jump to navigation

A Sunday thread…… [update: “La Virgen de las Barrikades”] 15 June 2008

Posted by marisacat in Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Iran, Mexico, UK, Viva La Revolucion!.
trackback

Cinders the piglet who reportedly won’t walk through mud unless she wears her wellington boots. The little piglet is owned by Debbie and Andrew Keeble, farmers from Bedale, North Yorkshire. [Picture: ROSS PARRY/UK Telegraph]

Just a silly pic I found at the Telegraph during the night, from their photos of the week. Listening all night to a radio call in show on KGO, produced here in San Francisco, so callers mostly from CA… full of saber rattling, presented not as pro-war with Iran but as “get tough with Iran” that country that keeps threatening us and Israel. And hard push back at any caller who tried to say that WE threaten Iran, or WE saber rattle… and any caller asking why we must always take the part of Israel, called an anti semite.

So a resolute little piglet in Wellingtons looks like more than escapism…

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Madman put this at the end of the last thread, so moving it forward:

Madman in the Marketplace

Death Squads in Oaxaca

SAN JUAN COPALA, Mexico — Driving through the back roads of western Oaxaca state in southwestern Mexico, one could often hear 94.9 FM, Radio Copala, “The Voice that Breaks the Silence.” In one of the station’s tag-lines played several times a day, a slow, piercing violin gave way to the languid voice of a woman singing in Spanish: “I am a rebel because the world has made me that way, because no one ever treated me with love, because no one ever wanted to listen to me.”

But amid such overwrought sadness, a strong — and perhaps hurried — young woman’s voice would interrupt: “Some people think that we are too young to know.” And then a second young female voice interjects: “They should know that we are too young to die.”

Those voices belonged to Teresa Bautista Merino, 24, and Fel’citas Mart’nez Sánchez, 21, two of six young producers and hosts at Radio Copala — a project of the recently autonomous municipality of San Juan Copala, and the first radio station to broadcast in both Spanish and the Triqui indigenous language.

The broadcast launched in January. By April, Teresa and Fel’citas were dead.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

UPDATE, 2:47 pm

Someone who reads but does not comment (at least not that I remember… ) just popped me this via email, with this note: In Qaxaca: la Virgen de las Barrikadas appears among her people, garbed in a gas mask and her cloak of burning tires.

Virgin of the Barricades…

Advertisements

Comments»

1. NYCee - 15 June 2008

I adore Cinders!

2. marisacat - 15 June 2008

NYCee from the end of the last thread…

Jack Welch is a ruthless prick. Ever seen Charlie Rose slobber over him?

On the other hand, Charlie was very cool to Noam Chomsky when he finally had him on (he said his viewers kept after him to book him). He quoted Thomas Friedman — another one he slobbers over — to chide Chomsky. Friedman the Great said something like: Chomsky is very bright but the awful thing about him is how he takes American achievement and positions it belly up… ie, shows the worms.

Welch yes, Friedman yes, Chomsky no. Thus our Only in America! America.

Oh yeah Rose loves that sort, really well. Friedman too. LOVES him… loves the DC press, lvoes Al Hunt, all thr rest.

A few months before his death Rose had Hunter Thompson on, when his book Kingdom of Fear was published, he ruffled papers thru the whole 12 minute interview. A few years ago he was almsot abusive to Amy Goodman. Geesh, I even signed on (never having even read the damned thing) to the blog at hsi site… and a moderator came on to say they had a slew of first time sign-ons.

I asked them to take his papers and his index finger away from him.

Charlie is a mess. I have watched when he had Welch and that woman he took up with… I could care less, but what Nazis for war, both of them.

3. Madman in the Marketplace - 15 June 2008

It’s really scary how adverse insiders like Rose and others in the media are to any kind of serious questioning. The groupthink is just so fucked up.

4. marisacat - 15 June 2008

well there really is nothing left.

PBS is gone – what little was left, and our local KQED manages to get worse. The only reason that Moyers Journal is on at all, is that he left NOW, they shoved it to 11 PM (here anyway), and they brought him back using NO TAX PAYER money at all, 100% privately funded. And of course PBS, other than Brancaccio who really was fostered by Moyers, is not developing new independent political observer voices.

We had a great little package show here, by package I mean KQED bought it, called “California Connected”, I have used a few of their shows here … and i watched the little show get more and more political and even in gentle tones quite straightforward, about water issues, even transplant issues focusing on a big money making for profit transplant business up in Davis that totally throws off the idea that organs are available to a list… to border issues.. and so on. GONE.

PBS runs shows that market war, over and over.

There really is nothing.

And people have lost their minds. A few months ago during the primaries, I put on a local radio show here, “Outlaw radio” it is called, they had 3 gays that night, 2 lesbians and a gay. They thought it was great that Chelsea works for hedge fund in NYC. They called it “doing something for the world”.

WTF.

5. NYCee - 15 June 2008

The ME non debate

It often amazed me that in a post 9-11 world many Americans settled for ignorant answers and approaches, rather than becoming more curious about why “they” are against us, why Israel is on the perennial shit list, go beyond the notion that “those people” are just born fighters or haters or warped by Islamofascism. After all this time, you’d think there might be some tickling of a curiosity fiber that would get them thinking there is more to it than meets the eye (thru our media/pol filters)… and get them searching for better information.

Imagine how much better off we’d be if we had presidential candidates willing to use the Carter approach to the mideast. Carter is the only viable model on the leadership stage for positive policy change in the mideast… and he has been iced out. (He did say, eek, “apartheid!”]

Yet, all you hear about him are disparaging remarks about his horrendous presidency… his Iran debacle… (their hatred of us popped up for no reason, they did it because they could… take hostages… their mullah domination… just their natural r-evolution against our weak, stupid president… Now Reagan knew how to deal… arms). Those who should vigorously defend Carter just kind of sheepishly laugh off the attacks, or mildly say they disagree with his attackers, or hold him up as a great post-presidency house builder.

The guy can hammer!

6. NYCee - 15 June 2008

Huh… I didnt try to make that smiley face in last post. I suh-way-er! Just a parethesis. Looks a bit out of place there.

Oh well… 🙂 <— intentional

7. marisacat - 15 June 2008

I’ll take it out, it appears when quote marks are against a close prens.

I’ll use brackets.

… 8)

8. marisacat - 15 June 2008

5

well… and who was nearly the first to attack Carter and his book?

CONYERS. The book was in galleys still… and Conyers did not even have a galley form copy of it, all he had was th title and, I am sure, whispers in his ear.

And he hauled off publicly.

May Jesus take a crap on all of these people. Really. sick of the Jesus talk from THEM ALL.

9. ms_xeno - 15 June 2008

Last thread:

Tch. Eight years ago, Nader’s campaign manager clarified his stance on abortion for the NYT.

And again:

“In a clear act of desperation, Democratic party partisans are trying to turn history on its head. Whereas Ralph Nader has opposed the nomination of Haynesworth, Carswell, Bork, Scalia and Thomas, the Democrats supported justices Scalia and Thomas and allowed them to be confirmed. The Democrats, including Al Gore, voted 98-0 to confirm Justice Scalia to the Supreme Court, and in a Democratic-controlled Senate, after the Anita Hill hearings, 11 Democrats voted to confirm Justice Thomas, thereby granting him a 52-48 confirmation victory,” Amato said.

Theresa Amato, quoted in Common Dreams

Hey, Ventura fans. Vote for whomever you want, but it’s pretty pathetic to trash Nader over one dumb thing he said eight years ago. I expect that shit from Kos and his Klones, but not so much elsewhere. Particularly since nowadays the Democratic leadership is positively giddy at yet another chance to blackmail women over Roe. Choice is already “back to the states” in all but name, given how widely unavailable it is for millions of women. And don’t tell me it doesn’t suit the duopoly very nicely to know that they can hamstring women at both the state and national level whenever we so much as THINK some horrid thought about voting outside the two preordained little boxes.

Shit.

It’s hard to tell from reading the snippets quoted earlier about Ventura as to how much he signed on for Clinton’s bullshit “welfare reform” campaign in the 1990s. I’d have to hear from an actual Minnesotan or two before I knew for sure. But seriously, WTF is it to simultaneously whine about “throwing too much money” at the working poor while simultaneously telling them that they don’t need any stinkin’ living wage because they can always find another job if they don’t like the one they’ve got ?

Fuck that shit. It’s no better than Social Darwinist Clinton II prattling about how abortion is “a sad and tragic choice” for millions of women even as her party makes absolutely sure that the economic monkey wrench will keep squeezing women so hard that their “choices” will continue to be nothing but a cruel joke.

10. ms_xeno - 15 June 2008

Oh, and just in case anyone else is suffering from Hairclub’s Disease, one more time: I’m not voting for Nader this year, so long as McKinney is still in the race, and so long as she (or whatever Green walks away with the nomination) doesn’t get bitten by whatever bug got Cobb in 2004.

11. CSTAR - 15 June 2008

5. Carter did tackle and negotiate the Panama Canal treaties, one of the most technically difficult and politically charged treaties ever negotiated, in my opinion. The fact that MesoAmerica (from Yucatan to the Colombian border) became such a profoundly unstable and dangerous place soon after that, is largely the result of the policies of his successor.

12. marisacat - 15 June 2008

11

well that is one of the big problems – for the enduring [problematical] issues that Carter dragged to DC, he is NEVER given credit (whether one likes it or not) as a tough negotiator, then and later at Camp David. The naval commander. And I would never say that Carter himself does not play down that aspect of himself. he chose to present the kindly white Southern patriarchal Sunday school teacher to the nation…

As big a mess as anything else…

13. moiv - 15 June 2008

9

It’s no better than Social Darwinist Clinton II prattling about how abortion is “a sad and tragic choice” for millions of women even as her party makes absolutely sure that the economic monkey wrench will keep squeezing women so hard that their “choices” will continue to be nothing but a cruel joke.

Our intake forms include a space for women to indicate their reasons (there’s hardly ever just one) for having an abortion. There are several common reasons that can be circled, and some writing space below.

These days — aside from individual reasons ranging from “I have cancer” to “Baby daddy crazy” — almost every woman we see circles “no money.”

Like the state, the Democrats’ only answer to that is “promote adoption to reduce the number of abortions.”

14. wu ming - 15 June 2008

the really disheartening thing about the online fawning over russert now that he’s dead is that it reveals that people still won’t accept that the media’s basically a late 80s pravda. i’ve been thinking about dmitry orlov’s “closing the collapse gap” (now momentarily offline), and how he portrayed soviet disillusionment with their media as a major advantage in their navigating the soviet collapse.

while netrootsia are an over-credulous bunch, i was surprised to see them click their heels for a media hack that even they were criticizing just a week prior. it does not bode well to see them TRing people who point this out. groupthink re. the democratic party is one thing, but when it’s extended to protect the media? jaysus.

15. Heather-Rose Ryan - 15 June 2008

Eight years ago, Nader’s campaign manager clarified his stance on abortion for the NYT.

Did she? What she basically said was, “Some Democrats suck even worse than Ralph on the issue of abortion rights.” Hey, neat.

it’s pretty pathetic to trash Nader over one dumb thing he said eight years ago. I expect that shit from Kos and his Klones, but not so much elsewhere.

What’s pathetic is being clueless enough to say such a ridiculous thing in the first place. Let’s face it – even a lot of leftwingers are pathetic when it comes to women’s rights. They just don’t give a shit. Why bother learning about those issues, or even thinking about them – there are so many more important things to address.

Fuck that shit.

16. ms_xeno - 15 June 2008

…What’s pathetic is being clueless enough to say such a ridiculous thing in the first place…

Oh, dear. I thought that it was only us “Naderistas” that were supposed to be obsessed with “purity.”

[snerk]

You know, think what you want. Vote for whom you want, and do it with my blessings. But people do fuck up sometimes, and then they clarify and then they apologize, if they’re smart. When I saw Nader speak in early 2005, he got yet another question from the audience about this same thing and he simply said that he’d made a mistake. And that abortion is an important issue, but it’s not THE ONLY ISSUE. I personally don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem with people who continue to make hay over one thing Nader SAID, as opposed to all the shitty things that the Democratic Party has ACTUALLY DONE in order to keep women hogtied and helpless.

Ventura may have some saluatory views, but his market-driven POV is not in the long run any more beneficial than, say, Clinton I’s or Clinton II’s or Obama’s. Nice that he can dispense with the Bible– good for him, but just doing away with one kind of sugar coating (“You’ll Burn In Hell If You Kill Your Baby”] with another (“The Free Market Gives You Everything You Need So Use Your Brain And Reach Out And Grab It”] is not my idea of substantive improvement.

17. ms_xeno - 15 June 2008

#13– Yeah, moiv. 😦

I used to tell people in the post-Bush/Gore fallout that a law on the books, bereft of economic understanding, would never be enough to give women what we need when faced with an important decision. So I do agree that such perspective is absolutely necessary, but I don’t trust the call for such understanding when it’s coming from a mediocre-minded opportunist like Clinton II, or Obama, for that matter.

18. moiv - 15 June 2008

Tacked onto the end of the last thread and too good to resist.

Keith Olbermann Gummi Penises: Official Candy of the Daily Kos

Yep, Obamabots and Obama bloggers everywhere can now enjoy America’s Favorite progressive candy.

These delectable delights are perfectly formed, shaped, and modeled after their favorite MSNBC misogynist, Keith Olbermann. Keith says they’re yum yum yummy for the tummy. The perfect candy from the biggest BLOW-HARD of them all! Scaled to a perfect 1:1 ratio, these candies come in all colors and flavors – Orange orange, lemon yellows, lime greens, and cherry red! Now you can suck on your favorite while watching your favorite! And at only $2.99 a bag, the Official candy of the Obama campaign is a liberal bargain every bot can enjoy any time of day or night!

19. marisacat - 15 June 2008

18

thanks for moving that up moiv… I planned to get to it, just had not yet…

………….8)

20. Madman in the Marketplace - 15 June 2008

Just watched tape of Obama waiving his Cosbian finger at the AA community from the pulpit of some (acceptably non-threatening) church in Chicago.

“Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important,” Obama said. “And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation.”

But, “if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that too many fathers also are missing, missing from too many lives and too many homes.

“They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men,” he said. “And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”

This is gonna be a long fucking year.

Oh, and that church (from the same link)?

As pastor, Bishop Brazier refused to speak politics at the pulpit. Nevertheless, his influence and clout became well-known in Chicago’s political circles, and the church is now an obligatory campaign stop.

Similarly, although the bishop never spoke of Obama at the pulpit, it is widely known that he supports his candidacy.

In choosing to speak at Apostolic, Obama chose a somewhat more conservative church than Trinity United Church of Christ, where the senator from Illinois was a member until recently.

Both churches are on Chicago’s South Side and are predominantly African-American congregations.

Trinity is part of the United Church of Christ, a liberal Protestant denomination that, for example, ordains gay ministers.

For decades, Apostolic Church of God had been part of the conservative Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. Though Bishop Brazier broke away from the PAW last year, his church is still solidly conservative when compared to Trinity.

Tribune religion reporter Margaret Ramirez contributed to this report.

21. marisacat - 15 June 2008

I was jsut reading th text as prepared for that Father’s Day Speech. His Cosby stuff drives me nuts. Talk about playing to the burbs.

22. Heather-Rose Ryan - 15 June 2008

16. And that abortion is an important issue, but it’s not THE ONLY ISSUE.

It is to me. Why? Because it concerns the issues that I consider most important in the political arena: 1) working towards women’s equality, 2) ensuring women’s autonomy over their own bodies, and 3) keeping the government out of our personal lives.

These are the issues that affect our day-to-day lives more than any others.

Nice that he can dispense with the Bible– good for him, but just doing away with one kind of sugar coating (”You’ll Burn In Hell If You Kill Your Baby”] with another (”The Free Market Gives You Everything You Need So Use Your Brain And Reach Out And Grab It”] is not my idea of substantive improvement.

Well, again – it is to me. Ventura’s blend of social liberalism with fiscal conservatism, while flawed, is far better than anything the religious right has to offer.

While he will probably never get on the ballot, I’d like to see other so-called “progressives” espouse views as liberal as his.

23. Madman in the Marketplace - 15 June 2008

lets not ever, EVER talk about the complicated causes of personal and family disfunction in not just the AA community, but in many community. The for-profit “justice” system, the shitty schools, the redlining of personal and business loans, the predatory loans that people CAN get, the embrace of corporate entertainment of the most prurient material while more positive artists go without contracts … a long list, but SO much easier to pander to the comfortable middle and blame the people.

24. marisacat - 15 June 2008

The thing about abortion is that it ties into everything. People, on all sides, like to make it seem to stand alone. It does not.

25. moiv - 15 June 2008

Sign up for a conference call with Fr. Frank Pavone!

Friends,

You are invited to join me by phone and/or internet on Wednesday, June 25 from 9 to 10pm Eastern Time for a teleconference that will inspire and equip you to make a difference in this year’s national elections, and to awaken the conscience of Americans about abortion.

We will discuss and launch the special project called “Is This What You Mean?”, that has already educated hundreds of thousands of Americans and has challenged pro-abortion politicians.

We will give you practical tools to use at the local level to advance the Culture of Life in this election in proven ways!

You won’t want to miss this opportunity and we don’t want to miss out on having you participate!

Once you sign up here, we will send you details on what number to dial for the call, and how to also listen over the internet, where we will guide you to specific documents and templates that will help you understand and implement these activities!

God bless you, and I look forward to talking with you on the 25th at 9pm ET!

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director

26. moiv - 15 June 2008

24

People, on all sides, like to make it seem to stand alone. It does not.

Not only do they portray abortion as standing alone, but they even characterize it as an issue separate from the woman herself.

We all have become accustomed to all sorts of duplicity in politico-religious propaganda, but for me that sin, above all the others, is unforgivable.

27. Madman in the Marketplace - 15 June 2008

but they even characterize it as an issue separate from the woman herself.

but since the womb belongs to the Church/God, and thus to society, OF COURSE it’s separate!

Geesh … how did you find godless commie teachers down in Tejas?

28. marisacat - 15 June 2008

26

yeah agree… that is a better way of putting it… but I think in their point of view (the whole spectrum of “them”) it has to be separated. Dominion and politics and leverage and judging women and so on and so forth………..

29. Heather-Rose Ryan - 15 June 2008

Mcat: The thing about abortion is that it ties into everything. People, on all sides, like to make it seem to stand alone. It does not.

Agreed. And I would say the same thing about feminism. Or the fight for women’s equality, if you want to call it that, since the term “feminism” sets some people off.

It isn’t some isolated academic pursuit – it’s fundamental to transforming our society and making it work.

27, moiv Not only do they portray abortion as standing alone, but they even characterize it as an issue separate from the woman herself.

Yes – one of my pet peeves is that the anti-choice forces have constructed their entire agenda around the notion that the woman/mother doesn’t exist (or, if she does exist, it’s as a disembodied womb-as-Petri-dish, not human, with no human rights) and the act of giving birth is meaningless.

It’s an extension of the time-honored misogynist worldview in which women are either invisible or less-than-human.

30. ms_xeno - 15 June 2008

All I can say is, a platform that can’t offer anything but gussied-up Social Darwinism, of whatever flavor, is not going to win me over by vowing to keep Roe on the books until the sky falls in.

Especially since I don’t believe that their vows are worth a plugged nickel at this point. I’m astounded that anybody still thinks so.

I have PKD, for instance. No symptoms. Yet. While it’s nice to know that I still have a shot at getting an abortion legally in Multnomah County if I want one, there’s no way in Hell I’m going to get down on my knees and kiss the DP or anyone else for standing aside (conditionally) for the absolute bare minimum that human beings should offer one another as a sign of respect. I may never, if fortunate and careful, find myself pregnant but it’s an absolute certainty that one day I’m going to be very, very sick from a congenital illness.

I see nothing in the DP’s platform that offers a way around that. The current insurance system vis-a-vis healthcare is nothing but the crassest sort of blackmail and bullshit. It’s killing us, and I don’t trust Obama or any of the rest of those fucks to do shit about it.

You know the big problem with the cliche’ of “Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative ?” The big problem is that the way it plays out in the real world and our political system is:

“Equal rights, for those who can pay. Pain and suffering and a pointless death for those who can’t pay.”

No fucking thanks. >:

31. marisacat - 15 June 2008

well I have posted three highly credible articles here, one from The Hill, one from CJR and a third (that I forget now) that make it very clear, universal health care, good bad or in between is off the table. They just need it for an election cycle chat point.

Anything involving the insurance companies is a criminal assault on the people. Most government subsidised or underwritten health care that i am familiar with (in other countries), that incorporates an insurance component, has an entirely different regulatory system w/r/t insurance companies than the mess that is this country’s insurance industry.

32. wu ming - 15 June 2008

i actually think lakoff did a fairly decent job of tying the right wing worldview together ideologically, although the patriarchal family metaphor he focuses is only one of many (the plantation might well be a better one, although that again was often explained in familiar metaphor).

patriarchy shapes how men relate to men, in all sorts of spheres. thus, paying attention to how someone treats an issue like abortion and the rights of women to own and decide about matters involving their bodies is also a huge predictor for how the same person will tend to treat, say, the rights of workers to own their own labor, or the rights of uppity citizens to their due civil rights and freedoms from intrusive state authority, etc.

it’s all of a piece. one of the reason why calling it a “single issue” misses the point.

33. wu ming - 15 June 2008

that should read “familiaL metaphor,” not “familiaR,” although it certainly is a familiar one as well.

34. wu ming - 15 June 2008

31 – this is why it is absolutely critical for dems to win huge in ’08, to reveal them one way or the other. if it is off the table, it’s very important that they have noone but themselves to scapegoat for that failure. and, on the off chance that it isn’t, hey, we get health care.

same for the CA dems and the 2/3 budget rule. get rid of the excuses, and then see what comes apart and together.

35. marisacat - 15 June 2008

well my understanding is that Dorgon (who has taken it on the chin from hsi own party over his anti big trade deal mess attitude, they SHAFTED his book from widespread media coverage) was the one who brought Lakoff to DC in 2002 thinking he could get a few basic ideas over to the party. Set up meetings on the hill a few luncheons and so on.

As best I can see, whether one likes Lakoff or not, the Democrats blew it. They siphoned off hsi NAME to use and toss around but have no clue how making use of language works. And it is because

THEY DON”T CARE. Except to use language to cover their collaboration with the right.

36. marisacat - 15 June 2008

well my understanding is that Dorgon (who has taken it on the chin from hsi own party over his anti big trade deal mess attitude, they SHAFTED his book from widespread media coverage) was the one who brought Lakoff to DC in 2002 thinking he could get a few basic ideas over to the party. Set up meetings on the hill a few luncheons and so on.

As best I can see, whether one likes Lakoff or not, the Democrats blew it. They siphoned off hsi NAME to use and toss around but have no clue how making use of language works. And it is because

THEY DON”T CARE. Except to use language to cover their collaboration with the right.

37. Heather-Rose Ryan - 15 June 2008

30 – you know, I wonder how it would go over if I said “I’m not black, so racial equality isn’t the biggest issue for me”.

32 – i actually think lakoff did a fairly decent job of tying the right wing worldview together ideologically

The problem is that it describes most of the left/liberal/progressive worldview too. Let’s not talk about women’s rights, that’s so 1970s – SYFPH and let’s move on to more important subjects like labor unions, etc. Oh, but you hairy-legged sex-hating wimmyn better vote for our candidates. And send them money, too.

38. wu ming - 15 June 2008

36 – that’s certainly what happened online. while the rockridge institute actually had a very lucent blogger trying vainly to start conversations at dKos for a while, but all the talk of “framing” – an interesting linguistic/political point in lakoff’s work – devolved almost instantly into PR/sloganeering in the most mealymouthed bob shrum sort of way. people didn’t disagree with it, they didn’t even grasp it. fucking vulcan mindmeld with the failed DLC/NDN party hacks.

that don’t think of an elephant book allowed me to make sense of my politically schizophrenic liberal republican parents (and understand why i ended up where am, politically, from how i was raised). still maddening to hear my pro-choice mother or pro-new deal/public infrastructure dad defend bush as a moderate, but at least i can see the odd thought process behind it now.

37 – absolutely, and i would go as far as to say that reactionary approach is what makes most liberals so incomprehensible when they try to speak politically. they’re literally talking out of both sides of their political mouths. which is, i suppose, why they’re so hostile to “purity trolls,” as it reminds them of their own irreconcilable conflicts.

39. marisacat - 15 June 2008

yeah… when I was still posting at Dkos… so it had to be 2005, as i was banned in Fall… someone who had been part of the working group that came up with “living wage” among other phrases to use, signed on during some Lakoff food fight – and said

You people are LOST.

and he was right. Plus I posted here a few weeks ago when the Rockridge Inst shut down, completely, in all its parts.

But not to worry, Obama says God will lead us (just heard the clip played by this great queen who hosts a show on KGO), or so he told the congregation in Chicago today… another clip up again… ObamaRama from the pulpit. Job one for the Republicans is to tear that fucking pulpit down. Considering how many they have built, they may know how.

40. moiv - 15 June 2008
41. Madman in the Marketplace - 15 June 2008

there was a video that I caught on CNN today when they were showing a woman helping the homeless in NOLA all of the household goods that FEMA was giving away, claiming that it was no longer needed for Katrina sufferers. She asks the reporter, “can we still get some of this stuff, or is it all gone now.”

The reporter kinda shakes her head, and the look of disgust/despair/resignation on that activist’s face was just horrible.

Oh, found the video here

That’s how I feel w/ this entire society.

And the fucking Donks want to talk to me about God.

42. marisacat - 15 June 2008

LOL I thnk he is relieved Said is dead. Frankly. And Rashid Khalidi, used to be at Chicago now is at Columbia, has his back. I posted here when he said that Obama “has never said anything in support of Palestinian rights”, words very close to that. barackobama.com posted Khalidi’s words as a push back that he was ever anything but total Israel.

43. Madman in the Marketplace - 15 June 2008

at the rate Israel is going, the Palestinian “problem” will be close to eliminated in another generation or two.

44. marisacat - 15 June 2008

Too true. Palestinian birth rate will literally kill off this game of Two State Solution. What ever games Khalidi plays with his old bud from Chicago.

45. Madman in the Marketplace - 15 June 2008

44 – which is why I’m convinced that the Israelis are following the model we followed in the American West.

46. marisacat - 15 June 2008

they can try… which is also part of what relocation and conversion is all about… in loading newly minted converts to Judaism. I don’t think they can catch up. But sure, murder killing war bombing strafing imprisoning… all with a plan.

47. wu ming - 15 June 2008

the “indians” have gained in the past few centuries. one of the things that the “cowboys,” while still able to pile up the bodycounts, haven’t been willing to admit to themselves for decades now.

the american west metaphor is a huge reason why american conservatives support the settlers, IMO. very familiar, all the way down to the murderous ululating savages who only know the language of war, and settlers as homesteaders, outposts of civilization guarded with guns against said savages.

i wouldn’t be surprised if many of the american transplants in the settler groups don’t see themselves that way either.

48. ms_xeno - 15 June 2008

#37:

…30 – you know, I wonder how it would go over if I said “I’m not black, so racial equality isn’t the biggest issue for me”…

Is that the best you can do, hrh ? Liken me to a racist ? Thanks loads. I could have gotten that shit from Devore if I’d just been here at the right time.

Nobody stops being Black. Nobody Black in America stops being Black in a society centered on Whites. But females do reach a point where our reproductive functions cease.

What then ? What happens with all the other shit we were told to throw overboard with big, perky smiles on our faces because the only thing that mattered was being able to get an abortion without going to jail ?

That’s obscene enough, that blackmail. What’s more obscene is that all the while they were pretending to save something they were busily discarding.

And like I said, I support Ventura’s right to run. I’d welcome a wider range of POV’s in the political sphere, because we don’t have enough.

But I’m in no hurry to have God toppled and then replaced with a Free Market that everyone worships like a god. That’s not going to solve shit and it’s why I can’t see myself voting for Ventura, based on what I’ve seen of his opinions.

When all these “Social Liberals Fiscal Conservatives” are ready to dismantle the military machine and do something else with the money, get back to me.

49. ms_xeno - 15 June 2008

#35– Yeah, I know, Mcat.

I’ll still be voting for a party that has universal healthcare in its platform, so long as it’s available and so long as I’m able.

…Reproductive Freedom: People should be free from government interference in making their reproductive choices, including abortion, which should be covered by all publicly funded medical insurance programs…

Some platforms do manage to walk and chew gum at the same time. Glory be.

50. moiv - 15 June 2008

ms_x,

thought you might be interested to know that the Shakesville thread was still lively through this evening.

debgrabien had the last word (so far).

Gorgeous, and correct with every word.

I *am* one of those middle aged, mid-fiftyish feminazi libber White Bitches the Party Elders have driven off into the night. I will not be voting for Barack Obama in November, but I wasn’t planning on it to begin with, because I haven’t liked, believed or trusted him since he walked out onstage at the 2004 convention and redlined me for being an atheist (apparently, one must worship an AWESOME god in the BLUE states to qualify as His Sort of Democrat; please curb your god, Senator, ‘kay?)

If you look at the history of this entire campaign, the sexism goes beyond staggering and into outrageous. The party elders allowed HRC (I was an Edwards voter, BTW) to be pilloried, insulted and crucified on national TV and sat their with their dicks in their hands, cheering people like Keith Olbermann and Alex Castellanos on. If you look at their attitude now – Yeah, so, we blacked the bitch’s eye and then laughed while our guy friends did and she left, she’ll be back, where she gonna go? – you’ll probably spot the Abusive Spouse mentality there. There is also the fact that Senator Obama, who is running on what is damned near an “I Am A Saint” platform, not only stood by for what amounted to HRC’s public lynching, he used it to his advantage. Any shot he had of getting a vote from me went forever south on that one.

Screw them. Not only have I left my party after 35 of fierce, noisy feminist activism, I actively hope a lot more women like me don’t vote for either of these candidates. It’s disheartening enough to have helped EMILY’s List fund successful congressional campaigns for people like Clair McCaskill and Amy Klobuchar, who turn out to be Barack’s groupies and Howard’s Handmaidens. I refuse to enable to bastards any further.

And if Roe v. Wade gets overturned, you know what? Let someone else fight for those rights. I spent my entired adult life fighting for them, and I’m not fighting for it anymore. Everyone thinks the Democrats are On Our Side, I think they need to take a second look at that, and at history, as well.

51. marisacat - 15 June 2008

LOL

redlined me for being an atheist (apparently, one must worship an AWESOME god in the BLUE states to qualify as His Sort of Democrat; please curb your god, Senator, ‘kay?

Well people need to learn to USE stuff, declare it real, whole and their core reality, drag it along like FAMILY – then leave it during a presidential run.

I see he wore the flag pin again today.

52. CSTAR - 15 June 2008

Completely off topic.

I was feeling timorous and a littleDaily Koshish, but noticed a diary titled “Where are you, Kos? We need you”, by one souris en colere. (I won’t link to that) the contents of which are absolutely nauseating. This diary is recommended? I have no words to describe this stupidity.

Save us. Qui que ce soit. Nous avons besoin de toi.

53. wu ming - 15 June 2008

that diary/thread reminded me of orwell’s killing an elephant, in a weird way. once you smite, the mob tends to demand that you continue to smite.

revealing levels of slavishness on that site. ratings really created a whacked sort of craving to police dissidents, too. fucking creepy.

54. moiv - 15 June 2008

Hi CSTAR,

I looked in on that one earlier, about 1,000 comments ago, and couldn’t see the attraction — unless it was just the typical American fascination with celebrity death.

I’ve run across the diarist, Angry Mouse, before. She usually sounds more sensible … must have nibbled a bit of rancid cheese. But some of those comments are deranged.

55. marisacat - 15 June 2008

I had read the Angry Mouse diary as it is whole as a comment, over at Pffterpoofter, I think.

Pretty amazing when they call out for Kosjesus,… they’d be better off at a Greek Orthodox church, at least they hand out cuts of bread and wine as body and blood.

56. marisacat - 15 June 2008

LOL .. speaking of the comment moiv posted from ShakesSis

Yo bitches!, come to your senses and come home to the Obama Plantation. Or feel the lash.

well…….that is what Frank Rich WANTED to say.

57. marisacat - 16 June 2008

I got this far… LOL The imagery was so enticing, I can see everyone mad now voting for Obama, in a few short months…

The revolt is not limited to the usual cranky right-wing suspects. The antiwar acolytes of Ron Paul are planning a large rally for convention week in Minneapolis. The conservative legal scholar Douglas Kmiec has endorsed Mr. Obama, as have both the economic adviser to Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America,” Lawrence Hunter, and the neocon historian Francis Fukuyama. Rupert Murdoch is publicly flirting with the Democrat as well. Even Dick Cheney emerged from his bunker this month to gratuitously dismiss Mr. McCain’s gas-tax holiday proposal as “a false notion” before the National Press Club.

58. moiv - 16 June 2008

56

This is what he DID say.

Now, there’s no question that men played a big role in Mrs. Clinton’s narrow loss, starting with Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Mark Penn. And the evidence of misogyny in the press and elsewhere is irrefutable, even if it was not the determinative factor in the race. But the notion that all female Clinton supporters became “angry white women” once their candidate lost — to the hysterical extreme where even lifelong Democrats would desert their own party en masse — is itself a sexist stereotype.

There it is — the forty-leventh version of “Sure, sure … there was a lot of anti-woman piling-on, but there’s no way that sexism actually affected the outcome.” Oh, yeah, and he remembered to throw in “hysterical” — nice touch, Frank.

Even though every time Obama lost, the determinative factor was widely, officially and always declared to be racism.

They all refuse to hear that even women who never thought about voting for Hillary Clinton are jumping ship. Maybe they’ll believe it when they read the election returns.

59. marisacat - 16 June 2008

BTW, somewhere today I saw a more recent photo of Rich than what graces his OP spot on the page.

I think that photo is from a few years ago, but not as many as one might think. he is MUCH fatter. Much, at least in the face. And pallid. A kind of pale that for a naturally ruddy man, could be worrisome. (Note to self Rich, check recent shots of Russert… tho it is not a guarantee, he might have gone out blood congested, you might go out blood starved.)

60. moiv - 16 June 2008

From the Rich comment thread:

My opinion by Frank Rich

Can you believe this guy McCain is trying to get the angry Clinton female vote? I mean this guy is a raging misogynist and sexist like you don’t know! You should hear him at the misogynist anonymous meetings I am forced to attend every week. But don’t worry Barack. I am telling you there are only a handful of these supposed angry democrat ladies, and it’s probably hormone-related if you know what I mean). Just because they got a few on youtube, doesn’t mean anything even though NBC is trying to make some big deal. Sure there was a bit of misogyny in the media -or so I heard- but come on! Any women who would support McCain over Barry would be STUPID, with a capital S.T, well you get it… because McCain is really the sexist and would take away their rights. Believe me, I know a sexist when I see one! But maybe these angry Clinton women don’t realize it because they are blinded by all that anger. Don’t worry though. I’ll wrote a column and I ‘ll even say they are too smart to vote for a sexist…I just hope they haven’t perhaps caught on through my Clinton bashing spree and stopped reading my opinion.

— Sondra, San Francisco

61. marisacat - 16 June 2008

and it’s probably hormone-related if you know what I mean…

Or as St B said himself:

Periodically when she is down, the claws come out.

LOL

62. marisacat - 16 June 2008

I laughed so hard reading Sondra in San Francisco, I choked and coughed… …

what a hoot!

63. moiv - 16 June 2008

Lots and lots of pushback in that thread. But Sondra is a corker.

64. moiv - 16 June 2008

Here’s another.

At age 52, I suppose I am one of those “older women” who voted for Hillary. I have never voted Republican in my life, and I will not in November. But for the first time I am considering not voting at all. The misogyny against Hillary in the press, mostly MSNBC and other cable news, but also on the op-ed page of The NYTimes, was blatant, and Frank Rich’s dismissal of it shows how embedded it is in our culture. If Obama had one time stood up and denounced the coverage and sexism hurled at his opponent, I might be voting for him in November. But he smugly watched it go on, and in fact added to it by remarks such as “I suppose she’s likable enough.” The miracle to me is that Hillary did as well as she did given the loud chorus railing continually against her. And don’t think the anger is all from old women. My husband, an ethics professor, is even angrier about this than I am. It is almost inconceivable that the two of us, lifelong yellow dog Democrats, won’t be voting for the Democratic nominee in November. But at this point it is likely.

— The Rev. Patricia Templeton, Atlanta, GA

65. marisacat - 16 June 2008

Thanks for bringing up the thread, I would have just sailed on without readign it… had to reboot so will bring up Rich again.

What I think will happen is NADA. More and more “respected” political opinion (LOL including Rich) says Obama by a mile. Or a nose. Or a hoof. No need for the jockey to work on this one.

Obama has scaled back his actual campaigning… and I don’t think it was jsut a slack week. The Dems and the obamaramaamamamas think the rat a tat a tat a tat between he and McCain is good enough. Mkaes copy and ink and headlines. Or whatever the owrds are…

Latinos? Who they gonna vote for? White bitches? Who they gonna vote for? Dissident black voters (and there are some) well they are just trapped in slave mentality! Who are they gonna vote for?

etc.

And if anyone followed Obama’s schedule, he never got out there, like the Clintons. (That is not an endorsement of any of them, but they just hit the road, like old time roadies, he never did).

He wants to go around the world.

There will be little real out reach, little real organising.. nothing compared to what they will say they are doing. Its so easy to hang with the conservative preacher class, esp when you WANNA BE A PREACHER.

Off to read the thread and laugh like hell.

And of course Sondra is a racist. Goes without saying.

66. Heather-Rose Ryan - 16 June 2008

48. ms x:

Nobody stops being Black. Nobody Black in America stops being Black in a society centered on Whites. But females do reach a point where our reproductive functions cease.

So let me get this straight: women stop being women as soon as their “reproductive functions cease”?

I have news for you: nobody stops being female in a society centered on males. (unless they have a sex change, and then they’re even lower down in the hierarchy.) And the attack on reproductive rights is an attack on women, not on abortion. It’s an effort to smack women down and keep them in their “proper” place. Ignore that at your peril.

What then ? What happens with all the other shit we were told to throw overboard with big, perky smiles on our faces because the only thing that mattered was being able to get an abortion without going to jail ?

What on earth are you talking about? What precious things have we been told to give up in order to retain our reproductive rights?

it’s quite the opposite: we’ve been told to give up our reproductive rights in order to elect more conservative “progressives” who may someday in the future give us something nice. Emphasis on “maybe”.

I like you, ms x, but this current tear you’re on doesn’t show you in a very good light.

67. NYCee - 16 June 2008

Only in America!

Morning Joe opened with clip of Brokaw, filling in on MTP yesterday, choosing the one time he teared up (No!) as he recalled Tim saying about his marvelous success, his marvelous family (his marvelous hotdog?) you guessed it:

Only in America!

Then it went straight to Joe, Willie, Mika…

Joe up first with (close paraphrase): You know, Barnicle, Brokaw and Tim, they were so tight… when you saw those guys, well… (yes, it actually gets worked in here too – All together now!)

Only in America!

Ugh.

If Noam Chomsky has thrown that pup we all know and love as America belly up, to show its diseased underside, with these guys there is no belly at all… flip their pup over and what you get is a Hallmark card, stars and stripes glowing in gaudy ink, a “musical” card that plays the cheap strains of God Bless America… over and over and over…

Ugh.

68. Heather-Rose Ryan - 16 June 2008

WTF??:

Tim Russert was like family to many of us […] We looked forward to spending our Sunday mornings with him

Wow. These people are seriously nuts.

The Melody Townsel diary is a pip as well:

the word of his death truly took my breath away.

I was away from my computer, but near a TV, so I tuned in to MSNBC and soon found myself in tears

Russert is this era’s John Lennon, apparently. Doesn’t say much for this era.

69. NYCee - 16 June 2008

Olbermann struck me as increasingly carried away with himself in Obama advocacy, especially in Special Comment mindset (I cant watch those). As much as I am not a Hillary fan (not an Obama one either), I thought he went overboard, off the deep end, in registering disgust over her. As did some others, dragging her (and Bill’s) every actual and faux foul (latter = contrived by adversaries) into that mindspot of mine that reacts with: Spare me!

Is he a mysogynist? Or Rich? Dont have any evidence on that, but I dont follow what they say all that much. Thought I saw that said here about both of them, quoted somewhere, but dont have time to search back.

Did land on Obama speechifying on Cspan, just before WJ today, and saw a slice of God talk. Oh god. Pass.

70. NYCee - 16 June 2008

Only in America…

can we not say one negative word about Israel.

That is why I cant believe my eyes…

Condi actually has “harsh words” for Israel over plans for yet more settlement expansion into East Jerusalem.

71. NYCee - 16 June 2008

Condi’s warning to Israel…

Wonder how Nancy Pelosi will handle this one, if our stellar press ever gets around to asking her to comment.

Perhaps another collective congressional scold letter, a la the one she aimed at Howard Dean in 2003, for daring to say we must be evenhanded.

I honestly cannot imagine her being able to deal with this one without her face literally cracking.

72. Madman in the Marketplace - 16 June 2008

I hope some of those women in that Rich thread take a look at McKinney.

73. ms_xeno - 16 June 2008

#50:

Yeah, moiv. Maybe we could get debgrabien a panel with Marcotte and the other still-faithful. I would pay good money to see that.

😉

#71: Me, too, Madman. Like I said at the Womanist Musing’s page, sometimes people WILL do the right thing, even if it’s for the wrong reasons.

74. JJB - 16 June 2008

Feel the need to hurl the contents of your stomach, but lack the courage to stick your fingers down your throat? This article (which I found at Duncan Black’s site) should do very nicely. I quote only the final paragraph, though you may need to read the whole thing for the purgative effect to kick in:

He was, only in hindsight, excessive in his pursuits, and indeed there is a hideously human dimension to this tragedy: a father has lost a son, and a son has lost a father, all in the wake of Father’s Day. It’s surely no consolation to his family if we note that Russert dedicated himself to the pursuit of a noble cause: journalism, the free flow of information, the First Amendment, the need (more than ever) to hold politicians accountable for their words and actions. That, in fact, is more than a noble cause. It is patriotism.

Never mind that Russert admitted during to the Plame grand jury that he never quotes his “sources” unless they specify what they say is on the record, exactly the opposite of what every cub reporter has been told from time immemorial. Russert was a useful stooge the Bush Adminstration used to channel its propaganda to the public. He got where he is by being Jack Welch’s lackey.

This morning’s Today show didn’t even bother their normal review of the headlines before going into full “Timmy Is Still Dead!” mode. Apparently, there is nothing whatsoever that is of as much importance to their viewers as Russert’s passing. Matt Lauer was interviewing the son in a segment that was longer than they usually give to on-scene reporters covering a major story. At one point, Lauer ran a clip from the end of a bit he did with Russert late last week where he congratulated him on his son’s graduation from Boston College, and Russert gushed about how proud he was of his son . . . I suppose shortly they’ll show family videos from 20 years ago. Anyway, the kid said something like “Dad wanted me to be able to study whatever I wanted wherever I wanted to go and not have to worry about the expense,” as if his parents didn’t have a combined annual income in the $5-10 million range (at least), and sat around emptying the change jar every week so Sonny Boy could go to the college of his choice.

I wonder how long before Luke Russert “writes” a sappy book like the one his father wrote about his old man.

75. JJB - 16 June 2008

BTW, here’s one bit of non-Timmy related (and therefore unimportant news) that occurred over the weekend that Matt and Meredith might have given a little notice to this AM:

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan threatened on Sunday to send soldiers into Pakistan to fight militant groups operating in the border areas to attack Afghanistan. His comments, made at a news conference in Kabul, Afghanistan, are likely to worsen tensions between the countries, just days after American forces in Afghanistan killed 11 Pakistani soldiers on the border while pursuing militants.

“If these people in Pakistan give themselves the right to come and fight in Afghanistan, as was continuing for the last 30 years, so Afghanistan has the right to cross the border and destroy terrorist nests, spying, extremism and killing, in order to defend itself, its schools, its peoples and its life,” Mr. Karzai said.

“When they cross the territory from Pakistan to come and kill Afghans and kill coalition troops, it exactly gives us the right to go back and do the same,” he said.

[snip]

Mr. Karzai’s comments came two days after Taliban fighters assaulted the main prison in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, blowing up the mud walls, killing 15 guards and freeing about 1,200 inmates. It is not known if the fighters received assistance from outside Afghanistan.

Mr. Karzai has adopted a tougher stance in recent months toward Pakistan and even toward foreign allies like the United States and Britain, a shift that analysts say is driven by political concerns at home, with presidential elections due next year.

[snip]

His relations with the president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, have deteriorated over the years, amid mutual recriminations that the other side was not doing enough to curb terrorism. Mr. Musharraf always denied that the Taliban was operating from Pakistani territory and accused Mr. Karzai of failing to put his own country in order.

Prior to the outbreak of hostilities in 1914, the German Foreign Minister had a chat with the Belgian ambassador to find out what the smaller country’s response would be if the Germans sent their armies through it to outflank the French. When the ambassador informed him the Belgians would resist to the best of their ability, the German FM declared this to be “the dreams of raging sheep” (I wonder what that would be in whatever language they were conversing in). Such is my reaction to Karzai’s threat. He can barely control Kabul with the considerable assistance is US and NATO troops, and he’s going to send whatever that passes for the Afghani army on a search and destroy mission in an area only nominally under Pakistani control?

76. Heather-Rose Ryan - 16 June 2008

74 – From the linked article: Just hours before his death on Friday, fresh off a plane from Rome

So did Russert get an audience with the Pope? I’m sure he tried his damndest.

77. Heather-Rose Ryan - 16 June 2008

Interesting:

It was back in April when Pope Benedict XVI came to Washington. The Rev. David O’Connell, the president of The Catholic University of America, was hosting the pope for a large meeting with bishops.

Before that meeting, the Vatican said O’Connell could invite 10 guests to a small session with Benedict. Tim Russert and I were the only journalists on that special guest list. We were both thrilled, but Tim, a devout Catholic with deep roots in the Church, was very excited.

While we were waiting for the pope to arrive, he was like a little boy. He had his rosaries in his hand, ready for the pope to bless them.

How very special.

I’d really like to know what he was doing in Rome.

78. JJB - 16 June 2008

No. 64,

The misogyny against Hillary in the press, mostly MSNBC and other cable news, but also on the op-ed page of The NYTimes, was blatant, and Frank Rich’s dismissal of it shows how embedded it is in our culture.

Who was the worst anti-Hillary voice on the NYT Op-Ed page, the one who stooped the lowest to smear her with every kind of nasty, sexist insult you could get away with printing in a newspaper not owned by Rupert Murdoch?

Maureen Dowd. She was at least as bad as Tweety Matthews, and didn’t have the excuse that she was babbling off the top of her head while on the air.

As to Rich, he’s primarily interested in providing cover for his fellow Times scribes.

FWIW, the last few months I’ve spent a lot of time around a number of young people, fellow cast members in a production of Julius Caesar that’s being done at DC’s Shakespeare Theatre Company. All of them are for Obama, including the women (not many admittedly, there are very few female roles in this play, although the large number of small parts and extras includes women). The only outfront Hillary supporter is a gay man in his late 60s.

79. lucid - 16 June 2008

re: “Social Liberals Fiscal Conservatives”

Bear in mind, this is exactly what Barry Goldwater was… Reagan wasn’t of the Goldwater mold, Ventura is.

And yeah ms_x, the first thing any responsible ‘fiscal conservative’ would do is to shut down the black hole at the center of the budget, namely the DOD. Beyond that? How about ending farm subsidies to ag business & energy subsidies to oil companies & … but no, it’s those damn ‘welfare queens’ driving cadillacs, buying plasma screens and popping out kids to line their pockets that are at the root of our fiscal woes…

80. marisacat - 16 June 2008

78

I wouldn’t necessarily expect young people to be supporting Hillary or McCain much, tho of course both had and have such supporters.

I know the media has centered on older wimmens [now painted as crazed hysterical and unhappy] for Hillary, but they all got some cross over. They center on their chosen story lines.

Rich has been a bitter old man for some years now. He was unable to even say Howard Dean’s name without his face congesting and beginning to stutter (the same was true of Ickes). Frankly he appears quite proprietary about Democratic voters. I see him as an official petting machine for flatulent liberals.

The games are so tired.

81. JJB - 16 June 2008

No. 79,

Barry Goldwater was most certainly not a social liberal during his political heyday. He allied himself with the Moral Majority types of the day, then personified by the loathsome Billy James Hargis. He helped to legitimize the most socially reactionary movements in the US. That he came later in life to regret this (after he lost his influence over the movement he started) and made his feelings public is admirable, but don’t let it blind you to what he was like when his influence was at its peak.

As to Ventura, he’s a clown.

82. marisacat - 16 June 2008

Russert=Big Catholic

From poking around that I did at the time of hte Roberts nom, Russert was well in with the DC Catholic cabal. Which of course is party-less. They answer to the US Bishops and to Rome.

Last I heard, a few years ago, she had not converted, but Mrs Poindexter, who used to be a Protestant minister, had cleaved to the DC Opus Dei group. she declared the Catholics to be “more obedient” than Protestants. What a shock.

Just utter creeps on the loose.

I would assume he had a private audience nay time he was in Rome.

83. lucid - 16 June 2008

JJB – while it is true that he became more ‘socially liberal’ with age, I think it is large part due to his recognition that religion was taking over the party, and recognized that groups he had once been involved with were very responsible for this. As far as I know he always supported abortion and and was out there with Gravel on gay rights already in the ’70’s. I am aware of his segregationist stance, which is, of course, inexcusable – as were most of his associations in the ’50’s/60’s.

The point that I was making though is that this ‘libertarian’ [i.e. social liberal/fiscal conservative] was perhaps the greatest cheerleader of the DOD, which, as we know, is the most fiscally irresponsible element of out government – and the biggest source of corporate welfare.

84. marisacat - 16 June 2008

Sorry!

H-RH comment at 66 languished in Moderation…

unless they have a sex change, and then they’re even lower down in the hierarchy

Yup… and last I read of it, don’t think it changed as it wound its way thru, the ENDA legislation, just skipped right over transgendered (of course iwth much hand wringing and wheezing). Seemed Barney Frank’s idea was that they’d get to them “later”.

So classic.

85. marisacat - 16 June 2008

LOL

But I thought we were to consider his most excellent campaign part of his resume. What a smushed together puff piece.

86. lucid - 16 June 2008

Far be it from me to try to rehabilitate Goldwater, but one more small point. If Goldwater had maintained a prominent role among national Republicans, the party wouldn’t have been taken over by evangelicals & Catholics and religious dead-enders would have either started a third party or ceased voting. Alas, now all mainstream political discourse in this country is governed by religion.

87. ms_xeno - 16 June 2008

hrh:

…So let me get this straight: women stop being women as soon as their “reproductive functions cease”?…

Oh, Christ on a fucking cracker, hrh. First you bring up Nader, which I did not, then you accuse me of supporting a sort of “goats’ dessert”* approach to reproductive rights, which I do not. Then you imply that I’m being (like a) racist, which I’m not, then you further imply that I’m claiming women stop being women when we reach menopause, which I did not. (Look, don’t use shit metaphors and then tell those who react to them that our reaction is shit, all right ?)

All because I don’t share your enthusiasm about Ventura, apparently.

You know what ? Let’s just agree not to talk about the Great Free Market God Jesse, then. Since apparently it’s impossible to do so without being cast into the pit of Bad Feminists[tm]. All right. I beg your fucking pardon. My lips will never utter his name again unless it is to fall on my knees and kiss his gold-plated libertarian-lite tootsies.

…What on earth are you talking about? What precious things have we been told to give up in order to retain our reproductive rights?…

Taken a good look at the Democratic platform in the last decade or so ? I have. No dismantling of the military machine, no single-payer, no social safety net worth shit, nothing beyond cursory attention to the environment, nothing but cursory attention to civil liberties, nothing but cosmetic attention to labor issues, etc etc etc.

Can you honestly tell me that women were not blackmailed into voting Democrat and that Roe was/is not the last, best bargaining chip the fuckers in charge have, and they will use it until such time as it is no longer useful to them ?

WTF ? >: If you haven’t seen this happening, including in Kosland, all I can say is that you’ve managed to miss something that’s staring a lot of us in the face, and has been for quite some time.
————————————-
*“goats’ dessert,” as described by the poet/essayist Albert Goldbarth. Two goats, each pulling at the opposite end of the same tidbit. Both starved to death because neither would let go.

IOW, a lose-lose situation.

88. Heather-Rose Ryan - 16 June 2008

81, JJB: As to Ventura, he’s a clown.

Actually, he’s not. He’s a smart guy (though he doesn’t look or talk like one) and he’s said some highly admirable, brave things.

In spite of my many disagreements with them, I’m beginning to think we’re probably better off with the small-government, separation-of-church-and-state, right-to-privacy libertarians of Ventura’s stripe than we are with the so-called “liberals”. The libertarians see women’s rights as part of the whole Enlightenment package – women as equal human beings. The liberals see the issue as centering on a special-interest group – women as a minority who should be catered to (when convenient, of course). When push comes to shove, the complaining women can easily be peeled off the herd and left for the wolves.

Also, too many of the so-called “liberals” are swayed by religious claptrap. Equality for women is not an ideal supported by any of our major religions.

89. ms_xeno - 16 June 2008

#79:

THANK YOU, lucid.

I suppose if anyone could sell the public a long-overdue reduction in military bloat, it would be a macho dude like J*ss* V*t*r*. Too bad he probably won’t be up for it.

90. ms_xeno - 16 June 2008

…The libertarians see women’s rights as part of the whole Enlightenment package – women as equal human beings…

I have encountered few libertarians that really seem to think this way. If they do, it’s generally through the prism of “I-Got-Mine,” etc. The ones who actually think the way you describe, like Arthur Silber, are pretty thin on the ground, at least around here. Hell, Silber doesn’t even call himself a libertarian anymore, now that I think about it.

91. JJB - 16 June 2008

lucid,

The only way the religious whackos could have been kept out of the GOP is if the Goldwater movement had never occurred. And nothing he could have said in the 1970s and 80s would have made any difference, he would have been ignored, ostracized, or pilloried just as surely as Nelson Rockefeller was had he taken an active role against them — which Goldwater didn’t, BTW, he shot his mouth off a few times, but made no attempt to prevent the Falwell/Robertson clique from becoming predominent other than that lip service.

The man became a national political figure largely due to the efforts of Bill Buckley. You don’t get any crazier than he was unless you’re living in a rubber room.

Speaking of Mad Barry, the man who came up with the anti-Goldwater “Daisy Ad” has died:

Tony Schwartz, a self-taught, sought-after and highly reclusive media consultant who helped create what is generally considered to be the most famous political ad to appear on television, died Saturday at his home in Manhattan. He was 84.

[snip]

Of the thousands of television and radio advertisements on which Mr. Schwartz worked, none is as well known, or as controversial, as one that was broadcast exactly once: the so-called “daisy ad,” made for Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidential campaign in 1964.. . . [T]he minutelong spot was broadcast on Sept. 7, 1964, during NBC’s “Monday Night at the Movies.” It showed a little girl in a meadow (in reality a Manhattan park), counting aloud as she plucks the petals from a daisy. Her voice dissolves into a man’s voice counting downward, followed by the image of an atomic blast.. . . Though the name of Johnson’s opponent, Senator Barry M. Goldwater, was never mentioned, Goldwater’s campaign objected strenuously to the ad. So did many members of the public, Republicans and Democrats alike. The spot was pulled from the air after a single commercial showing, but it had done its work: with its dire implications about Goldwater and nuclear responsibility, the daisy ad was generally credited with contributing to Johnson’s victory at the polls in November. It was also credited with heralding the start of ferociously negative political advertising in the United States.

I never understood how anybody could have objected to the ad, given that Goldwater often spoke about using nuclear weapons very casually, almost callously. Here is Goldwater talking to ABC’s Howard K. Smith in May 1964:

Defoliation of the forests [of Vietnam] by low-yield atomic weapons could well be done. When you remove the foliage, you remove the cover. We might have to (take action against China). Either that, or we have a war dragged out and dragged out. a defensive war is never won. If we decide to go into this war in a full-scale way, certainly we would have to make the decision on strategic supplies for the enemy at the same time.

If anything, the Daisy Ad was a remarkably restrained bit of political advertising.

92. Heather-Rose Ryan - 16 June 2008

89- I have encountered few libertarians that really seem to think this way. If they do, it’s generally through the prism of “I-Got-Mine,” etc.

Better that than the “Let Me Impose My Religious Bullshit On You Under the Guise of ‘Morality'” routine.

93. JJB - 16 June 2008

Comment in moderation.

As an addendum to that comment, please note that the BG quote re defoliating Vietnam with nuclear weapons was made a year before we had combat brigades taking part in the hostilities. The war at that point was still a relatively low-intensity conflict in which very few American troops very involved.

94. marisacat - 16 June 2008

sorry… ms xeno at 87 out of moderation.

Sometimes the poster can see a comment that tells me it is in Moderation… I think sometimes I get cued some comment is in Moderation, that never was, but nonetheless…

The comment is out of the closet!

95. marisacat - 16 June 2008

Nobody is going to cut the MIC/DOD money. Nobody.

They’d be hauled off stage and, quite seriously, killed.

The objective for cutting “bloat” is entitlements. About to bleed heavily, no matter who goes in.

96. JJB - 16 June 2008

88.

Yeah, we need a whole slew of Jesse Ventura’s running the world for us . . .

Personally, I’m hoping Hulk Hogan and The Rock get into politics. We need more egotistical steroid freaks in public life. The public discourse can never be too brain dead, after all.

97. lucid - 16 June 2008

In spite of my many disagreements with them, I’m beginning to think we’re probably better off with the small-government, separation-of-church-and-state, right-to-privacy libertarians

Green Party key value #5:

5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

One doesn’t need to support the free marketeers to get a ‘small government’ vision. In fact, the free marketeers prefer government bloat because all that corporate welfare is the only thing keeping up the illusion that capitalism works…

98. lucid - 16 June 2008

Personally, I’m hoping Hulk Hogan and The Rock get into politics

The Rock introduced GWB at the GOP convention in 2000.

99. ms_xeno - 16 June 2008

hrh, #92:

…Better that than the “Let Me Impose My Religious Bullshit On You Under the Guise of ‘Morality’” routine…

I’m not convinced that the worship of God and the worship of the Free Market are mutually exclusive. 😦

I’m also not convinced that there’s anything in the history of small, locally-focused communities that makes them inherently less likely to fall under the sway of an extreme top-down religious faith and then to lash viciously out at those unwilling to adhere to it. The American Puritans , anyone ? (Remember what happened to Anne Hutchinson when she pissed off her god-fearin’ Daddies ?)

I like you, too, hrh. For whatever thats worth. I like a lot of what CERTAIN libertarians have to say. It may very well be that with the collapse of the country and whatever still remains of its public structures, millions of us will become default libertarians because we have no fucking choice. But color me not quite ready to willingly embrace the whole damn ball of wax just yet. All right ?

100. marisacat - 16 June 2008

LOL Doug Kmeic on the religious faithful and clerics meeting with ObamaRama last week (or the week before, time flies when… etc):

[T]he discussion dwelt at some length on abortion. Obama said he earnestly wants to “discourage” the practice—despite the distortions of some who think if they affix the “pro-abortion—won’t overturn-Roe-label” to the senator, pro-lifers like myself won’t give him the time of day. Sorry, good friends, not this year.

Not to understand that there is more than one rather indirect and elusive judicial way to address an intrinsic evil understates the ingenuity of the devout. Describing the abortion decision as a “difficult, deeply moral one,” Obama sees it as one only the woman can make. Unless her choice affirms life that is not my Catholic view, and I told him so. But disagreement or not, it is abundantly clear from our conversation that Obama shares a common aspiration to reduce the incidence of abortion.

How? Obama is committed to encouraging “responsible sexual behavior,” discouraging unwanted pregnancies, promoting adoption as a more viable, affordable and appealing option than it presently is, and putting off limits in a manner consistent with the law as the justices see it, late-term abortion. Obama will not exclude abortion from medical coverage to fulfill a health exception “rigorously defined.”

This replays where we disagree, but the meeting, itself, keeps revealing his appreciation for both the significance of faith and faith differences and an open mind sensitive to the need to protect religious freedom. ::snip::

In “faith” and faith DEALING, we shall drown.

101. JJB - 16 June 2008

Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

Yeah, good luck with that. Historians of the civil rights movement will show you how well that worked out.

BTW, nothing is more easy to steal than the local tax revenues. Hardly anybody pays attention to big political/economic issues, but absolutely no one whatsoever pays attention to local ones, except the people who want to stuff their pockets.

102. ms_xeno - 16 June 2008

#94:

Thanks, Mcat.

#97:

[passes lucid the cookies]

103. moiv - 16 June 2008

75

JJB, this latest development is sounding like a remake of “The Wind and the Lion,” updated with nukes.

________________________

Speaking of things Catholic, did anybody else see this quote from Bush’s Vatican picnic (which appears in several Asian media outlets and The Scotsman, but doesn’t seem to have made it past the editors in stories posted for domestic consumption)?

Under tight security, Bush was driven from the bustle of Rome into the idyllic setting. As birds chirped, the two entered a restored medieval tower and held 30 minutes of private talks.

“Such an honor, such an honor,” Bush said to the pope.

After the meeting in the tower, they stood on a terrace to take in the view of 44 hectares (108 acres) of manicured gardens, buildings, ancient walls and St Peter’s Basilica that make up Vatican City.

Bush asked: “How big is it?” A Vatican aide responded: “Not quite as big as Texas.” Bush then said: “Yes but more important … this is spectacular.”

So much for our Commander-in-Chief’s single-minded devotion to The Homeland.

104. Heather-Rose Ryan - 16 June 2008

96 – Yeah, we need a whole slew of Jesse Ventura’s running the world for us . . .

Yeah, in fact, we do. He’s quite sensible on many points. It’s a sad commentary on our society that a self-taught pro wrestler knows more about Enlightenment principles than supposed intellectuals with advanced degrees from Ivy League schools.

It sucks that they’re the ones droning on about bringing religion back into American life, etc. and he’s the one educated and forthright enough to say it has no place in our politics.

105. lucid - 16 June 2008

JJB – one of the most important things that resonated with the Nader Green campaign for me in 2000 was his insistence on resurrecting civics – making a rebirth of civics an essential component of public education. By the time I went to High School, all ‘social studies’ classes were taught by coaches who were woefully incapable of investing the students in what they were supposed to be learning. There are several generations of people now, who no longer care about government or the laws under which they live, because we [probably purposefully] gave up on teaching our kids to be the watchdog of government.

I think it can work – certainly not now, but perhaps with some elbow grease and hard work.

106. CSTAR - 16 June 2008

100.

“difficult, deeply moral”… well, despite my belief in the principle of Charity in judging statements, I find this particular one shows a certain lack of moral sense.

(a) Why is it “deep”? How do we determine the profundity of a moral issue? Is the abortion issue more profound than others, such as maintaining a semblance of fairness in the tax system, or a semblance of fairness in how risks (financial, health, natural) are shared among citizens within and across borders?

(b) We should all be very uneasy about this particular kind of moralization of political language.

One comment about Obama’s speaking qualities. I for one am not impressed, and am utterly baffled by what seems to be widespread claims of his great speaking capabilities. I think Hugo Chavez gives better speeches actually (no endorsement meant).

107. Heather-Rose Ryan - 16 June 2008

Kmiec:

keeps revealing his appreciation for both the significance of faith and faith differences and an open mind sensitive to the need to protect religious freedom.

What ridiculous bizarre doublethink! Forcing religious views on people who don’t want them is “protecting religious freedom” and “appreciating faith differences”?

Because Kmiec feels I don’t have the right to defy Catholic doctrine and abort a fetus, even though I’m not and have never been a Catholic, somehow I’m fucking up HIS religious freedom?

They are out of their tiny sheeplike minds.

With people like that creeping up in the power structure, we are entering a new Dark Age.

108. Heather-Rose Ryan - 16 June 2008

105: One comment about Obama’s speaking qualities. I for one am not impressed, and am utterly baffled by what seems to be widespread claims of his great speaking capabilities.

I suspect what they mean is that he has a nice, soothing, deep voice, which he does. And he can put words together in impressive-sounding sentences. But in terms of content, I agree with you, there isn’t much “there” there.

109. marisacat - 16 June 2008

One comment about Obama’s speaking qualities. I for one am not impressed, and am utterly baffled by what seems to be widespread claims of his great speaking capabilities.

yes I agree.. and off the cuff or minus the prompters his language and syntax are just mush. Appallingly so. Messy speaking style. Both he and his wife. So much AGAIN for so called top shelf education. Go stand with Bush and Kerry (what a painful election season that was!).

I wish him luck. He’ll need that more than religious faith.

110. marisacat - 16 June 2008

moiv at 103 out of Spam!

Sorry!!

111. marisacat - 16 June 2008

103

I am reminded that a few years ago Lord and Lady Bush attended High Mass at St Peter’s, forget the reason for the Mass… as they walked in, Laura with a doily of a lace bit perched on her head (personally I’d go for the full mantilla look at that point!)… STARED UP AT THE CEILING..

I cringed.

112. lucid - 16 June 2008

Obama is a terrible speaker. The only thing he’s mastered is how to raise and lower his voice to evoke emoticons…

Mcat – I’ve never had much regard for an ivy education. For the most part only lazy aristocrats are allowed in with some token working class and people of color for diversity. And honestly, most of the good undergraduate faculty out there are at small liberal arts schools & the academic stars only teach grad classes.

113. JJB - 16 June 2008

moiv, no. 103,

Ah, The Wind And The Lion! Gerry Ford watched that movie before initiating the disastrous Mayaguez rescue attempt. Maybe someone should have told him about the actual incident on which that film was based. The hostages (there were two of them) kidnapped by the nomadic chieftain were both male, an American who’d renounced his citizenship and his British stepson. The former ended up becoming friends with his kidnapper. Neither resembled Candice Bergen. Teddy Roosevelt’s extraordinary overreaction to this incident included a demand that Morrocco’s sultan, who was fighting against the kidnapper’s tribe, give in to the chieftain’s demands, i.e., negotiate with someone who would today be called a terrorist and placate him, and sent a large fleet and a number of Marine detachments to sit in the waters off Tangier and sit and do nothing. It’s actually not unlike the Iran/contra deal, which was at least in part intended to get Western hostages being held in Beirut released. Needless to say, much bellicose rhetoric was spouted by the Roosevelt administration (it was an election year and Teddy wasn’t at all sure he’d be renominated, especially if he was perceived as being weak), the affair was settled by quiet diplomacy undertaken by the French and British.

hrh, no. 104,

It’s a sad commentary on our society that a self-taught pro wrestler knows more about Enlightenment principles than supposed intellectuals with advanced degrees from Ivy League schools.

It sucks that they’re the ones droning on about bringing religion back into American life, etc. and he’s the one educated and forthright enough to say it has no place in our politics.

Well, that’s undeniably true. It doesn’t make Ventura any less of a narcissistic blowhard, though.

114. Heather-Rose Ryan - 16 June 2008

JJB – Can you name anyone in the recent crop of candidates who isn’t a narcissistic blowhard?

115. marisacat - 16 June 2008

112

too twu too often.

They all feel they do not need rhetoric and public speaking. They all do.

I came across a report a few weeks ago, forget where, that Obama took tapes with him to Harvard of Wright’s speeches. Homilies, sermons, what ever it is that they are!, to study. And would address some sort of interfaith group he hooked up with… then when back at Trinity could be seen taking notes on the speechifying, using the weekly newsletter as notepaper.

Save me.

116. JJB - 16 June 2008

lucid, no. 105,

At this point, our political system is broken. Whether beyond repair or nor, I don’t know, but I’d much prefer a parliamentary system with a unicameral legislature.

As to Nader in 2000 and resurrecting civics, he might have given some effort to actually joining the political party that gave him its ballot line and organizational power (such as it was), and helping to turn it into a credible political force. Nader hates the very notion of political parties and politics itself, so he’s a poor spokesperson for that sort of thing in the first place. Government by lawsuit is more his thing. As it was, his candidacy on their ballot was an instance of political starf***ing that set the Green Party back quite a few years. They may never recover. Of course their primary slogan of “Help Us Get 5% of the Vote So We Can Qualify For Federal Matching Funds!” wasn’t either the most inspiring or politically smart theme to campaign under.

117. JJB - 16 June 2008

114, hrh,

As Roger Mudd once said w/r/t Everett Dirksen (circa 1967), “the Senate is full of prima donnas, some more prima than others.” Does that mean there was no essential difference between Dirksen and Strom Thurmond on the one hand, and RFK and George McGovern on the other?

Ventura was and remains a jerk.

118. marisacat - 16 June 2008
119. marisacat - 16 June 2008

At this point, our political system is broken. Whether beyond repair or nor, I don’t know, but I’d much prefer a parliamentary system with a unicameral legislature.

Yup… and off season when he is not busy being a near mindless blowhard for the party Henrik Hertzberg has been interesting on how fucking screwed we are, and how far back it goes (obviously all the way). He is not the only one, but he comes to mind, at the moment.

120. lucid - 16 June 2008

point taken on Nader particularly, but it’s the theme I like more than the personality or the aftermath of that run. [As for the Greens, I been utterly frustrated with them at a party level, seeing as how even though I am a registered, donating party member, they still can’t figure out how to contact me about anything… I mean it’s not like I have an unlisted number & I can guarantee you that I’m the only person with my name in the NYC phonebook – and perhaps the entire country].

However, none of these points really addresses the relationship between a less centralized government & the restoration of the public square. I tend towards the MitM/Mcat school of ‘we’re beyond screw’d’, but if there is any glimmer of hope for a way out, I think it is in that direction… and if we are indeed screw’d, it’d be best to start thinking along those lines to help organize what emerges from the ashes.

121. JJB - 16 June 2008

This article sure is interesting for all sorts of the reasons the writer never intended:

Alison Mitchell, now an editor at The New York Times, covered Albany at the time for Newsday and recalled when Mr. Russert dispatched a state trooper to evict her from outside the governor’s office on the second floor of the State Capitol. She had been staking out Mr. Cuomo there late in the night in hopes of asking him a question as a deadline for a policy decision loomed, a common practice for reporters at the time. She said that years later, after he had crossed to the journalist side of the line, she and Mr. Russert laughed about the incident when she brought it up.

I wonder if Mike Wallace ever sat down with Mayor Daley and had a good laugh about the time he had his cops manhandle Wallace and eject him from the convention hall in 1968?

122. ms_xeno - 16 June 2008

#116:

…As it was, his candidacy on their ballot was an instance of political starf***ing that set the Green Party back quite a few years. They may never recover…

Bullshit.

Millions of Americans would never have learned of the Green Party’s existence without Nader’s run in 2000. Hell, the media has disappeared further up its own ass in the last eight years, if that’s possible. Millions of Americans would still be waiting.

Nader is not perfect, but much of the GP’s problems are self-inflicted, and even more are the inevitable consequence of our fuckered political system and even more fuckered media. The tragedy to me is the high degree to which much of Blogland merrily imitates the worst blind spots and excesses of mainstream media– including the fatuous “show-me” games regarding 3rd parties and/or structural reform.

123. JJB - 16 June 2008

lucid, no. 120,

The US under the Articles of Confederation, and the short-lived Confederate States of America, offer depressing precedents for that sort of thing. The only course of action I can see w/r/t to decentralization is breaking up the US as presently constituted into a number of much smaller, independent nations. Actually, that appeals to me even more than a parliamentary system in the abstract, but as a practical matter, it’s liable to inspire a great deal of bloodshed.

124. ms_xeno - 16 June 2008

…“Help Us Get 5% of the Vote So We Can Qualify For Federal Matching Funds!” wasn’t either the most inspiring or politically smart theme to campaign under…

P.S.– Grumbling about how the usual candidates/parties have nothing to feed us but candy and then grumbling again when someone else offers something other than candy a bit puzzling to me, frankly. If you don’t want candy but you don’t want substance, then what DO you want ?

The thought of another party just maybe getting enough blood pumped into it to MAYBE compete in the national arena was plenty inspiring to me, personally. Of course, I also read the fucking platform, which I guess is beyond a lot of folks out there. Present company excepted, of course.

125. lucid - 16 June 2008

Actually, that appeals to me even more than a parliamentary system in the abstract, but as a practical matter, it’s liable to inspire a great deal of bloodshed.

If we continue along the present course, I think it’s an inevitability, for better or for worse.

126. JJB - 16 June 2008

122, ms. xeno,

Millions of Americans would never have learned of the Green Party’s existence without Nader’s run in 2000.

Even if that’s true, and I am not inclined to agree, the Green Party would have been much better off without the notice. They failed to get anywhere near the number of votes they sought, and angered and embittered tens of millions of people who might otherwise have been sympathetic to them. Whether people are right to feel that way is another matter. But denying the 2000 election was a disaster for the Green Party is to refuse to acknowledge reality.

127. marisacat - 16 June 2008

a thread and a bit…

LINK

………………… 8)

128. CSTAR - 16 June 2008

118

Thanks for the link.

129. JJB - 16 June 2008

Grumbling about how the usual candidates/parties have nothing to feed us but candy and then grumbling again when someone else offers something other than candy a bit puzzling to me, frankly.

And when the alternative to candy is raw acorns? 🙂

Anyway, you’ve missed the point. Arguing “vote for us so we can get money to perpetuate ourselves at taxpayer expense!” is not a winning slogan in this country, or any other one that I’m aware of. That was what the Greens were pushing harder than anything else in 2000. And anyone who thinks that a party platform is a blueprint for what’s going to be done if a party actually finds itself in power is, to put it mildly, misinformed. FDR berated Hoover for increasing federal spending in 1932.

130. ms_xeno - 16 June 2008

…But denying the 2000 election was a disaster for the Green Party is to refuse to acknowledge reality…

Your reality, JJB. Not mine.

I am not yoked to Nader, despite a lot of bloggers’ poor listening skills on that particular matter. Neither are the Greens, and if Cobb hadn’t been so obsessed with playing kiss-kiss with Kerry, I would have taken them more seriously than I did in 2004.

Just what in the climate of the time makes you think that that GP could have hoped for anything more than perpetual disappearance had they not had a national run with some kind of prominent figure at the helm. I have never, for one minute, had any sympathy for the idea that a national run OR a local run is the correct way to build a political party. Under the current system, it’s absurd to choose one. You need both if anyone’s going to hear you.

I don’t cast aside an entire political philosophy because of a single person’s fuck-ups. I didn’t stop voting Democrat because Clinton I, Gore, Kerry, Clinton II, or Obama had particular failings unique to them. I stopped voting because their failings ARE, en masse, the failings of the party and the system itself.

There are plenty of Greens who repudiated Nader and repudiated his tactics. I don’t see why the GP should be made to apologize for him for the next century. It’s absurd.

131. marisacat - 16 June 2008

123

I agree.. a friend in the late 80s brought me an edition of… I think The Atlantic with some thoughts and maps on regions, regional break up, regional interests… Some respect to actual geography and local interests.

It was a nice mental exercise at the time… but when ever it comes, I think more and more at some point it happens.

We are headed for some blood shed I think… we have shed so much fo the world’s and been so snotty about others’ divisions, borders and civil wars… seems inevitable we get caught in it…

132. ms_xeno - 16 June 2008

…Arguing “vote for us so we can get money to perpetuate ourselves at taxpayer expense!” is not a winning slogan in this country, or any other one that I’m aware of. That was what the Greens were pushing harder than anything else in 2000.

Maybe that’s all you heard. I’m not convinced that’s all everybody else heard.

I don’t honestly think that if the Greens dug up somebody who could woo crowds with the honeyed tones of Obama, it would score them any points with their detractors. The complaint would just change from “You’re boring/pedantic” to “You’re full of vague promises that don’t tell me anything about you.”

…And anyone who thinks that a party platform is a blueprint for what’s going to be done if a party actually finds itself in power is, to put it mildly, misinformed. FDR berated Hoover for increasing federal spending in 1932…

Ummm… What ?
So because of FDR and Hoover I should just forget about researching a party’s platform and just go with whoever’s tallest and cutest ?

Oh-KAY.

[puzzles]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: