is so thick, it feels like you could cut it with a knife. This political season is going to be deep and emotions are going to run hot and heavy. More >
|
|
|
|
19 Feb 2004 @ 11:18, by craiglang. Politics
My wife and I attend the Star/Tribune Womens' Lecture series, a series of talks on contemporary affairs by extraordinary women (and in this case, couple). Last night's talk was by Mary Matilin and James Carville, the political odd couple who provide so much color to the US political landscape. Mary Matilin is a wheel in the conservative political scene, while her hubby, James Carville, is a powerful activist in the progressive world. Both had some very interesting - and I thought very insightful views. Regardless of your views, they each had some very deep truths for everyone.
Mary Matilin had the podium first. She had the predictable praise for Bush [which required me to hold my political nose at a few points...], but also she had some interesting points for progressives. One was that prior to our intervention in Afghanistan, there were tremendous human rights problems there. Anyone who happenned to be female was forbidden to attend school or participate in civic affairs - or to do much of anything outside of the home. Since the US intervention, at least that has improved.
She cited this as an example of how the US is a force for freedom in the world. She presented the viewpoint that I hear from so many conservatives - that it is the duty and role of the USA to export democracy [CL Note: along with conservative Christianity and Coca Cola] to the world.
She also had some interesting things to say about the upcoming election. She predicted that Bush would win [surprise, surprise]. But she also indicated that the election might be Kerry's [whom she presumed woudl be the Dem nominee] to win or lose. She said that what Kerry needs - as does the progressive movement in general [CL Note: progressive is my word, not her's] - is a clear, coherent vision. It is not sufficient to simply oppose Bush. What is needed is a clear, well-defined, coherent agenda - a progressive view of where the USA should be headed, as well as why and how.
And in this, I think she is probably correct. Among progressives, there is alot of unity in opposition to Bush, but there is also alot of division. A coherent, well-defined vision is needed, or Bush will be president with four more years of reactionary US behavior in the world.
Many who consider themselves to be progressives want change - oftentimes, any change will do. She stated that one reason Bush won was that his campaign offered change. Bush offers [or at least his handlers do] a very coherent, well defined vision. It is a coherent, fundamental shift in the policy of the USA. And thus, to many who would have otherwise voted democrat, this is attractive. In order to beat Bush in 11/04, it will be necessary to offer a better defined, more coherent vision - to clearly define the path which progressives want the USA to travel.
James Carville then took the podium and had some more very interesting things to say, both to progressives and conservatives alike. His biggest comment was that perhaps more than any time previously in our history, the US populace is deeply divided. There is a very deep, fundamental split in the political landscape between conservative and progressive views. And in this election, some very fundamental questions will be on the table - questions about the very future of the USA.
He dramatized this by asking for a show of hands in the audience - who here was undecided about how they would vote in Novenber. In the hall full of several thousand people, essentially no one raised their hand. Carville pointed out that this was apparently the case nationwide. There appear to be very few undecided voters, and the population is very evenly devided - nearly 50/50. So it comes down to a few percent of the voters, in a few key states, who will end up deciding the future of the USA for a long time to come.
He predicted that this election would be a truly pivotal one in US history, and that all eyes of the world would be upon us. The voter turnout will be heavy - and at present, he felt that the election could go either way.
Neither said anything about the allegations of electoral hijinx, or other possible scandals that are now surfacing. But I thought that the "eyes of the world" comment was an excellent, though veiled, allusion in that direction. Both speakers pretty much kept away from specific issues, stressing more the fundamental philosophies and the importance of the questions being asked, rather than stressing their opposing answers.
So in the end, I think the core message from both was that the USA is deeply divided. There are two deeply-ingrained and diametrically opposed world-views entrenched in the American political landscape. One view is that it is the right and duty of the USA to export freedom, democracy, free enterprise, and other aspects of "our way of life" to the world [CL Note: even if at the point of a gun]. The other view is that the USA has the right and duty to be a good citizen of the world - to seek world peace and to work WITH the world to help address the problems that give rise to war, poverty, environmental degradation, etc.
Not since the sixties has the US public been so divided on the core issues - and it appears that the polarity is only deepening. This election will indeed be interesting. More >
|
|
|
|
18 Feb 2004 @ 10:52, by gili. Politics
Dear MoveOn member,
MoveOn is now over two million people strong in the United States. That's a huge number: the organization we've built together is bigger than the Christian Coalition at its peak. To put it another way, one in every 146 Americans is now a MoveOn member. And we're still growing fast.
And what we're doing together is even more exciting. For decades, parts of our political system have been sold to the highest bidder, with corporate donors winning out over the public interest. But on Friday, we finished our $10 million Voter Fund grassroots fundraising campaign without a dime from corporations or special interests. In the end, over 170,000 people opened their checkbooks and contributed an average of about $60 to put ads on the air that challenge Bush and his corporate backers. The impact of this campaign shouldn't be underestimated: it clearly demonstrates that real people still matter in American politics. And the folks in Washington know it.
Political giving is almost always a quid-pro-quo business: corporate lobbyists trade money for policy, the wealthy trade money for access to politicians. MoveOn members aren't asking for anything but their democracy back, and that kind of generosity is pretty rare. When we hear about the families who saved up to make a $25 donation, or think of the thousands of folks who mailed in $5 checks, we know this is something amazing and new that we're a part of.
And money's only part of the equation: our phone calls and emails helped win a real victory last week. After CBS rejected our Voter Fund's Super Bowl ad, we learned that the White House was being allowed to air an advocacy ad about Medicare. We told you about it, and in just a few days over 50,000 MoveOn members called and emailed to complain. On Friday, CBS pulled the ad, stating that it had violated their policy. It's a big win, and a powerful blow to the Bush Administration's campaign to cover up its Medicare sellout.
This tidal wave of engagement and activism isn't exclusive to MoveOn, of course. Every leader of every organization we run into sees the same thing. Across the country, from labor unions like the SEIU to Greenpeace to the ACLU, people are standing up and getting active. President Bush told us he was a uniter, and he was right: he's uniting people across America to fight back for our country.
As this movement gains momentum and visibility, many of these organizations will inevitably become targets for Republican attacks. We've already seen some of the smear tactics the right will use. When their situation becomes even more dire, we know they'll strike hard at MoveOn and the groups we stand with –- a campaign of intimidation fueled by President Bush's $150 million war chest.
But this new democratic groundswell draws its strength from the hopes of millions of people, standing up and taking action for a better country and a better world. We simply refuse to let lobbyists, attack politics and fear-mongering destroy our democracy. And against the courage and conviction of real people, even Karl Rove and $150 million can't do much.
Thank you for your hope, your generosity, and your willingness to speak out. Together, we're taking our country back.
Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
February 16th, 2004
|
|
|
|
 14 Feb 2004 @ 20:40, by ferre. Politics
Lately the American government has seen it's popularity drop in most parts of the world. Reason for this could be the invasion of Iraq and the motives to start this war. Questions also appear when it comes to things like the 'Patriot act', taking away most of the American people's constitutional rights. More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Older entries >> |
|
