Maybe your hair should be on fire

[cali]

No, I'm not suggesting anyone have a fit of hysterics.

Maybe, just maybe, things are that bad. Maybe the next election or the one after that won't change the things that need to change in order for us to have a functioning democracy that serves more of the people.

Maybe corporations have that much of a grip on our government and our society.

Maybe those of you jeering at concerns about "trade agreements", mass surveillance, and being on a forever war footing, are the frogs in too-warm-water paddling carefree.

Maybe the significance of 9/11 wasn't that we need to "fight terrorism with all our might" but the opportunity that "fight" presented to the corporate world, and the opportunity it provided politicians to construct new laws and new government agencies. That it did is irrefutable.

Maybe the Citizens United victory in the Supreme Court heralded the slow end for truly democratic elections.

Maybe you don't want to believe these things.

I believe we're fighting against an inexorable tide, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it, speak out about it and yes, vote.

It's kind of a do not go gentle thing.

[ProSense]

1. Other

"Maybe your hair should be on fire"

...than declaring opposition to Hillary, which I agree with, what do you plan to do about it?

"Maybe the Citizens United victory in the Supreme Court heralded the slow end for truly democratic elections."

You know who supports Citizens United: The ACLU and Glenn Greenwald. Why is that?

"I believe we're fighting against an inexorable tide, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it, speak out about it and yes, vote. "

"Speak out." Yes, even when others disagree with your opinion.

[cali]

3. I wholly disagree with both Greenwald and the ACLU about this

but so what? why even bring them up? It's not like I run around DU posting about Greenwald and most of what I have posted about him here, hasn't been flattering. I don't post much about the ACLU either. Though I think they're a worthy, even vital organization, doesn't mean that I agree with them on everything.

You don't do critical thinking. You just throw selective links around in most posts, and in this one you throw Greenwald and the ACLU at the wall like those names are brown matter and they might stick. It's such a lousy tactic.

Your responses demonstrate that that's what you do. Throw *things* at the wall and hope something sticks.

[ProSense]

4. The OP

"You don't do critical thinking. "

...is not "critical thinking." It's restating the obvious.

"I believe we're fighting against an inexorable tide, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it, speak out about it and yes, vote. "

Oh really?

[cali]

8. you're not even making any sense. What's the point of bringing Greenwald and the ACLU

into this?

[ProSense]

32. I'm making perfect sense.

You said:

Maybe the Citizens United victory in the Supreme Court heralded the slow end for truly democratic elections.

Maybe you don't want to believe these things.

I believe we're fighting against an inexorable tide, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it, speak out about it and yes, vote.

Now you're objecting to mentioning a couple the players who are against us in opposing Citizens United?

I brought them up specifically to show that opinions vary, and no one's argument is gospel.

[cali]

35. you can tell yourself that from dawn 'til dusk, but no you're not making sense

there was no point in throwing Greenwald and the ACLU in. It wasn't remotely pertinent to the op.

You brought them in, I suppose, because they've both become fixtures on your brain.

[ProSense]

38. I think you

you can tell yourself that from dawn 'til dusk, but no you're not making sense

there was no point in throwing Greenwald and the ACLU in. It wasn't remotely pertinent to the op.

You brought them in, I suppose, because they've both become fixtures on your brain.

...are under the impression that opinions need to be confined to your parameters. I brought them up because they support Citizens United, and to make the point I indicated.

Now, live with it.

[reusrename]

42. I think it's a basic honesty issue.

Neither Greenwald nor the ACLU supports the Supreme court decision in Citizens United. That's just another lie which is all that should ever be expected from this poster.

It is true that both Greenwald and the ACLU agreed with plaintiffs in that case, however no one either expected or agreed with what the court did in that case. It's just a bald-faced lie to say otherwise.

In that case the court ruled that bribery is protected speech under the 1st Amendment:

...this Court now concludes that independent expenditures,
including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption
or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence
over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials
are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause
the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

[ProSense]

51. Yeah,

I think it's a basic honesty issue.

Neither Greenwald nor the ACLU supports the Supreme court decision in Citizens United. That's just another lie which is all that should ever be expected from this poster.

It is true that both Greenwald and the ACLU agreed with plaintiffs in that case, however no one either expected or agreed with what the court did in that case. It's just a bald-faced lie to say otherwise.

In that case the court ruled that bribery is protected speech under the 1st Amendment:

...it is, with you. Calling me a "bald-faced" is your own despicable "lie."

Glenn Greenwald: What the Supreme Court got right (Flashback)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100293141

Why the ACLU Supported the Supreme Court's Shocking Assault on Free Speech
http://www.alternet.org/story/145447/why_the_aclu_supported_the_supreme_court%27s_shocking_assault_on_free_speech

Not only did the ACLU support Citizens United, they urged a no vote on the DISCLOSE Act.

ACLU Urges No Vote On DISCLOSE ACT
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-urges-no-vote-disclose-act

[reusrename]

54. I apologize. Greenwald did support legalized bribery.

I was totally unaware of that.

[merrily]

69. Obviously, though, that does not mean he is wrong on every issue.

[questionseverything]

99. he supported free speech

There are few features that are still extremely healthy and vibrant in the American political system; the First Amendment is one of them, and the last thing we should want is Congress trying to limit it through amendments or otherwise circumvent it in the name of elevating our elections. Meaningful public financing of campaigns would far more effectively achieve the ostensible objectives of campaign finance restrictions without any of the dangers or constitutional infirmities. If yesterday’s decision provides the impetus for that to be done, then it will have, on balance, achieved a very positive outcome, even though that was plainly not its intent.

/////////////////////////////////////////

and called for meaningful public financing of campaigns

one of greenwalds points was since the msnbc crowd and the fox crowd are both owned by corps...how do we let them speak 24/7 and not the other corps?

here is one suggestion(altho no one asked me)..candidates receive free air time according to the valid signatures they collect

[hootinholler]

73. Way to remove all nuance from a complex issue!

YAY Team!

[Katashi_itto]

22. Glen Greenwald and Snowden caused all this right?

[ProSense]

34. Don't put friggin words in my mouth, and don't be absurd. n/t

[1-Old-Man]

48. Yep, secretly Greenwald is the Director of the NSA and Snowden is its Chief of Surveillance.

like you said, they are the ones who caused all of this .... right?

[allin99]

90. lmao

[cali]

6. that is not going to happen and I have little use for Ralph Nader

[merrily]

81. Really? None? Too bad.

Activism

Hundreds of young activists, inspired by Nader's work, came to DC to help him with other projects.[citation needed] They came to be known as "Nader's Raiders" and, under Nader, investigated government corruption, publishing dozens of books with their results:

Nader's Raiders (Federal Trade Commission)
Vanishing Air (National Air Pollution Control Administration)
The Chemical Feast (Food and Drug Administration)
The Interstate Commerce Omission (Interstate Commerce Commission)
Old Age (nursing homes)
The Water Lords (water pollution)
Who Runs Congress? (Congress)
Whistle Blowing (punishment of whistle blowers)
The Big Boys (corporate executives)
Collision Course (Federal Aviation Administration)
No Contest (corporate lawyers)
Destroy the Forest (Destruction of ecosystems worldwide)

Nader speaks out against the Iraq War at a September 15, 2007, anti-war protest

In 1971, Nader co-founded the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Public Citizen with fellow public interest lawyer Alan Morrison as an umbrella organization for these projects. Today, Public Citizen has over 225,000 members[25] and investigates congressional, health, environmental, economic and other issues. Nader wrote, "The consumer must be protected at times from his own indiscretion and vanity."[26]

During the Watergate affair Nader challenged the dismissal by Robert Bork of Nixon's special prosecutor Cox in the aftermath of the Saturday Night Massacre.[27]

In the 1970s and 1980s Nader was a key leader in the antinuclear power movement. "By 1976, consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who later became allied with the environmental movement, 'stood as the titular head of opposition to nuclear energy'."[28][29] The Critical Mass Energy Project was formed by Nader in 1974 as a national anti-nuclear umbrella group.[30] It was probably the largest national anti-nuclear group in the United States, with several hundred local affiliates and an estimated 200,000 supporters.[31] The organization's main efforts were directed at lobbying activities and providing local groups with scientific and other resources to campaign against nuclear power.[30][32] Nader advocates the complete elimination of nuclear energy in favor of solar, tidal, wind and geothermal, citing environmental, worker safety, migrant labor, national security, disaster preparedness, foreign policy, government accountability and democratic governance issues to bolster his position.[33]

Nader was also a prominent supporter of the Airline Deregulation Act.[34]
Ecology

Nader spent much of 1970 pursuing a campaign to educate the public about ecology. Nader said that the rivers and lakes in America were extremely contaminated. He joked that "Lake Erie is now so contaminated you're advised to have a typhoid inoculation before you set sail on some parts of the lake."[35]

He also added that river and lake water contamination affected humans because many residents get their water supply from these contaminated rivers and lakes. "Cleveland takes its water supply from deep in the center of Lake Erie. How much longer is it going to get away with that?"[35]

Nader told how some rivers are contaminated so badly that they can be lit on fire. "The Buffalo River is so full of petroleum residuals, it's been classified an official fire hazard by the City of Buffalo. We have the phenomenon now known as flammable water. The Cuyahoga River outside of Cleveland did catch fire last June, burning a base and some bridges. I often wonder what was in the minds of the firemen as they rushed to the scene of the action and pondered how to put this fire out. But we're heading in river after river: Connecticut River, Hudson River, Mississippi River, you name it. There's some rivers right outside of Boston, New Hampshire and Maine where if a person fell into 'em, I think he would dissolve before he drowned."[35]
Non-profit organizations

Throughout his career, Nader has started or inspired a variety of nonprofit organizations,with most of which he has maintained close associations :

Citizen Advocacy Center
Citizens Utility Boards
Congress Accountability Project
Consumer Task Force For Automotive Issues
Corporate Accountability Research Project
Disability Rights Center
Equal Justice Foundation
Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
Georgia Legal Watch
National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
Pension Rights Center
PROD (truck safety)
Retired Professionals Action Group
The Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest
1969: Center for the Study of Responsive Law
1970s: Public Interest Research Groups
1970: Center for Auto Safety
1970: Connecticut Citizen Action Group
1971: Aviation Consumer Action Project
1972: Clean Water Action Project



1972: Center for Women's Policy Studies
1973: Capitol Hill News Service
1980: Multinational Monitor (magazine covering multinational corporations)
1982: Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
1982: Essential Information (encourage citizen activism and do investigative journalism)
1983: Telecommunications Research and Action Center
1983: National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
1988: Taxpayer Assets Project, WFHW-LP
1989: Princeton Project 55 (alumni public service)
1993: Appleseed Foundation (local change)
1994: Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees)
1995: Center for Insurance Research
1995: Consumer Project on Technology
1997: Government Purchasing Project (encourage purchase of safe products)
1998: Center for Justice & Democracy
1998: Organization for Competitive Markets
1998: American Antitrust Institute (ensure fair competition)
1998: Commercial Alert (protect family, community, and democracy from corporations)
1999: Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
2000: Congressional Accountability Project (fight corruption in Congress)
2001: Citizen Works (promote NGO cooperation, build grassroots support, and start new groups)
2001: Democracy Rising (hold rallies to educate and empower citizens)



In 1980, Nader resigned as director of Public Citizen to work on other projects, lecturing on the growing "imperialism" of multinational corporations and of a dangerous convergence of corporate and government power.[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

I wish people had paid closer attention to him back in the late 80s and early 90s

[cali]

82. I think he went from legitimate and admirable activism to being

consumed by solipsism. or perhaps just by ego.

[merrily]

83. Still, he did a lot for human beings.

And I don't think he was consumed by ego. I think he knew very well he was never going to be President. I think he was trying to sound an alarm, but most of us, including me, wanted none of it. I wish we all had paid more attention back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Still, Presidential runs aside, he did so very much for Americans and other living things.

[firenewt]

97. Damn right! Nader was Nader's biggest fan.

[tavalon]

114. No, I was.

When he was a consumer protector.

[Blackford]

5. Or maybe not. n/t

[cali]

7. wow, there's a cogent response. why?

care to comment on Citizens' United and why you don't believe it poses a threat? How about a comment on the TPP? Or mass surveillance. Or this country being on war footing for 12 years.

[geckosfeet]

10. And why shouldn't we consider citizens united a not so backdoor attempt to fund new

third and fourth parties?

Untraceable money going to front candidate willing to represent the most extreme positions and business interests.

[cali]

20. I'm not sure if you actually meant this question for me, but I don't think

there will be an attempt to fund new third and fourth parties? To what end when corporate money has the Republican party just about all the time, and a good chunk of the Democratic party?

[geckosfeet]

76. True. But look back at the clown parade that was the republican primary last cycle.

That primary cycle was the most jaw dropping episode of political farce that anyone could possibly have imagined.

They went through them one at at time, exposing their stupidity and ignorance. And end up at Mitt Romney.

This is de facto neither the republican nor democratic parties as I think of them in a historical context. They may have R's after their names and be running as R's, but they have morphed into something unidentifiable. Where they go from there is anyone's guess.

[bigbrother05]

44. Why new parties when they can highjack existing ones?

They had pretty solid results using the religious right and DLC to move both parties in the right and demonizing the word liberal. Now with CU they have effectively taken over the GOP with Tea Party candidates and overt threats of being primaried.

The continued push to get anyone with a D elected is giving us blue dogs as an alternative that is useful for committee seats but not much else.

True grassroots change is no easier than before, but CU could allow a consolidation of many small activists to push some issues. A new party against the current tidal wave of corporate interests is going to be even tougher than before.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

70. x2. Any "new parties" will probably also include their sock puppets.

[ElboRuum]

9. Or...

Maybe we deal with the issues with which we have to deal with aplomb and common sense and rationality instead of pointless outrage?

That'd be new.

[cali]

11. like what? and where is there a dearth of common sense and rationality in the op?

Be specific please. I'm not saying anything that people like Bill Moyers and Robert Reich aren't saying. Perhaps you just consider them to be full of "pointless outrage".

[ElboRuum]

12. Maybe my hair should be on fire.

My contention is that this is the last thing that is helpful.

Specifically, I'm annoyed with the spate of recent posts indicating that somehow getting upset about something equates with being motivated to do something about it. It does not, nor has it ever in my lifetime.

Better, why don't YOU be specific for a change and suggest an activity that the rest of us can perform to address the issues you mentioned, since outrage without action IS POINTLESS.

[cali]

23. I think that's a fair point

you're right; getting upset about something doesn't necessarily equate with being motivated to do something about it- though it can.

Sure, I'll ask you to contact your representative and Senators and tell them you oppose Fast Track Authority (TPA) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I think it's vital to stop it. There's some action- something I've already done.

[ElboRuum]

41. See, that's just it.

You really think that contacting my rep and senators is going to accomplish something of the things you mentioned, the same people who are largely in the pockets of their donors, and who are the "heavies" in your scenarios?

Yeah, this isn't the sort of thing I was looking for as an answer. I was looking for something new.

[cali]

46. excuse me while I laugh derisively.

you fucking upbraid me for not proposing action and when I do, you sneer.

yeah, you're as honest the day is long- in Alaska on December 21.

[ElboRuum]

47. If this is the extent of your actions...

it's your "outrage" which should be mocked.

The same old shit, no new ideas. And you wonder how things got this bad...

My turn to laugh derisively? Yes, I think so.

[cali]

56. You're not being honest.

ergo, no further attempt at a rational discussion with the likes of YOU.


ugh. and another ugh.

[merrily]

84. I think both his or her points are valid.

1. We need to focus on what if anything we can do that might actually change things for the better.

2. Concomitantly, we need to stop wasting time and energy on things that may or may not have worked fifty years ago.

I would argue that some of the thing that were naively thought to have worked then were not what actually effected the changes that people may have thought they effected. Even if they did, though, that was then.

As Daniel Ellsberg said recently, we are living in a very different world than the world of 1965 (or 1955 or 1975).

We need to get unified in a big way, hopefully globally and raise money and so on. Signing an internet petition? Calling our Senators or the White House? Waving a placard at the Koch brothers? no.

[cali]

89. he asked me for a specific. I gave it. He then scoffed.

Clearly NOT looking for an honest discussion.

[merrily]

93. Still, both his or her points were valid.

The poster explained the reason for the scoffing. I don't necessarily agree with the scoffing, but I agree that we are kidding ourselves if we think calling our reps does anything. If it did, we'd have Medicare for all.

They know perfectly well what we want. They take polls all the time. Besides, it not rocket science. FDR figured it out pretty damn fast when he feared a revolt from the people. Yet they perpetuate this myth that, if only enough of us call, they will change a vote they've been intending to cast. Olympia Snowe, in fact, just wrote a book about it. It is indeed laughable, but at them, not among ourselves. We're not the ly9ing villains.

[Progressive dog]

122. FDR's original Social Security

had smaller payments (by far) than today's, and no adjustments for inflation.

If it did, we'd have Medicare for all.

FDR proposed government health care coverage (from Wikipedia)

With the Great Depression, more and more people could not afford medical services. In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Isidore Falk and Edgar Sydenstricter to help draft provisions to Roosevelt's pending Social Security legislation to include publicly funded health care programs. These reforms were attacked by the American Medical Association as well as state and local affiliates of the AMA as "compulsory health insurance." Roosevelt ended up removing the health care provisions from the bill in 1935. Fear of organized medicine's opposition to universal health care became standard for decades after the 1930s.[11]

Even he couldn't get it done.

[merrily]

123. FDR is not relevant to my post. For one thing, it's 2013, not 1933.

For another thing, we have had Medicare since the mid-1960s and people have been very pleased with it. Not so with FDR's day.

For a third thing, organized medicine today is happier than pigs rolling in mud with Medicare, they "only" want the payments to be higher. After Obama took office, doctors and nurses were marching all over the nation for medicare for all.

For a fourth thing, Obama never tried to get it done, so please don't imply that Obama couldn't get it done.

The above is not an exhaustive list. For just one more example, there is the difference in the affluence of the general population in 2013 versus 1933.


P.S. My post was about an entirely different issue. Responding with a point about FDR vs. Obama seems odd.

However, an honest comparison of what FDR went for--and got done--on taking office in an economic crisis, with almost nothing in U.S. history to work from as a template, with Obama's performance, with the FDR, HST and LBJ examples in front of his face is not going to show Obama to be the equal of FDR in respect of economic and Wall Steet reforms, I promise.

[Progressive dog]

124. FDR is not relevant to your post where you brought him up, got it.

Just to refresh your memory, you wrote.

They know perfectly well what we want. They take polls all the time. Besides, it not rocket science. FDR figured it out pretty damn fast when he feared a revolt from the people. Yet they perpetuate this myth that, if only enough of us call, they will change a vote they've been intending to cast.

Can you find your FDR reference, or do you need help?

[xtraxritical]

98. I find ElboRuum's derision to be pointless and ego feeding. Go Cali go!

[ElboRuum]

127. Correct on both counts.

Apropos to this entire thread, I think.

[rhett o rick]

109. You disparage but offer nothing. Outrage is better than nothing. There is a special place in hell

for those that do nothing in the face of tyranny. Who sit on the sideline and mock those that fight.

[xtraxritical]

113. I don't know how but I think you have my point backwards.

[truebluegreen]

16. What "dealing with the issues"?

Are we dealing with an obscenely-bloated military budget that can't even cut the B-35 or SDI?

Or is the government actually telling the American people what is being done in the surveillance arena to "keep us safe," how much it costs and how effective it is? You know, so we can make common sense, rational decisions about it? All we have gotten so far are lies and misdirection.

How about the problem of the economy, with high employment, stagnant (at best) wages for the vast majority of Americans and yet outrageous profits for big corporations and rich people? What is our government doing--in secret--with a trade agreement that will allow corporate desires to trump our laws?

What about the danger to election fairness posed by 1) hackable machines, 2) gerrymandered districts, 3) voter suppression efforts and 4) Citizens United?

Do you hear much about any of this from anyone in government? From the President? From our allegedly free press? That'd be unprecedented.

[ElboRuum]

45. No, we are dealing with the issues.

We are dealing with the issues the same way we always have. Get mad. Maybe write a letter. Do nothing else.

The OP is step one in our three step program.

Cali has already suggested that I do the second.

I say we stipulate the obviousness of the third unless someone has some actual ideas.

[Junkdrawer]

13. First things first. If you want to take back democracy, you'll need to do three basic things:

1.) Create an auditable system of counting votes

2.) Limit the influence of money in elections

3.) Insure all who have a right to vote are allowed to vote

For the last 12 years (and especially during the Obama interlude) we've been rushing as fast as possible away from these.

[zeemike]

25. And may I add one more important thing?

And end to winer take all elections...a simple law that says no one can be elected president with less than 50% of the vote.
That would end the two party system who depend on it to keep out the opposition.

[Junkdrawer]

29. I agree. I limited my list to those things we need to just get back to where we were....

But, thinking about it, thanks to AWFUL SCOTUS rulings, we'd need constitutional amendments now just to do that.

Might as well shoot for the moon.

[merrily]

79. We've never had a democracy, though.

A democracy is a system in which every citizen has a right to vote on every issue, like "should we go to war," and "should we raise taxes?" That was Ancient Athens.

We have a Republic, a system in which citizens elect representatives and the representatives then go on to make all the decisions

A degree of democracy exists at the state level, when questions go on a ballot. Still, state legislators get to decide which questions go on the ballot and which don't.

[Junkdrawer]

85. You describe a representative democracy. A "republic" is, basically, no monarchy...

More specifically:

A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern of the rulers. In a republic, public offices are appointed or elected rather than inherited, and are not de jure the private property of the individuals who hold them. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.

....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

[merrily]

86. No. That the representatives are elected by the people does not make it a democracy.

Citizens voting for representatives is the classic definition of a republic.

But, there has been so much bs for a few hundred years about how we are a democracy that the two terms are being conflated.

Our Founders, however, did not conflate them. They were very well educated about ancient Greece and ancient Rome. They knew they had created a republic, ala Rome, not a democracy, ala Athens.

Madison and others were very afraid of a democracy. There are secret notes of the constitutional convention that are online. I think a Yale University website, in which you can read their statements to that effect.

Definition of REPUBLIC
1
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2
: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3
: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia

Examples of REPUBLIC

<when asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

FYI, I am not sure if Franklin actually said that, but it has been attributed to him for a very long time.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. it's been this way for some time you know and it is not getting any better and I cannot imagine what

to do about it. Now on social issues there has been a lot of progress. In 1962 the Democratic candidate for Mayor of San Francisco attacked the incumbent Republican mayor for being soft on homosexuality. Even the closest thing to gay rights organizations at the time like the Mattachine Society considered homosexuality an illness and that gay people should be shown forgiveness and compassion until such a time a cure can be found. Well, needless to say we live in a better world today in regards to issues like that. In fact on almost every issue of all kinds of discrimination - the world is a much better place. -- But when it comes to economics in particular and to a large extent foreign policy - things are looking and have been looking very bleak for a long, long time. It has been decades since there was even a major candidate for the presidential nomination of either party who actually was in the running and could have conceivably won - who challenged or even offered an alternative to neoliberal economics. We have had a political culture for decades now that will not even permit a challenger to neoliberal economics to be considered a serious contender for national office. But then again the fact that people could change their attitudes so fundamentally and to such revolutionary proportions on something as so deeply entrenched as homosexuality - and within my lifetime we could go from a society where liberals thought homosexuals where mentally ill and should be locked up in mental hospitals as opposed to conservatives who viewed them as criminals and should be locked up in prison - if society can change its mind so fundamentally on something that deeply entrenched - then it is possible for society to change its mind on economics and foreign policy where the attitudes however rooted in ignorance are no where near as entrenched.

[merrily]

17. Economic boycotts. Mass refusal to continue paying taxes.

There must be something. And if there isn't, we should stop jerking off on political message boards and spend our time planting food to give food banks or something else that might actually be useful

The PTB could care less about social issues, unless it looks as though there might be riots somewhere. They've used social issues to divide us and to keep us focused on Democrat v. Republican, instead of the real divide, which is 1% against everyone else.

[zeemike]

30. All of that requires unity.

And they skillfully use social issues to keep us divided as you said.
And I don't see people wising up to that game.

[merrily]

43. I think people are wising up and can be wised up further.

But it takes organization and money and doing more than posting on message boards, although posting on message board may be at least something in the right direction.

Maybe not, though. Maybe it's just a hobby.

[DontTreadOnMe]

77. Economic boycotts can be very powerful

money is the ONLY thing Wall St. will listen to, so you need to hurt someone's wallet to get noticed.

The pressure on Rush Limpballs has worked, and he has lost millions in revenue. But the pressure has not gone far enough, he is still on the air. We need a more organized effort to boycott any company that advertizes on his show.

Rush is the bellwether for the Republican Party. You hurt his show, and it makes news.

We should be also boycotting ANYTHING that has to do with the Koch Brothers.

[merrily]

78. If we could get unity, we could stop buying ANYthing but absolute necessities for six months .

or a year.

BTW, the Koch brothers make some of the cheapest toilet paper, so I am not going to ask anyone to boycott that, if that is all he or she can afford.

[DontTreadOnMe]

80. Does anyone hav ea list of ALL Koch brothers brands?

When it comes to toilet paper, if they have one of the lowest prices, then we need to organize, find a competing toilet paper -- and go to that manufacturer and start price war. If you get a 10 million people to buy ONE PACK of a toilet paper for just one week, that could be a noticeable amount of revenue for any manufacturer.

Each week we could "sponsor" a website that lists the product that competes with a Koch product. Not only do you help the competitor, but you hurt Koch. It could end up being 100s of millions of dollars, with just ONE product per week.

[marions ghost]

107. Koch Products

BRAWNY TOWELS
ANGEL SOFT TOILET PAPER
DIXIE PLATES, BOWLS, NAPKINS, AND CUPS
MARDI GRAS NAPKINS AND TOWELS
QUILTED NORTHERN TOILET PAPER
SOFT 'N GENTLE TOILET PAPER
SPARKLE NAPKINS
VANITY FAIR NAPKINS
ZEE NAPKINS
GEORGIA-PACIFIC PAPER PRODUCTS AND ENVELOPES
ALL GEORGIA-PACIFIC LUMBER AND BUILDING PRODUCTS

----------------

There's also an APP for boycotting these & other products

[Art_from_Ark]

118. Thanks for that list

I don't buy any of that stuff anyway, but I'll make sure not to buy it in the future.

[cali]

19. I appreciate your optimism, Douglas, but I think comparing

the sea change in attitudes toward GLBT folks and economic policy, is a mistake.

Corporations aren't people. There purpose is to make money. That's all it is. They relentlessly pursue that end without regard for the fate of this group of people or that group of people. You can't change the hearts and minds of corporations. They don't have either.

[IrishAyes]

71. People who've been shut out from prosperity through no fault of their own

Facing hunger, hopelessness, and homelessness can panic and do some counterproductive things. On the other hand, they might also eventually realize who's been turning the screws on them, and then rise up in righteous indignation. I don't want an armed revolution. I don't believe I could be persuaded to participate in one.

However, unless the system which increasingly burdens those on the lower rungs of the ladder veers away from the cliff and creates an effective safety valve by opening a wider, viable pathway to self advancement, then armed revolution is what will happen, and the oligarchs' iron heel will be directly to blame. I know they're not going to grow a conscience anytime soon, but I do wish they'd at least advance to enlightened self interest. The only compliment I have to offer Warren Buffet is that he's a rare one who knows contented cows give more milk. The monster they're breeding will hatch someday, and despite their fantasies to the contrary, it will not be controllable by anyone. Not the oligarchs and not the revolutionaries themselves. Also not anything I want to be around to see.

Am I an unpatriotic nervous nellie, crying "Whoa, woe!" at every turn? No, just the voice of history crying in the wilderness. It's way past time we all listened to history a bit more carefully.

[merrily]

15. IMO, there is a war on the 99% of international scope.

For example, look at what the IMF did to Morsi in Egypt.

All we should be worrying about at this point is what, if anything, we can do to fight back.


We might start with forming an international organization, or at maybe looking into whether there is an existing organization that we can use. And then, we need to start donating to it because it ain't going to be easy to fight the PTB and all their propaganda arms, organizations and politicians. And, they're armed and we're not. Not most of us on the left, anyway.

Five or six years ago, I would have read a post like this and either rolled my eyes or hoped the writer would recover soon.

Now, though, I agree: it is that bad. And, that's on the basis only of what we know about.

[truebluegreen]

18. We have reached a point where the global elites

are accountable to no one. They can evade taxes, run governments to suit themselves and roll over protests against their rule. They are wholly immoral and imo motivated only by greed, for money and power.

I think only a global uprising will stop them but I don't see the leadership for that rising here or anywhere.

[merrily]

24. Everybody seems to be waiting to see someone else take action.

A global uprising may be necessary, but I also think we can proceed on more than one front at once.

Besides, you don't go from zero to global uprising in one fell swoop. I believe organization and fund-raising are first. A lot of getting out the message needs to be done and that doesn't come cheap when mass media is not in your pocket.

[truebluegreen]

28. Very good points.

I just wonder how many people around the world are looking at the big picture, as opposed to their own slice of it.

And a global surveillance state goes a long way towards choking off grassroots efforts.

I'm just not very hopeful.

[merrily]

40. Too bad. If anything is going to happen, people have to have some hope.

Or why try anything at all?

I think there are things that can be done short of global uprising, too. But, again, someone who has no hope wouldn't bother with those either.

[truebluegreen]

49. I haven't quit...

think of Horatio

[merrily]

58. Which Horatio?

The one in Hamlet?

[truebluegreen]

62. Oops. Should have said "Horatius"

from the poem by McCaulay

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_horatiuspoem.htm

Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late;
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods...

[merrily]

63. Ah, thank you.

I am not sure, but I think that story was a myth?

BTW, I have not given up either, or I would be gardening now.

Not that posting is going to cut it. If anything happens, it's going to be heavy lifting.

[truebluegreen]

65. Yes, it is a myth

and then it has some smarmy pro (Roman? British?) empire propaganda slathered on top (don't remember when it was written, mid-1800s I think).

But I like the sentiment. Going down fighting is better than quitting (although it might not be better than gardening).

[merrily]

67. I've begun looking into the prices of bullet proof vests.

And helmets with face shields. I think it may come to that within the next 20 years.

[questionseverything]

103. never pick on gardeners!!

all summer i have been weeding,watering ,blah,blah at my head start garden..and the kids lil eyes light up when they pick veggies they helped grow and we have tomatoes in 5 gallon buckets in the projects....helps with supplementing the snap,ya know

anyways..thanks for reminding me,time to go water

[merrily]

120. Wouldn't dream of it!

[cali]

66. I prefer Dylan Thomas

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

[bvar22]

95. I caught that in your OP.

I have always loved that piece by Thomas,
and have a deeper appreciation for it as I grow older.

I won't "Go Gentle into that Good Night" either.

DU Rec for this OP.

[truebluegreen]

110. Agree completely.

Thanks--haven't read that in a long time.

[cali]

121. here's another for you- and me.

kind of a lovely counterpoint:

Fern Hill

Now as I was young and easy under the apple boughs
About the lilting house and happy as the grass was green,
The night above the dingle starry,
Time let me hail and climb
Golden in the heyday of his eyes,
And honoured among wagons I was prince of the apple towns
And once below a time I lordly had the trees and leaves
Trail with daisies and barley
Down the rivers of the windfall light.

And as I was green and carefree, famous among the barns
About the happy yard and singing as the farm was home,
In the sun that is young once only,
Time let me play and be
Golden in the mercy of his means,
And green and golden I was huntsman and herdsman, the calves
Sang to my horn, the foxes on the hills barked clear and cold,
And the sabbath rang slowly
In the pebbles of the holy streams.

All the sun long it was running, it was lovely, the hay
Fields high as the house, the tunes from the chimneys, it was air
And playing, lovely and watery
And fire green as grass.
And nightly under the simple stars
As I rode to sleep the owls were bearing the farm away,
All the moon long I heard, blessed among stables, the nightjars
Flying with the ricks, and the horses
Flashing into the dark.

And then to awake, and the farm, like a wanderer white
With the dew, come back, the cock on his shoulder: it, was all
Shining, it was Adam and maiden,
The sky gathered again
And the sun grew round that very day.
So it must have been after the birth of the simple light
In the first, spinning place, the spellbound horses walking warm
Out of the whinnying green stable
On to the fields of praise.

And honoured among foxes and pheasants by the gay house
Under the new made clouds and happy as the heart was long,
In the sun born over and over,
I ran my heedless ways,
My wishes raced through the house high hay
And nothing I cared, at my sky blue trades, that time allows
In all his tuneful turning so few and such morning songs
Before the children green and golden
Follow him out of grace,

Nothing I cared, in the lamb white days, that time would take me
Up to the swallow thronged loft by the shadow of my hand,
In the moon that is always rising,
Nor that riding to sleep
I should hear him fly with the high fields
And wake to the farm forever fled from the childless land.
Oh as I was young and easy in the mercy of his means,
Time held me green and dying
Though I sang in my chains like the sea.

[truebluegreen]

125. That was lovely.

Thank you, Cali.

[DCBob]

21. We definitey should be concerned..

If the GOP is able to fully take control of this country we are doomed.

[cali]

26. I agree that keeping the GOP from taking the Senate is important

I don't think it's realistic to think we can retake the House in 2014, but it's a much bigger discussion than party politics. Democrats won't save us.

[DCBob]

33. At the moment Democrats are the only thing between us and the Republican wolves.

It amazing this basic political concept is not understood on a site like this.

[cali]

37. I wouldn't argue that, but there are a lot of democratic wolves, particularly

when it comes to economic issues.

[DCBob]

39. I woundn't argue with that also..

we do need more left leaning/populist types in leadership. But in the meantime we should support the team we have.

[merrily]

27. The plutocrats have full control of this country, whether Democrats or Republicans are elected.

[DCBob]

31. So why do you even get out of bed in the morning?

[merrily]

36. See and I cannot imagine why ostriches get out of bed in the morning.

Or people who prefer denial to reality.

But, I was discussing issues. Why did you feel compelled to make it about me?

[bobduca]

53. when they have no valid arguments

they make shit up and attack. It's called trying to control the message with a bunch of self-appointed hall monitors. They all think they are experts at it.

[merrily]

57. If I felt my life were not living unless I told myself a fairy tale about Democrats,

I would be ashamed to admit it, unless I were four and half, going on five.

He could have, of course, denied the truth of what I was saying, showing me how plutocrats are not in charge of America when Democrats are in office, only when Republicans are in office.

That would have been interesting to see.

[bobduca]

59. Yep

You've hit on the crux of it, this is all about how identity politics and ego are intertwined to blind these folks to their own hypocrisy.
Any criticism of the American Dream, Obama, American Exceptionalism, Nationalism are seen as a personal attack, so it is ok to respond in kind.

[merrily]

61. Ah. I see.

Any criticism of the American Dream, Obama, American Exceptionalism, Nationalism are seen as a personal attack, so it is ok to respond in kind.

Never looked at that way.

Kind of sad.

Kind of discouraging, too, because the divide is the plutocrats against the rest of us. If people don't get that fact, which seems so obvious, it's really disheartening.

But, thanks for the analysis.

[snot]

50. My hair IS on fire.

And see my signature line.

[lindysalsagal]

52. My hair was on fire in 2004

when I watched the bushhites rig the national election in ohio, and even Kerry laid down and died.

Anyone arguing with this post doesn't want to believe things are this bad, and that's exactly why and how things got this bad: It's called denial.

We are all being managed, and OWS was right all along. They just didn't have a cogent method for real sustained change.

[burnodo]

55. My hair was on fire in 2002

when it was clear that the US was ginning up a murder spree in Iraq

[merrily]

88. OWS is still working at it. Look up their websites.

Reports of the death of OWS have been greatly exaggerated.

And no one will ever convince me that, but for Occupy Wall Street, we would have had cuts to entitlements and only entitlements by now. And no one would be talking about the 1% and the transfer of wealth--well, not literally no one. Some were talking about it years ago. But, the average person never heard of it. They were outraged about the bailout, but didn't see it in terms of a transfer of wealth.

OWS changed the national conversation in two months with next to no money, bucking the tide against the bought and paid for mass media and all our admired politicians.. That is a monumental achievement and, IMO, very much undervalued.

[lindysalsagal]

104. Agreed.

I visited 3 encampments: NYC, Boston, and San Francisco. I admire them so much.

[heaven05]

60. maybe????

and you're 100% right. The frog thing has always amazed me. great, simply put post.

[cali]

64. thank you. I try to heed Orwell's advice on writing. I often fail

(as this op demonstrates) but when I write, Orwell's advice is never far from thought.


1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

This sounds easy, but in practice is incredibly difficult. Phrases such as toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, an axe to grind, Achilles’ heel, swan song, and hotbed come to mind quickly and feel comforting and melodic.

For this exact reason they must be avoided. Common phrases have become so comfortable that they create no emotional response. Take the time to invent fresh, powerful images.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

Long words don’t make you sound intelligent unless used skillfully. In the wrong situation they’ll have the opposite effect, making you sound pretentious and arrogant. They’re also less likely to be understood and more awkward to read.

When Hemingway was criticized by Faulkner for his limited word choice he replied:

Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

Great literature is simply language charged with meaning to the utmost possible degree (Ezra Pound). Accordingly, any words that don’t contribute meaning to a passage dilute its power. Less is always better. Always.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

This one is frequently broken, probably because many people don’t know the difference between active and passive verbs. I didn’t myself until a few months ago. Here is an example that makes it easy to understand:

The man was bitten by the dog. (passive)The dog bit the man. (active).The active is better because it’s shorter and more forceful.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

This is tricky because much of the writing published on the internet is highly technical. If possible, remain accessible to the average reader. If your audience is highly specialized this is a judgment call. You don’t want to drag on with unnecessary explanation, but try to help people understand what you’re writing about. You want your ideas to spread right?

6. Break any of these rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous.

[heaven05]

87. this

is great advice. bookmarked. thank you.

[BOG PERSON]

105. those might be good rules for journalism but not for polemic

[cali]

115. true enough. I'm not really interested in producing polemics.

[Enthusiast]

68. Kicked and recommended!

No maybe about it.

[Octafish]

72. What you wrote is why I post on DU, cali.

I went from lurker to poster in the days after September 11, 2001.

The night of the attacks, a good friend who doesn't own a tee vee came over to watch the coverage. After an hour of seeing the replay of the plane hitting the second tower over and over and over again, we took a break and went outside for a smoke.

Living next door to Detroit, the night skies always always are busy with air traffic. This night, however, there were no lights moving across the sky, just the brightest stars cutting through the haze.

As we marveled at the stillness, trying to shake the shock of the day, I turned to my wife and pal and said (going from memory): "Bush is a crook, like his old man. Something stinks."

I kept this up over the next few months, especially when our friend would come over to visit, stating the obvious regarding the Carlyle Group-Bush-bin Laden ties and all the rest going back to HARKEN Energy days. Finally, my friend turned to me and said (paraphrasing), "You're being paranoid. Even if he's a crook, Bush wouldn't allow that to happen. Perhaps you need to 'see' someone."

I said, I understood his concern for my monomania and thanked him. But I had covered the S&Ls and Gulf War I and knew the kinds of capers the Republican spook crowd was capable of -- and continued my critique of Bush, 9-11, etc.

You should've seen my friend's change in attitude when the news came out in spring 2002, when the story about the President's Daily Brief: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States" broke. All of a sudden, it was as if the scales fell from his eyes and he could see clearly for the first time.

Keep fighting. In a democracy, that means telling the truth. I don't care if Adm. Poindexter moves my file to the top of Mr. Brennan's "To-Do" list or not for fighting and telling the truth about these traitors. Democracy is that important.

[hootinholler]

74. There is an excellent Ted Talk that I failed to bookmark

Sadly I can't seem to find it. The speaker examined the impact of treaties on enforcing laws against multinational corporations. How we are moving into an age where multinational corporations are the new feudal lords, but he references it in a historical context.

[cali]

75. sounds right up my alley. I'll look for it. thanks

talked about that in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023232818

[hootinholler]

91. AHA! I found it!

http://www.ted.com/talks/paddy_ashdown_the_global_power_shift.html

Paddy Ashdown. A captivating talk!

[cali]

94. thank you!

I look forward to listening.

[L0oniX]

92. K & R ...uhm ...is the NSA recording my K & R?

[questionseverything]

101. yes

..

[bvar22]

96. The REAL battles are fought in the Democratic Primaries.

Though Corporate Money is very powerful in local Primary elections,
this is the place where Shoe Leather, Knocking on Doors, and Local Activism has a better chance against the Goliath.

But be forewarned.
The Conservative Democratic Party Establishment doesn't like upstarts rocking their boat.
THEY feel that "they", and ONLY "they" have the right to choose the local candidates,
and will do everything in their power to CRUSH ANY local challengers that do NOT have Party Approval in local Primaries.



We had a good one going in Arkansas in 2010 to replace DINO Blanche Lincoln in the Arkansas Democratic Primary with a popular Pro-LABOR, Pro Health Care Democrat with a proven track record of WINNING elections.
We had the nation wide support of Organized LABOR and enthusiastic support of the Grass Roots activists who were more than willing to work [font size=3]to give President Obama exactly what he had asked for: Progressive Democrats who wouldn't obstruct his agenda[/font],

AND....we were WINNING.
The Wicked Witch of Arkansas who crowed about Killing the Public Option had ZERO chance
against the Republican in the upcoming General Election,
and Halter was pulling ahead in the polls.
It really felt like we had a chance for "CHANGE".
We were All Fired Up and Ready to Roll!!

But guess what happened?
Our BIGGEST obstruction turned out NOT to be "Conservatives",...or "Republicans".
No. The BIGGEST obstruction to Giving President Obama good Democrats who would work WITH him turned out to be the Obama White House that stepped in at the last minute and rescued Lincoln's Failing Primary Campaign!!!

President Obama cut an Oval Office Endorsement for the woman who killed his Public Option that played 24/7 in Arkansas.
The DSCC refilled Lincoln's depleted Campaign coffers,
and "they" even sent the Old Blue Dog back to Arkansas to help rescue Lincoln.
Needless to say, THAT was a kick in the guts,
AND a "Learning Experience".

[font size=3]White House Steps in to Rescue Lincolns Failing Primary Campaign in Arkansas Democratic Primary[/font]

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln. Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure. Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests. The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

Ordinarily, when Party leaders support horrible incumbents in primaries, they use the “electability” excuse: this is a conservative state, the incumbent has the best chance to win, and the progressive challenger is out-of-step with voters. That excuse is clearly unavailable here. As Public Policy Polling explained yesterday, Lincoln has virtually no chance of winning in November against GOP challenger John Boozman. And while it would have also been difficult for Halter to beat Boozman, polls consistently showed that he had a better chance than Lincoln did. That’s unsurprising, given how much better non-Washington candidates are doing in this incumbent-hating climate than long-term Washington insiders. And it’s rather difficult to claim that Halter is out-of-step with Arkansas given that they elected him their Lt. Governor. Whatever the reasons Washington Democrats had for supporting the deeply unpopular Lincoln, it had nothing whatsoever to do with electability.

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

Unable to resit the impulse to add insult to injury, a "White House Spokesperson" ridiculed and Taunted Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots for "wasting their time and money" supporting a Pro-LABOR, Pro-Health Care Democrat in the Arkansas Democratic Primary, 2010.

Ed Schultz on White House insults to Organized LABOR after Arkansas Democratic Primary.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-

So Be Prepared.
The Party Leadership doesn't like the uppity Working Class peasants with Dirty Fingernails who have to Work for Living making waves for their comfortable little Money Boat.

Naturally, after that message from the Democratic Party establishment,
the people that actually do the work to get Democrats elected (The Activists) didn't show up for Lincoln in the General election, and Lincoln was CREAMED by the Republican.
It was even concluded by some that the Conservative Democratic party leadership would prefer that Lincoln's seat go to a Big Business Republican than to a Pro-LABOR Democrat.
I find it difficult to argue against that.


But one thing about us Union Thugs,
we might take a Whipping from time to time,
but we NEVER give up,
and we NEVER forget a Sucker Punch.

Organized LABOR will be selectively targeting vulnerable conservative Big Business Blue Dogs in several races for replacement with Pro-LABOR Democrats in 2014.
I will be helping them,
most probably joining with Pro-LABOR supporters across the country, and sending more money and support to Out-of-State races that have a chance of moving the Democratic Party To-the-Left than I will in my home state of Arkansas in 2014.

As long as the Democratic Party can marginalize and ignore the majority voices from its own Working Class, it will continue to do so.
If nothing changes,
NOTHING changes.

[questionseverything]

102. about that primary....

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7875

A total of 1,465 votes seem to have suddenly showed up in the Dem Senate race! And then there are the disappearing votes in the Republican race...

pls read the entire article ,especially if you are from ar because lincoln benefited from the numbers reported flipping around

[bvar22]

108. I am from Arkansas,

and I was working with the Halter Primary campaign to replace DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln with a Democrat,
before the White House and Bill Clinton stepped in to SAVE poor Blanche.

In addition to the questionable numbers from the ESS Black Box voting machines,
the are documented reports of Democratic Voter Suppression in the Halter Stronghold of Garland County. Things like last minute closing of 40 out of 42 polling stations,
and then turning away Halter voters from the polls at Closing Time.

"It was a tough loss, 10,000 votes. Bill Halter might have even upset Blanche Lincoln in the primary run-off had his stronghold of Garland County not dropped the number of polling places from 42 to 2,

http://my.firedoglake.com/paulloeb/2010/06/11/why-the-arkansas-primary-challenge-was-worth-it/

The Halter Campaign, and those activists working on the Halter campaign are aware of these dirty tricks, but there is not much we can do about it now.

When representatives of Organized LABOR contacted the White House to ask for an explanation
for their Last Minute Rescue of virulently Anti-LABOR Lincoln's failing campaign,
the only reply from the White House were insults and ridicule.

Ed Schultz on White House insults to Organized LABOR after the Arkansas Democratic Primary
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-


One aspect of this that really bothers me is that so few Democrats KNOW what happened in Arkansas in 2010, but there are still some really pissed off Democrats here who haven't forgotten.

[questionseverything]

112. the brad blog article

i posted for you is not even about the results spit out of the ess machines...it is about the reporting of those numbers on the states web site, on may 19th lincoln had 258 votes and halter had 207 votes but by the 25th lincoln had 1025 votes halter 733 votes and the republican numbers went backwards

yes they also disenfranchise thru not enough polling places but if that is not enough they can spin the numbers anyway they wish

[shneepsen]

100. I say we start at the closest to us.

That is, the people who we listen to everyday. I.e.: pop music, the media, the real propaganda artists. We start by lashing out at them, by constantly interrogating them, by telling them we don't want their nonsense. Music is getting louder and more in-your-face, and if we don't want it why not fight it with our wit?

Stop tolerating their nonsense. With more drug addiction and need, and blatant scams of immorality in the tabloids, it's clear that the musicians are selling out our souls (not theirs) to the 1%. And many of them are clearly in on it -- I don't understand why children and women (particularly) defend their emotional breakups and belligerence.

[another_liberal]

106. American public opinion and political preference . . .

One fact is inescapable: American public opinion and political preference tend to move in waves. First one point of view is dominate, then the exact opposite takes control. Conservatism and religious fundamentalism have been on the rise for most of the last thirty years. Only recently have Liberalism and moderation begun to make a comeback. Chances are they will continue to gain in popularity for many years to come.

Therefore we need to hang on, be hopeful and work for the true betterment of our country.

[MjolnirTime]

111. Burnt hair smells like shit.

[cali]

116. so do the dozens of burned bodies in Lac Megantic

So does the air and water resulting from fracking.

Guess what those two have in common?

[MjolnirTime]

126. What an insane web you weave!

[bluestate10]

117. May be people should fucking get involved with their local and state politics and vote.

People get what is available to vote for, or what a small percentage of voters vote for. Until those dynamics end, having one's hair on fire is a fucking waste of time.

[cali]

119. maybe you should fucking tell us how that solves the problem

of corporate money in elections. *How does voting for one corporate candidate over another change the fucking dynamics?

do fucking explain.

I'm all ears

*Fucking stipulation that there are a few corners of this country where it's still possible to elect a non corporate candidate to Congress and a few more where it's possible to elect non corporate candidates to the state house.

[questionseverything]

128. it is the corporate counting of votes

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7875

read the above article,watch the numbers dance all over the place for days after the election and ask yourself ,how can we believe any results we receive are accurate?

it is no accident that the most anti corporate senator(sanders) is from a state with paper ballots and a strict audit system