|
Congress 
Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 18:45:18 PDT
|
|
After the mess of the Bush years and the Republican idiocy in Congress, it's hard to imagine a situation in which a progressive would really, strongly support a Republican. But today is the day for me.
Murray Hill is just more than the typical candidate. Murray Hill represents something more than anyone could hope to represent. Young, an interesting background, and new to politics - these days, who wants to reelect an incumbent?
If you're not convinced, join me below the fold. I think even the most partisan Democrats out there will be convinced that Murray Hill is a great candidate.
|
|
There's More...
:: (37
Comments, 297 words in story)
|
|
Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 17:17:22 PST
|
|
Today in America there is a big and under-reported issue. There are actually people out there, some of them unbelievably in Congress, crazy enough to challenge that great American institution, the military industrial complex. Who doesn't love Halliburton? Or Dick Cheney? Or the Iraq War? Or useless projects that do nothing more than enrich and empower an already powerful and rich elite?
I'll tell you who. 65 good for nothin' Congresspeople. They're the ones who today voted against a symbolic resolution to get our troops out of Afghanistan.
Now, cutting the snark, so many of the other 356 don't even have the gall to vote against a symbolic resolution to end a war! I understand that some people honestly support it, but when less than half of the country supports the war in Afghanistan, it's a bad sign that all of these Congresspeople still do:
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 1399 words in story)
|
|
Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:30:08 PST
|
(10 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
Representative Tom Perriello (D-VA-5) was one of the first candidates to make the Energy Smart list. Yesterday, not for the first time, he provided a clear statement as to why he merited and continues to merit a prominent position in the 'must support' list for anyone concerned about fostering a prosperous and secure America future.
Interviewed by David Roberts, Grist, Perriello spoke strongly about the imperative for better energy policy, including the necessity of putting a price on carbon. While too many in the Commonwealth are flaunting their anti-science syndrome credentials, Perriello is speaking forthrightly and directly. His narrow victory in 2008 has him in the Republican cross hairs for defeat this November but Perriello doesn't speak directly -- he speaks with great integrity and from principle. That characteristic, of having the courage of convictions and being able to speak coherently about them, goes a long way with voters who might disagree in a specific case but who respect a clear-speaking politician with principles.
And, Tom's words about the Senate-House relationship -- his direct and strong words -- merit attention, echoing, and applause.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 734 words in story)
|
|
Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 12:12:21 PST
|
|
So I was sitting around my house today, putting off doing my Latin homework, when it hit me - instead of just opening the fridge a dozen times and checking my facebook a hundred times, I could be putting this time to good use! And I did. I started doing some online phonebanking for Marcy Winograd's campaign for Congress in California's 36th district.
If you're bored, feeling helpless and alone amidst a sea of political currents fighting against you, excited about the upcoming primaries and election, overcome with energy you need to spend on something, or feeling any other emotion, this is for you! Marcy has been a member of the Netroots for years and is a firebrand progressive. Since she's running against a corrupt Blue Dog (Jane Harman), this is one of the best races in the country for progressives to get involved in.
I live in Pennsylvania, yet I'm still able to help Marcy's campaign, because of a neat online phonebanking tool that has been set up. Follow me below the fold to learn how you can help, too.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 370 words in story)
|
|
Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 14:37:23 PST
|
(9 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
People Are Hurting, People Are Angry.........How do we "whip up the level of outrage" to get action? It Is Time to get Congress to fall in line.
Someday people are not going to take it anymore, but when? How to deal with the robber barons, the horse thieves, those who caused the melt down, or those who enabled it, whether on Wall St or in Congress?
How to restore trust in our system, to institute reform, to pass new regulations, institute new laws?
Since September 2008, trillions out to save Wall St. in addition to the Bail-out, and what new laws have been passed?
We are all on to the Wall Streeters, but it seems Congress is missing in action.
People protesting as they are losing jobs, health care, farms, losing homes, savings, businesses, more homeless on our streets, and yet Wall St. floods Congress with money, fighting bank reform.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 732 words in story)
|
|
Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 13:10:30 PST
|
|
Democratic Congressman John Murtha of Johnstown,Pennsylvania, age 77, has just passed away early this afternoon in Arlington, VA, following complications from gall bladder surgery he had earlier.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Murtha, a Vietnam era Marine veteran who was recently best known for being one of the first more "establishment type" Democrats to have enough cajones to criticize President George W. Bush on his Iraq war policy. Murtha was Chairman of the House Appropriations Sub Committee on Defense. He served in Congress from 1974 to 2010. In November of 2005, Murtha, who had visited many injured troops at Bethesda's military hospital, whose suffering made a deep impression on him, submitted a resolution in Congress calling for the redeployment of US troops in Iraq.
"The United States cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq, militarily. It is time to bring them home. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... This statement set off a MSM Faux Outrage Conservative Shitstorm, and helped push some of the nation out of its complacent stupor on Bush's war in the Middle East.
Altho Murtha was pro- life, he came at it from a respectable viewpoint, in that he was politically liberal on many other issues such as labor and civil rights. Considering his district was conservative western Pennsylvania, which can be been rather "redneck" (Murtha himself used that gloriously un P.C. term to describe some of the less than socially progressive attitudes of some of his district's residents), he was a leader.
Murtha is survived by his wife, Joyce, and 3 children, John, Patrick, and Donna, and 3 grandchildren.
May the road rise up to meet you. May the wind be always at your back. And may you find yourself in heaven, 5 minutes before the Devil knows you're gone. RIP, John Murtha
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 10:19:50 PST
|
Crossposted at Daily Kos
At a DNC fundraiser last night, President Obama had an interesting exchange with a Democratic organizer about health care reform, wherein he appeared to suggest that Congress could drop the ball and fail to pass a bill--and that voters should judge them harshly if they do.
"[I]t may be that -- you know, if Congress decides -- if Congress decides we're not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not," Obama said.
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com
More below the fold
|
|
There's More...
:: (36
Comments, 857 words in story)
|
|
Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 06:48:30 PST
|
|
As proposed while still a candidate, President Obama's version of bipartisanship envisioned a kind of Utopian ideal where reaching across the aisle would be a frequent gesture, not just an occasional product of odd bedfellows. My own interpretation of the concept is not nearly so pie-in-the-sky as much as it is practical in theory. Of course, I never expect to see it implemented because legislators hardly ever do anything practical these days, in theory or not. My modest proposal would seek to level the playing field between parties, particularly on a state-by-state basis, since even though running up the score might be satisfying to some, everyone at heart loves a close game. True party parity would certainly strike fear into the lovers of the status quo and the current office holders themselves, but the past several months have proven to me that many of the current batch of bumbling idiots are long past their shelf life and need to be thrown out altogether.
Though a handful of so-called purple states exist in this country, most states give primary allegiance to either one party or the other. As we know, the South is usually reliably GOP by default and the Northeast usually Democratic. I recognize that due to recent electoral decisions we know that this is not always the case, but taking into account the whole picture, this statement is largely accurate. The battles we fight with each other these days are partially a result of how we have dug in, trench warfare style, facing across an literally invisible, but still nonetheless highly perceptible partition. Purple states are certainly more prevalent now than at any other time before in our history, but their development is relatively slow and since government is indebted most strongly to historical precedent, particular when one observes the tortured and convoluted congressional and state districting schemes, the blue state/red state divide is still very much with us. Indeed, I cannot for the life of me envision a point where it will give way to something else altogether, though I would certainly rejoice if it were.
When any region or state calcifies around a particular party allegiance, competition for available seats is minimal and new blood rarely gets the chance to serve the people. In both red and blue states, running for elective office often requires one to wait for an existing Representative or Senator to die, whether they be in the State legislature or the U.S. Congress. While I of course recognize that my allegiance to the Democratic party is paramount in my affections, I also know that true democracy rarely makes any headway with de facto lifetime appointments of any legislative body. That sort of arrangement is for something else altogether and if we are to preserve the checks and balances of our Founders, we would be wise to start here. The bipartisanship I strive for would be something close to equality between each state party in representation, redistricting, and in funds. Even putting one of these proposals into effect would make a difference. To be sure, I don't deceive myself. This would face stiff opposition from all sides and even if it were seriously considered, likely not much would come of it. Still, we need to at least contemplate resolutions like this, even if they may not be workable in reality because they are the only way we're going to be able to begin to get the system to work for us, not against us from here on out.
One of the many ironies is that one would think that Republicans would embrace this plan, since it falls in line with their pro-private sector, pro-capitalist ideal. In a pure, unadulterated capitalist system, competition and innovation is essential to the success of the market and the economy. What's good for the goose must surely be good for the gander. Surely the GOP couldn't find much objectionable in this, my most modest proposal. Even so, many entrenched GOP movers and shakers would counter this suggestion by substituting term limits instead. To me, however, term limits would be a poor substitute and be far from effective, which is why I have always opposed them outright. If one never changes the political landscape of a state or a region, all term limits would really do is hand the baton off to another person of the same stripes and ideological identification. In that case it would merely be the latest example of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
If we really could manage something close to legislative and party parity, then it would be much easier to hold the feet of politicians to the fire. Certainly they would have to worry more about losing their seat and undeniably they would need to pay closer attention to constituent needs, but I don't think either of those outcomes are a bad thing. As it stands now, we have a still-majority, veteran Democratic caucus in the Senate who seem quite content to place its own needs and priorities above those of the average American citizen. If every Representative or Senator, regardless of party, recognized that unless Congress or any state legislative body produced clear cut legislative success that they were likely to no longer have a seat, then I daresay we probably would see some real reforms for a change. If members of both parties had to fear being booted out on not just or or two but every election cycle, we wouldn't see a constant tit-for-tat between Republicans and Democrats, nor any of these exasperating back and forth power swaps whereby the party in power obtains majority status purely by capitalizing on the mistakes of the opposite party, not by actually doing anything to win control based on merit. A drawback in this system would be that it would be easier for competent elected representatives to be swept out based on the irrational demands of an angry electorate, one much like the Tea Party members prevalent now, but much of life is some combination of luck and chance and why should politics be any different?
If we are a massively diverse plurality society of differing and competing points of view, I see more, not less gridlock and more demoralizing legislative defeats in our future. Arguably a lack of across-the-board equality in so many different areas is responsible for everything from crime to bigotry. We have underscored and articulated the problem time and time again and have gotten no further to really going after the real causes. Doing so would require unselfishness and sacrifice, of course, two qualities that are always in short supply. But what I do know is that we can't keep doing the same thing we've always done and expect a different result. I do believe in the power of reform, but I do also recognize how change often is a product of desperation and last-ditch-effort; I don't want things to get that bad before we really act. I'm not sure how much more dysfunctional our government needs to get before we adopt new strategies that will return power to the hands of an informed citizenry. The system failed us, certainly, but we are supposed to be the ones whose active hand in the proceedings puts us and everyone back on course. How we do it is not nearly as important as when we do it. I hope that day is soon.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 12:00:14 PST
|
( - promoted by buhdydharma )
If Dr. King hadn't been assassinated for speaking truth to power, if he was here today, if he was at the Lincoln Memorial again, looking out at that corporate capital of deceit and corruption, what would he say, what would he ask us to do?
He'd ask us to overcome our fear, he'd call for mass protests and civil disobedience, he'd explain why it's necessary, just as he did in 1968 . . .
If you have never found something so dear and precious to you that you would die for it, then you are not fit to live. You may be 38 years old, as I happen to be, and one day some great crisis arises and calls upon you to stand for some great principle, some great issue, some great cause, but you refuse to take a stand because you are afraid.
You refuse to do it because you want to live longer. Or you're afraid that you will lose your job, or that you will be criticized, or that you will lose your popularity. So you refuse to take a stand. Well you may go on and live until you're 90, but you are just as dead at 38 as you will be at 90. And when you take your last breath, it will only be the belated announcement of the earlier death of your spirit.
You died when you refused to stand up for right.
You died when you refused to stand up for truth.
You died when you refused to stand up for justice.
Can you understand that, "leaders" of the Netroots? Can you understand that, Markos Moulitsas? Can you understand that, Obamacrats? Tap your TR trigger fingers on the lid of that coffin you call a blog if you do. Can you understand that, MoveOn.org? Can you understand that, Josh Marshall? John Amato? Digby? Jane Hamsher? If you do, explain it to TBogg, that Mighty Slayer of "Purists." How about you, Madame Proprietor of the Huff and Puff Post? Can you understand that? Can any of you understand that???
None of you have called for mass protests or civil disobedience. In the streets of Washington D.C. or anywhere else. You refuse to because you're afraid. Well go ahead, keep on blogging until you're 90, it won't matter, you're just as dead right now as you will be then.
You died when you refused to stand up for right.
You died when you refused to stand up for truth.
You died when you refused to stand up for justice.
Welcome to Netroots Nation . . .
Enjoy your stay.
I have some news for those nonstop typers. Typing isn't standing up for right, truth, justice, or anything else. It's just typing.
|
|
There's More...
:: (57
Comments, 809 words in story)
|
|
Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:08:19 PST
|
|
What I have noticed recently in conversation with others is that a "throw the bums out" attitude has been vocalized with greater frequency and with a growing volume. While it is still not the majority opinion, since many cling to a belief that the Democrats in Congress will eventually get their act together, assuming Health Care legislation stalls and dies, even the run-of-the-mill Democratic voter will not reward them for their incompetent approach. He or she is likely to vote Republican, to contemplate third party options by means of protest, or to stay home on Election Day. Cautious and often skeptical attitudes have proven the most helpful as the best means of dealing with such a rude and abrupt reality check, though my sympathies mainly go out to the true believers and trusting optimists now in a state of shock. Those who are never satisfied with any resolution and cast dispersions so as never to have to experience the pain of disappointment will always come out of the woodwork in times such as these, but theirs is an especially hollow victory.
One couldn't completely remove all the current available legislators from office and replace them with new faces in one election cycle, of course. Even if such a thing were technically possible, the existing system is too complex and convoluted; as such there is a need for at least a majority of veteran lawmakers who know where all the bones are buried. A populist response that vocalizes a complete frustration with the status quo needs to be tempered with the reality of the framework which which we have to work. There will always be a need for real change, but radical strategies rarely produce lasting benefits. I have always found it deeply ironic that for all of the effort expended in the radical Jacobin phase of the French Revolution, arguably the only real lasting and permanent measure that has stood the test of time is the Metric system.
We know now that progress often is delayed and stymied by a me-centric attitude of simple selfishness and with it pandering to financial gain and political advantage. We saw it this summer in the hordes of Town Hall Forum fanatics screaming and gyrating that no one was going to take away their coverage or put the government in charge of their health. Though it is certainly true that without health and well-being, no other life goal or ambition can be accomplished easily and sometimes at all, in this case many voices were afraid of losing the right to instant gratification and immediate care. Those who have faced a more than thirty-minute wait at a walk-in urgent care center and have disgustedly strode out the door are the perfect example of this way of thinking. Those who get a second or third opinion and cherry pick the diagnosis that best agrees with their sensibilities underscore my larger point. By contrast, the low-income government plan that I have no choice but to use schedules appointments for GPs four and five weeks out, and even urgent care clinics don't accept my coverage, but the reality of it is that it doesn't have to be this way. It doesn't have to be this incompetently managed and poorly networked. Most people wouldn't stand for it if this was their situation, and when enough people raise enough a stink, politicians are forced to take note. How they respond, of course, can never be predicted ahead of time.
I suppose at this point I could point the finger of blame towards some generational mindset or cultural deficiency, but that would be too fatuous a comparison and too easy an argument. It is true that we are beholden to an insistence that certain privileges ought to be within our birthright purview; this mentality can be observed in the decision making and consensus building process of Senators and Representatives. Many excuse their own selfish demands by stating that they are merely advancing the point of view of their constituents. This might be so at least on its face, but simultaneously romantic and Paternalistic notion of another age asserted that the role of the foremost deliberative body in the United States was that lawmakers were the supreme adults of the system as a whole. As such, these grey-bearded and wizened elders wisely wielded authority by taking into account the unique concerns of places and personalities. That was, of course, the mythology of a by-gone era, and in this cynical age, we are good at seeking first the Kingdom of Lies.
Last week cannot be spun or softened into something it is not. It was a disaster for both party, party faithful, and all lovers of reform. We have pointed fingers and let the desperate-for-revenue mainstream media go to town by using the Massachusetts defeat for its own purposes. In so doing, we have articulated a growing sense of weariness with a dream once seemingly so close at hand that has since shrunk in the heat of heavy scrutiny like a raisin in the sun. Still, I often think about the developmental theorist Jean Piaget and his theories of learning. Though Piaget's observations primarily dealt with children, postulating how they observed and processed information, I have often been intrigued by his assertion that it is only through disequilibrium, when everything is topsy-turvey and the previous strategies for comprehending the world around us are no longer helpful or valid, that true learning can begin. Disequilibrium has many incarnations but it should nonetheless never be confused for chaos, temper tantrums, or an all-out retreat, but nonetheless when the world is turned upside down, we have a fresh opportunity to learn from our mistakes.
I myself could never be confused for an optimist, but if it takes the loss of what was apparently more a psychological advantage super-majority than a mandate for cooperation and forward progress, then we are presented with an excellent opportunity for reflecting and beginning again. This new strategy rightly encourages a kind of urgency not present when, at least at face value, things were more stable and footing was surer. The success or failure of subsequent reform measures will depend on whether individual designs can ever take subordinate position to that of the entire nation's needs. President Obama often notes that reform is not about him and never has been about him, but it seems that several Senators and Representatives do not think in the same terms. Indeed, they should certainly think in these terms, else they have none of their own in a few short months. If humility has a way of putting priorities in order, I would hope that several Senators hoping to write their name large in history now recognize that taking the credit is not nearly as important as pushing the bill through.
I and others have begun to recognize that this country is slowly, haltingly advancing towards the very Parliamentary system our Founders eschewed. As formerly good British citizens, those who proposed and set into place our existing system observed first-hand legislative upheaval, awkward coalition-building, factionalism, calls for the Prime Minister to resign, pushes for a new General Election, and the power plays that went on behind the scenes. The new government they proposed, conceived in a the spirit of Enlightenment liberty, would not fall prey to these same divisive tactics. We have noted extensively ever since that this was not one of their best ideas to have seen the light of day. Perhaps we need to make a major overhaul, even though adopting a true Commonwealth system would necessitate that we scrap the idea of electing a President directly, leaving that decision up to party leaders. In that setup, the roles are reversed and the electorate votes for party more than personality.
One of the commonly attributed advantages to parliamentary systems is that it is often faster and easier to pass legislation[1]. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature. Thus, this would amount to the executive (as the majority party or coalition of parties in the legislature) possessing more votes in order to pass legislation. It could be said then that the will of the people is more easily instituted within a parliamentary system.
In addition to quicker legislative action, Parliamentarianism has attractive features for nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In a unipersonal presidential system, all executive power is concentrated in the president. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided.
Source.
Still, a Parliamentary system is often antithetical to a peculiarly American perspective. To wit, The excitement of directly electing a President is that sole attention falls upon a single person or, in the beginning, group of persons. With this comes also an unfortunately obsessive and microscopic focus on one focal point and as such, cults of personality often spring up around Presidential candidates. There is also something intrinsically anti-American in this idea of party insiders picking the head of the government, something that hearkens back to oft-reviled smoke-filled rooms and with it lack of transparency and accountability to the whims of the voting public. It is for this reason that we will likely never adopt or at least never adopt wholesale, this sort of apparatus. Yet, as some have pointed out, with a now much more fickle public, one increasingly driven to third-parties and independent identification based on weariness with the two-party system, we are stuck in a halfway state between the two. While the Independent voter may be a free agent instead of feeling more inclined to identify with a particular third-party than an R or D, even those who would otherwise be counted on to reliably vote for either a Democrat or Republican are now contemplating getting behind whichever party can re-establish economic health and with it job security.
If we thought in terms of party rather than nominal head, we might have a better realization that consensus process is more powerful than individual desire and individual leadership. Once again, our mythology betrays us. When Barack Obama began his meteoric ascent to the top of the heap, many conservative voices snidely condemned his movement as Messianic, as though he was the new Jesus. In it, they may have been reflecting the reality that we built our own Christ figures along the same lines, since the motif of one person coming from nowhere to save the world from itself is so integral to cultural expectation. But beyond that, humanity has always sold into a belief that one being, one entity, or one figure might redeem our metaphorical and literal sins. The only requirement is belief and with it the desire to follow the example set in place. Though we may not consider ourselves religious people, we are still beholden to a religious construct.
If either party had made much in the way of headway or in actually accomplishing anything, voters might be accused of being fickle. This mindframe is not without precedent, and indeed populist anger once threatened to undo the entire system at several points in our country. At which point it was usually violently crushed or divided amongst itself through sabotage. What usually happens with any grassroots movement based in anger and dissatisfaction that the groundswell of public sentiment has its apex, is rendered toothless through outside force or through a lack of coherent strategy and cohesion within itself, then is sanitized and adopted into the platform of one party or the other. Right now we have an electorate behaving as though we have a Parliamentary system in place, but, and this is crucial, a system without any kind of majority mandate. Though this came as a result of bad governing, the question remains as to how we're going to reconcile our desires with the existing structure.
While the immediate loser is the party in power, the GOP should also recognize that if it manages to obtain control of one or both chambers in November, it will be expected to accomplish miracles and an impatient electorate will not give them long to do it. Prior conventional wisdom held that one never changed horses in midstream, but today's voters have at least contemplated the idea. And in my own personal opinion, they would be making a supreme mistake because as divided and dysfunctional a caucus is the Democratic Party, the Republican Party is even worse. We have managed to make the problem worse, but I trust the Democrats to minimize the damage. As we have seen, one election does not mend decades worth of rips to the sail.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:02:15 PST
|
(2:00M EST - promoted by Nightprowlkitty)
The Decision
by Alan Grayson -- Thu Jan 21, 2010
In a 5-to-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that corporations have the "right" to spend an unlimited amount of money to influence and manipulate federal elections. The decision overturns more than a century of law and precedent.
[...]
"The Supreme Court has decided to protect the rights of GE, Volkswagen, Lukoil and Aramco, at the expense of our right to good government," Grayson added.
[...]
Today, Rep. Grayson called for immediate action on his Save Our Democracy bills. "If we do nothing, then before long, there won't be Senators from Oklahoma or Virginia, there will be Senators from Citibank and WalMart. Maybe they will wear insignias on their $500 suits, like NASCAR drivers do."
Question is, do our Legslators have the guts to make use of our Constitutional "Checks and Balances"?
Can the Legslators actually pass laws to reel in the excesses of the Corporate Rights enabling Court?
|
|
There's More...
:: (9
Comments, 511 words in story)
|
|
Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:09:49 PST
|
(11 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
Just one of many ways, and not only as to the VA facilities but Federal and State buildings etc. as well. And boy could I make a huge list of overlooked and ignored infrastructure needs!
I did this a number of years back, but it wasn't because of a collapsed economy. I came off some eight years on the road, mostly in the northeast some midwest and a few southern states, building and supervising the building of stores in the new enclosed Malls that had grown out of strip malls all over. I just happened to have hit a call for a carpenter to lay a couple of VCT floors at the VA facility in Syracuse and was one of two hired. After we finished that we were asked to stay on and work out of their maintenance office and shop doing repairs and preventive maintenance. We ended up working there for a year plus. The other carpenter, older then myself, stayed on, I left to go back into commercial Rebuilds and continued in Commercial and Residential for the years since, up to the collapse of it all and the to little going on now.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 440 words in story)
|
|
Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:45:53 PST
|
(noon. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
This is the Democrats' story. It's a story of consequences, it's a story of tragedy, it's a story ripped from the pages of history and stained with the blood of the innocent.
There are no characters in it and almost no dramatic confrontations, because most of the people in it are so sick and so much the listless playthings of enormous forces.
No We Can't has been a recurring theme of this story. When Obama got elected, No We Won't replaced it. We haven't seen any change, change has been consumed in a firestorm of corruption.
Enjoy your stay in Dresden.
Welcome to Hell.
Greetings from Slaughterhouse Five . . .
|
|
There's More...
:: (41
Comments, 955 words in story)
|
|
Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 13:38:14 PST
|
(11 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
It has been announced that House Oversight Committee Will Hold Hearing On Geithner/NY Fed/AIG Scandal
Ed Towns, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, just announced that he would hold hearings into the emails that show how the New York Federal Reserve delayed disclosure of AIG counter-party payments, hiding public information from federal regulators. The statement is below.
Towns wants to hold the hearing the week of January 18, and has invited Treasury Secretary Geithner to testify.
The question is did Geithner's New York Fed Ordered AIG to Violate Securities Law in 2008
Yves Smith over at Naked Capitalism commented on a report from Bloomberg News that just about made my eyes pop out of my head. Evidently, Darrell Issa got his hands on some 2008 emails between AIG and Tim Geithner's New York Federal Reserve, wherein the NY Fed orders AIG to make material misstatements on SEC filings:
Bloomberg reports:
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, then led by Timothy Geithner, told American International Group Inc. to withhold details from the public about the bailed-out insurer's payments to banks during the depths of the financial crisis, e-mails between the company and its regulator show.
snip
AIG's Dec. 24, 2008, filing was challenged privately by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which polices the adequacy of disclosures by publicly traded firms. The agency said in a letter to then-CEO Edward Liddy six days later that AIG should provide a Schedule A, which lists collateral postings for the swaps and names the bank counterparties that purchased them from the company. The Schedule A was disclosed about five months later in a filing.
|
|
There's More...
:: (23
Comments, 396 words in story)
|
|
Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 20:39:24 PST
|
(9 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
As a result of a recent event involving an aircraft and underpants Representative Peter King (R-Not From Iowa), the senior Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, has again come forth to bring his expertise on questions of international terrorism to the national debate.
King, a Congressman who represents a district that straddles New York's Long Island (NY-3), previously served as the Comptroller of Nassau County and a member of Hempstead, New York's Town Council, which wouldn't seem to be the kind of résumé that would give you much credibility in this arena-but Mr. King is a special case.
You see, Mr. King knows a great deal about terrorism...from the inside...because for many years the personal cause that drove his life was to be an active and public supporter of a terrorist group.
And that's why, today, we'll be connecting the dots between Congressman King and the Irish Republican Army.
|
|
There's More...
:: (5
Comments, 1229 words in story)
|
|
Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:20:50 PST
|
( - promoted by buhdydharma )
It's official. The USA Patriot Act is no longer the greatest social achievement of our time. The Baucus/Lieberman Perpetual Serfdom Act has just been awarded that distinction. Obama is immensely proud of it. "Pragmatic" progressives are saluting it. They're telling us we should be grateful for the crumbs Democrats toss us, they're ridiculing us for taking a stand on principle, they're calling it "wanting our ponies", they never shut up, their condescending lips are always flapping, their lips never stop flapping until police state decrees like this are issued from on high . . .
After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president's fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person." They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever.
Every time Obama channels Cheney and goes all medieval on us, his Obamabots fall silent. All we hear is crickets. Until the next greatest social achievement of our time is announced. Then the festivities begin anew and anyone who doesn't join in gets burned as a witch.
For corporate fascists keeping score at home, that's two great social achievements in one week! For "pragmatic" progressives, it's one great social achievement and a minor disappointment. Nothing to dwell on. Clap louder and it'll go away. For actual progressives, it's the final evidence that we no longer have any choices left. There is only one way to fight back now. We have to boycott the major parties in the 2010 Midterms. Vote 3rd party. Vote for a write-in candidate. Take electoral action in whatever way you think is most effective.
Iranians can die for democracy . . .
But we can't even boycott an election?
Don't argue about it. Do it. Call it what you want. Get to work organizing it. Get to work publicizing it. Help in any way and every way you can or get the hell out of the way.
Democrats told us they couldn't Impeach because "we don't have the votes". They told us they couldn't pass single payer because "we don't have the votes." They told us they couldn't give us a strong public option because "we don't have the votes." They told us they couldn't even give us a watered down public option because "we don't have the votes."
When progressives boycott the Midterms, Democrats will discover the true meaning of "we don't have the votes." They've been using it as a bullshit excuse, we're going to use it as a warning, as a nationwide declaration that we will no longer tolerate betrayal.
"Pragmatic" progressives will freak out, we'll be lectured about "reality" by people who think that gutter they're crawling in is the Yellow Brick Road to Incremental Change. They've been crawling in that gutter of "political reality" ever since their anti-Impeachment days. They weren't worth listening to then and they never will be.
We've supported Democrats over and over again, election after election, but nothing ever changes. Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is insanity. It's insane to keep reelecting corrupt politicians who keep betraying us.
WE ALL NEED TO STOP DOING THAT.
|
|
There's More...
:: (89
Comments, 796 words in story)
|
|
Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 16:53:00 PST
|
|
Eleven months after President Obama took office, many Progressives are feeling understandably shortchanged. We were led to believe that finally a candidate with authentic liberal credentials had a legitimate shot at the White House, and so we embraced pragmatism when the most liberal candidates dropped out of the race. To be sure, there were several voices screaming out that Obama, if elected, would be far more indebted to the center then he ever would be to the left. These were loudest in the blogosphere, by far, and a few of them have recently exercised the cathartic, but ultimately hollow right to say I-told-you-so. This song and dance has historical antecedents that stretch back decades, but it would be best if there were no need to repeat the process once more.
I think we may have put the cart before the horse. I think we might have assumed that reform could be accomplished purely by political means, instead of reform being reached by grassroots mobilization that forced government's hand. Recently we have become aware, once more, that the American political system is not designed for sweeping change. The rules of the Senate were instituted to ensure that those with sober contemplation, not rash passion, ultimately won in the end. We can lament this fact and rightly decry it as anti-democratic and elitist, but the truth of the matter is that this is how the system works. I don't think that the President failed us nearly as much as the system did. In mentioning this, I'd much rather focus on going forward than licking our wounds.
I understand why we placed our trust in Barack Obama. We recognized the destruction wrought by eight years of neoconservative rule and with it the disconcerting notion that government predicated on evil can level its opponents and eviscerate easily. That it is much more difficult to build up rather than ruin is perhaps the toughest lesson of all. But with it comes the realization that established precedent is nearly impossible to reverse when passed. We may be unhappy with the scope of the bill, but we would be wise to celebrate that if someday Republican rule returns, it will be difficult for them to dismantle that which will be signed into law shortly. We should not accept this as any final word on the matter, but neither should we refuse to note how an eighteen-round fisticuff with the American mentality ultimately turned out in the end. This country was forced to confront some of the most massive fault lines that lie deceptively harmless most of the time, until seismic tremors threaten to shake us apart.
Any worthy social movement promising transformative change begins among an oft-quoted small group of thoughtful, committed citizens. The Civil Rights Movement, Women's Rights, and our latest struggle for LGBT marriage equality fomented and were codified from well outside the Beltway. Though ultimately legislation was proposed and passed by means of the Legislative branch, the energy and forward momentum swept up a million unsung heroes whose names may be lost to history or relegated to obscure footnotes, but whose bravery and achievements cannot be understated.
While it is touching that during the Presidential Election we temporarily shelved our skepticism as a result of being star-struck, we should not have failed to recognize that leadership comes from everywhere and every corner, not just the occupant of the White House. We focused our entire attention and hung our hopes upon the success or failure of one person, and while it is true that one person can change the world, his or her leadership ability must be augmented by other leaders. These inspirational individuals are frequently not pulled from the ranks of public service. Their occupations vary, just as those who desire change pull from all walks of life and all vocations. It is more leaders and more passion that we need.
Dr. King may have been the towering giant of the Civil Rights Movement, but Ralph Abernathy, Bayard Rustin, Ella Baker, Fred Shuttlesworth, and many others less well-known filled out the inner circle that produced progress on a scale that is still difficult to fully comprehend. Along with the notable names are a million others who are the pride of their city or town, but little more than strangers in other places. I hardly need note that none of the public figures I have outlined were members of the House or the Senate. Reformers are rarely beholden to the political game because it requires a kind of willingness to bend to the prevailing will and howling winds of popular sentiment, else one find oneself out of power. So long as this is the case, real reform measures will be stymied or watered down during the process of deliberation.
I almost need not mention that Congress is meant to work for us, but that it only pays attention to our concerns when we articulate them with force, clarity, and with united purpose. When we are united behind a cause, not a personality, and especially not a party, then the sky is the limit. Making our dreams a reality requires more than one election cycle and we ought to really contemplate why it took a once-in-a-generation candidate to patch up the variety of competing interests and disconnected factions of the Democratic party to achieve a sweeping victory.
Instead of cursing our fate and gnashing our teeth out of betrayal, we should re-organize, but this time around the issues that our elected representatives either will not touch, or will whittle away to ineffectual mush. We have before us a fantastic opportunity to change our priorities and establish successful strategies. Legend has it that right before they put the rope around his neck, the labor leader Joe Hill stated, "Don't Mourn! Organize!" Liberalism is alive and well and if we learn from this experiment we will not have failed. The new birth of freedom long promised is ours for the taking, provided we grasp hold of it. We will live to fight another day.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:13:22 PST
|
( - promoted by buhdydharma )
Economic Royalists:
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for a second term, delivered at Philadelphia on 27 June 1936, said, "The economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power." (emphasis added)
http://www.answers.com/topic/e...
How about a "Case Study" using a recent history of their HandiWork ... and their apparent Victory -- AGAIN!
|
|
There's More...
:: (12
Comments, 1318 words in story)
|
|
Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 13:00:43 PST
|
(noon. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
In Empire of Illusion, Chris Hedges examines the pervasive ways in which Americans are separated from the complexities of reality and become trapped in a mind-killing, reality-destroying, one-dimensional existence. For most of them, there is no way out of this corporate capitalist prison; for most of them, there is no escape; they can't even try to escape because they don't even know they've been locked up. They don't see the guard towers, they don't see the walls, they don't even saw the bars of their own cells.
Chris Hedges . . .
We consume countless lies daily, false promises that if we spend more money, if we buy this brand or that product, if we vote for this candidate, we will be respected, envied, powerful, loved, and protected. Reality is dismissed and shunned as an impediment to success, a form of negativity, it is condemned as defeatist. Those who question, those who doubt, those who are critical, those who are able to confront reality and who grasp the hollowness of this culture, are shunned and condemned for their pessimism.
Human beings have become a commodity. They are objects, like consumer products. They have no intrinsic value. Life is a brutal world of unadulterated competition. Life is about the personal humiliation of those who oppose us. Those who win are the best. Those who lose deserve to be erased. Compassion, competence, intelligence, and solidarity with others are forms of weakness.
In accordance with these lethal illusions, progressives are weak and deserve to be erased. Conservatives are strong and deserve to rule. Capitalism is sacred. Conformity is sanctified. Dissent is condemned. The corporate media pounds this narrative into the public consciousness every hour of every day, in every conceivable way, through every visual, aural, emotional, and psychological form of communication ever devised. The consequences have been devastating.
|
|
There's More...
:: (39
Comments, 1055 words in story)
|
|
Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 20:09:37 PST
|
|
Anger is flying at Mach 1,000 and everybody who isn't a member of the Democratic leadership wants to punish the Democrats for their endless betrayals, broken promises, lies, and capitulations. Well, I seem to remember someone posting ideas for how we can do something more than just bitch and complain.
http://www.docudharma.com/diar...
Just thought I'd remind you so we can start holding discussions for how we can implement these ideas.
|
|
Discuss
:: (4
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reform Immigration -
March for America
Sunday, March 21
March on Washington
Saturday, March 20
|
