Lesser Evils

By: Umlaut, posted on CommonDreams September 20th, 2008 2:36 pm
The lack of nuance and understanding of our world and government here is depressing. It's like the polar opposite of the bumper sticker right wing websites.

1. Lesser evil.

Barack Obama:

A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.

Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side.During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.

Obama directed Illinois' Project Vote from April to October 1992, a voter registration drive with a staff of 10 and 700 volunteers; it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African-Americans in the state, and led to Crain's Chicago Business naming Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.

He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.

Not evil

Dick Cheney:

He attended Yale University, but, he flunked out.

Among the many votes he cast during his tenure in the House, he voted in 1979 with the majority against making Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a national holiday, but then voted with the majority in 1983 when the measure passed.He voted against the creation of the U.S. Department of Education, citing his concern over budget deficits and expansion of the federal government, and claiming that the Department was an encroachment on states' rights. He voted against funding Head Start, but reversed his position in 2000.

Cheney served as the Secretary of Defense from March 1989 to January 1993 under President George H. W. Bush. He directed the United States invasion of Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East.

Cheney left the Department of Defense and joined the American Enterprise Institute a conservative think tank.

Cheney's record as CEO was subject to some dispute among Wall Street analysts; a 1998 merger between Halliburton and Dresser Industries attracted the criticism of some Dresser executives for Halliburton's lack of accounting transparency.[46] During Cheney's tenure, Halliburton changed its accounting practices regarding revenue realization of disputed costs on major construction projects.[47] Cheney resigned as CEO of Halliburton on July 25, 2000. As vice president, he argued that this step removed any conflict of interest. Cheney's net worth, estimated to be between $30 million and $100 million, is largely derived from his post at Halliburton, as well as the Cheneys gross income of nearly $8.82 million.[48]

In 1997, along with Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol and others, Cheney founded the "Project for the New American Century," a neoconservative U.S. think tank whose self-stated goal is to "promote American global leadership. He was also part of the board of advisers of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) before becoming vice president.

You know the rest of the story, lying shooting people in the face etc.

Evil or not evil?

Yes Obama voted wrong on FISA and I have no idea why politically he made such a decision. The AIPAC speech was horrendous.

What none of you "no lesserevilism" bumper sticker folks don't understand is this...

"When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be...

Very conservative

Somewhat conservative

MODERATE

Somewhat liberal

Very liberal

UNSURE/REFUSED"

In August 2008, Americans answered that question this way: (1) 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative; (2) 40% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat conservative; (3) 2% of Americans considered themselves to be moderate; (4) 27% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat liberal; (5) 9% of Americans considered themselves to be very liberal; and (6) 3% of Americans did not know or refused to answer."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/the_biggest_missing_story_in_p.ht...

This is our country.

In a democracy, one needs to win to have a say. Even then, you need a 2/3 majority congress or a same party congress and executive or you just have two wrangling parties. One based of folks that got involved to make a better place for the little average people, the other to pass laws to help their company pay less taxes or get more government contracts.

So if you are the first and the country claims to be the second, what do you do?

A. Stick to your ideals, and lose 60% of all Americans thus losing the vote, thus leaving this country to a bunch of thieves?

B. Make compromises to at least keep the wolves from returning us back to the days of the robber barons.

The motives are entirely different.

If you're an idealist and believe in going with your conscious, "give me liberty or give me death" put your John Hancock on the ballot large enough so the king can read it so he knows who's head goes in the noose, then as I said I commend your boldness. The world needs you. But this world isn't one that is 5000 miles away from it's oppressors that must send wooden boats across the ocean to enforce their rules...

___________________________________________________________________________________ "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it and then misapplying the wrong remedies. " Groucho Marx

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
H. L. Mencken

Election 2008

There's a reason why only half of eligible voters bother to vote in America and why we're ridiculed around the world for our lack of democratic participation. The "no difference" argument is a big part of that reason.

I look at it as more of a right to left continuum. On the far right we have the evangelical-neofascist authoritarian nut-jobs; and on the far left we have the anarchist- socialist. I will always vote for the candidate who has a the best chance of getting elected, who is the farthest from the right-wing fascist, no matter what party he or she is in.

If I thought Nader had a chance, I'd vote for him.

So, while you third-party voters send your "message" to the democratic party, the McCain group gets "elected", attacks Iran and the Mideast explodes into full-fledge war---hundreds of thousands of dead, innocent, people filling mass graves. Sounds like a well thought out plan.

Do you think Al Gore would've taken us to war in Iraq? I don't. And that war alone has resulted in one million dead Iraqis who did nothing at all to deserve that fate.

Do you think Al Gore would've filled the courts with right-wingers? I don't. And look where our civil liberties are going.

Do you think Al Gore would stop all government regulation, and put industry cronies in charge of every government department? I don't. And look what's happened to the economy and the environment these last 8 years.

Do you think Al Gore would've been asleep while terrorists were known to be plotting to attack us here? I don't. And look what happened on 9-11; and all the crap that's stemmed from that---patriot act, guantanamo, rendition, torture...

This is not a question of political parties---it's a question of the PERSON who will lead this country. And I can't believe that any true progressive has any doubt that Obama will be a better leader than McCain.

And if you're voting for Nader or McKinney because you believe that they can really win, then your not looking at the reality of party politics in America today. There are 42 million registered democrats and 30-something million republicans---with huge organizations in each state, and tons of money. No third party candidate will come close. Even a BILLIONAIRE like Ross Perot was only able to get a few percentage points of the vote.

So, if you vote for a third party candidate, just try to realize that votes do have consequences beyond sending "messages". I respect anyone who votes their conscience. I just wonder how their conscience deals with the question of Iraq---not to mention all the other Bush disasters.

I don't revere or have faith in the democratic party. I realize that they have capitulated and that they're far too beholden to the corporations. But I don't think it's as simple as that either. Politics has and is playing a part in funding the war and impeachment. Politics, as in getting elected, keeping a majority in both houses, and increasing the size of that majority. I think the democratic party HAS put it's self-interest before the constitution. I think the party leaders believe that cutting off war funding or impeaching will result in their losing control of both houses.

What I don't believe is that we should hold Obama accountable for every mistake the democratic party has made.

This is the same party that has been high-jacked by conservative blue-dogs and Clinton- DLC types. Are we going to say that Obama is responsible for that?

republicans and Sarah Palin

"perhaps the United States has crossed over into a post-rational society that cares little about facts and reality or serious policy ideas and respectful debate, but rather is a nation moved by anger and ridicule, fear and nationalism."
Robert Parry

Patriot Act Info

From matti posted on CommonDreams September 5th, 2008 6:38 pm


The trick with the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (that's the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001") is that its not so much a Law, but a huge collection of Amendments, Revisions, and Alterations of existing Laws.

Its a bunch of "where it now reads 'and' will be changed to read 'the' on lines 44-67 blah, blah, blah..." with only reference numbers and names for the laws it changes. So, this makes it impossible for anyone without a Law Library to understand what the hell is going on with this Act.

I took a Quarter-length course on it and I still don't really get the whole thing but to have a go at your questions:

1. Yeah. Some. Kinda. Not the Members of Congress who passed it, but other people.

2. Not without many other documents to reference. Unless you mean "allowed" to be read. Then the answer is Yes, of course, it's an Act of Congress -your servants in Government- the paper it's written on, the ink with which it is written, the file it is in, the filing cabinent that is in, and finally the building that surrounds all this is Public Property. Your Property. My Property. Our colletive Property.

3. Don't know. But remember that a new Congress can chuck all this out- as long as they have the resolve to do the right thing. The "Patriot" Act changed many laws, therefore an "Anti-Patriot" Act could change them back, or again.

4. No, that would be hard to do. The U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is much sneakier. First it muddles up a bunch of old Laws makes them vague and confusing and therefore difficult to apply. Second, it carves out a bunch of exemptions in regard to "terrorism", "suspected terrorism" "conspiracy to do all kinds of stuff", and -important for the protesters to remember- "Anarchists" and "Anarchist Groups" that allow Police and Federal Agents to do all kinds of crazy B.S. Remember in the first or second season of "South Park" where Stan's Uncle or whatever and his 'Nam buddy aren't allowed to hunt, but all they have to do is yell "Its comin' right for us!" and they can kill whatever they want, however they want in "self defense"? The "Patriot" Act does kinda the same thing, an Agent or Officer simply shouts "Suspected Terrorists!" and those Citizens' Rights and huge swaths of the Law and Legal Precedent magically disappear and the Cop can do whatever they want. That's a gross simplification, but I hope you get the "feel" of the thing from it.

What should be really disturbing is the continued "Nationalization" of Law Enforcement that the RNC and DNC situations demonstrate. The "Joint" actions between local Police and the FBI and the "cooperation" between the Dept. of "Homeland" Security and the local Sheriffs, all this stuff seems to be leading to a Federalized, Centralized, command structure and heirarchy for Law enforcement in the U.S., with the old-style "Metropolitan Police" responsible for Citizen Protection morphing into a Brotherhood of Paramilitaries directed at Citizen Repression.

The U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is an essential part of all this, but the momentum toward this Radical Change has gone beyond that now and the problem is much larger and more difficult.

If only the Members of Congress who signed this monstrosity without reading it would develop the courage and honor required to admit that mistake (the not reading) en mass and publicly!

That would cut some of the wind from the sails of this fascist Revolution.

Also remember the Courts, as packed full of political appointments and old yachting buddies as the Federal Courts are, this stuff is slowly percolating through the system.

And the Civil Courts? Let's just say I wish I was Amy Goodaman's Attorney. Nothing more fun that stickin' it to the fascist bastards in the only place they feel pain -their wallets.

Have Fun,

-matti.

From "metal" Posted on CommonDreams September 5th, 2008 2:10 am
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."

Whether you participate in or stand up to or do nothing about over-concentrated power there is a price. I think the prevailing powers in the U.S. and their ~60 million (plus?) fear-driven dupes who are programmed to cling to the false security of an increasingly heartless and massive Police/Surveillance Nanny State (which is costing us billions of wasted dollars, btw) are pushing the country to a position that makes peaceful protest and peaceful progressive change harder and harder. Just like dealing with global warming, the longer we delay the necessary organizing and reforms, the uglier it will get until it may be past redemption.

I think the rest of the global community may wait until our overextended empire reaches a certain economic crumbling point and simply take a different path: Construct a different global commonwealth where the U.S. is treated as a fading pariah--a monster of technologically soulless laissez-faire capitalism gone horribly wrong.

This coming election, I believe, is the Dems' last chance to show they can both win and practice good governance as a ruling majority. If they gain solid voting control of both Houses and the White House, then the situation is theirs to make good on or screw up. Within 3 months of an Obama win we will know.

At that point, progressives face some key challenges:
(1) The critically urgent need to rapidly assemble one unified Progressive Party out of all the many progressive organizations. This will require a national progressive leadership summit.

(2) Agreement upon 3 to 5 core platform planks with which they can simultaneously campaign and educate the public. They need to build an over-arching narrative that is adaptable to new green ideas and technologies and, by its very force of common sense and readily accessible fact, will overwhelm inferior ideologies now wrecking the country and the planet.

(3) A national progressive task force appointed by the leadership to tackle the specific task of figuring out how to (A) use non-violent tactics that compel more attention from the "mainstream media" to our ideas, and (B) gain access to mass media platforms like combined low power FM and website streams, satellite radio and other new communications technology platforms.

(4) Such a movement must have, in my opinion--as major selling point--a publicly accessible, online "green living" knowledge base featuring outstanding progressives who have gained expertise in creative ways to live an environmentally sustainable life from which most of the masses can choose some aspects to emulate. I'm talking every aspect of green living from architecture to semi-grid or off-grid energy systems, gardening (rural to urban), transportation, creative & thrifty crafts and happier, healthier, more independent and less voraciously and unquestioningly materialistic family living. And these green experts should contribute essays, videos, etc., SHOWING others the HOW TO aspects of this for free--subsidized by online donations to the Party (and ads from green companies whose products are featured) until enough of us can get elected to write legislation to create large government subsidies both for the educational and wide-scale public implementation aspects of this. You've probably seen PBS This Old House. Think "This Old Planet" with realistic start-to-finish projects for green living demonstrated by the experts--with interspersed discussions of Party platform proposals to support the broad implementation of these ideas with serious government subsidies.

(5) A unified Progressive Party should disseminate free to all its members information with bullet points and clear sources regarding the numerous studies (some well over ten years old) that resoundingly prove the economic benefits of transitioning to a green economy in terms of rebuilding the middle class. All serious progressives should thoroughly familiarize themselves with these studies and be ready to answer any Republican or Democratic back-sliders who continue to insist on the prevailing yet failing national and global fossil energy paradigm.

(6) Reform of the court system at all levels in the U.S. Appointing better judges, reforming and systematizing the divergent State methods for electing vs. appointing judges.

(7) Repeal of the 1990's Rehnquist Supreme Court decision that equates money with free speech for the purposes of political campaigns.

(8) The need for new corporate reform legislation that denies corporations the same rights as living, flesh and blood citizens and restores them to their pre-1880s legal status as legal compacts issued licenses that are subject to periodic local governmental review (now the multinationals would need State and/or national reviews as well) regarding their social conduct and their license to conduct business.

This would be a start on the domestic end of things. This is the kind of hard work and organization progressives need to already be strategizing and there is PUH-LENTY of work to do. I think a lot of people would be living much happier and more fulfilling lives being part of such a movement. This is a movement that entire families could participate in together--whereas the current dominant Parties are only truly participated in by corporate lobbyists and hack politicians.

Your whole argument is based on the premise that the two parties are just the same. I don't agree with that premise. Here are some differences that I see:

The republicans are the ones who write unconstitutional laws and use FEAR to divide and win elections. This FEAR gets laws like the Patriot Act passed. I don't see the democrats doing that. The R's are the ones who are allied with the christian-right evangelicals trying to ram a moral code down our throats. I don't see that from the D's. The R's are the ones who nominate right-wing justices---Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito. The R's are the ones who program the machines that are stealing elections. (Maybe Hillary did it in the New Hampshire primary, but it could've been the R's trying to sink Obama.) The R's are the ones who refuse to regulate business. The R's are anti-labor union. The R's are the ones who deny global warming is caused by man. The R's are the ones who have brought secret government to new levels. I see the D's trying to open up the gov't. The R's deny science...

I don't think we would've seen anything close to this in a Gore administration.

The fascist push we've seen these last eight years I lay at the feet of the republicans.
I agree that the democrats capitulate and are spineless and are far too corporatist and militarist---but I see a lot of that as a reaction (or lack thereof) to the republican push.

If all I've stated above is no more than "lubricant" to you then we'll never agree. Which is a shame because I think in the end we want the same thing---we just can't agree on the way to get there...

And if I thought that voting for a third party would make a difference I would in a heartbeat. All it seems to do is push the democrats farther to the right, to "triangulate" or go after the "centrist" swing-voters. That's why the DLC was created. Can you come up with any other strategy than---vote third party! Because it doesn't seem to be working.

"It is people like you, through your "practicality" (read: misguided cynicism) who continue to cling to the myth of a "difference" who are partly responsible for keeping the so-called "uneducated" from becomeing enlightened. Because arguments such as yours only play into the myths perpetuated by the corporate MSM propaganda machine."

It seems to me that the corporate MSM propaganda machine WANT us to believe that our votes don't count for anything, that the parties ARE just the same. Why do you suppose so few people vote here. If Americans really thought there was a choice, and that their votes mattered, I think we'd see more people voting, don't you?

I mean---crimony! We All are living in a fascistic American Empire, we All are responsible for it, we All have innocent blood on our hands. To sit there and blame Obama or the Democrats for the mess we're in is both ignorant and counterproductive.

Against the Acquisition

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience....In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Farewell address Jan.17, 1961