May 25 2008
Recently I was a social gathering of trendy young people. A disagreement over a particular issue came up. It was about a proposed private restaurant in Union Square Park in Manhattan.
It seems that a private “donor” has “donated” seven million dollars to the Park’s restoration fund on the condition that the private restaurant be included in the project.
I suggested to some of these activists that it would be a good idea to focus on the name of the public official who accepted this “donation” on behalf of the park’s restoration fund.
I suggested that it was probably illegal for this public official to put their name on the transaction in acceptance of the funds on behalf of the public. The reason is that this is not a donation at all, but an investment. The seven million dollars has strings attached which stipulate that there must be a private restaurant developed in Union Square Park.
That’s when the disagreements began…
Apr 04 2008
Unless you’re a part of something bigger, you’re one more screamer in the wilderness who is not being heard.
All your heart-felt writings are having a negligible effect. The politicians are ignoring you because you’re not part of something big enough to stop them.
The last big thing you were a part of has sold out. He was entitled to sell out because it was his vanity blog which we wasted our precious time on. He chose to pull the rug out from under our impeachment efforts. It was our mistake because we had no rights there. We were drawn because we were so hungry for some attention from our corrupt “representatives” that we forgot the value of our own attention.
Dec 29 2007
Motivated by her love, Benazir Bhutto risked her life and ultimately lost her life in her effort to bring freedom from fear to everyone.
Motivated by cowardice, George W. Bush has taken hundreds of thousands of lives to imprison us in fear.
Before I continue, I’ll explain why my haitus was so brief. I realized I can’t abstain from the debate at such a crucial period of time. I can limit the time I spend to a short period once a week, so I can work and play a part in the dialog. I’m going to leave this website and all other political forums blocked on my personal computer, and only use a friend’s computer when it’s time to share my opinion.
After I announced my intention to back off and mind my own business, Budhydharma said this:
Well good. While you are off line, please consider the fact that Markos does not control the world and that what he does and says just really doesn’t matter that much. One of the main reasons we have a rule against Dkos bashing here is the futility of thinking that what Markos says or does makes some sort of huge difference in the world.
Try to, as you say, focus on changing the world OUTSIDE of the blogosphere.
I disagree. The best use of my time is influencing people INSIDE the “blogosphere”. That’s what it’s for and it’s my biggest influence. The best thing I can do is to influence you, Budhy, and through you, perhaps Markos. I will try.
Dec 26 2007
I lack optimism while writing this because those who are willing to let Bush skate free for his war crimes and treason are legion and they are well-funded.
I’m very glad to see rjones2818’s frequent updates on Kucinich’s campaign. If not for Kucinich, we’d be deprived of even a glimmer of hope for justice in a very dark period of time.
I’ve re-formatted the list of Kucinich position statements from rjones’ diary above. I want to make it as convenient as possible for people who won’t support Kucinich to know exactly what it is they’re not supporting.
Dec 10 2007
The Democrats in congress are almost all alienated from us bloggers.
They think we’re crazy and only good for use as an ATM during elections.
The incumbents don’t give a rat’s ass what we say.
They are alternately ignoring or insulting us while giving Bush everything he wants.
This gift to Bush includes at least thirteen more months of hell for our military and the people of Iraq and many billions more of our cash.
How can we damage these arrogant, constitution-shredding, Bush-loving DINOs?
They have three dumb candidates hanging out in the open, just begging for our wrath.
Dec 07 2007
I’m feeling just about burned out with progressive activism.
The problem is that there are too many back-stabbers posing as progressives.
We can go all out in our efforts, only to be stepped on by scheming opportunists like a rung on their ladder financial independence.
Look at the big bloggers, how they’ve become beholden to the establishment.
The same guy, Markos Moulitsas, who wrote a book called “Crashing the Gates” is now against impeachment.
Markos lets guys like Dana Houle (DHinMI) – a paid political professional who lives in DC, lecture the real activists in condescending lectures about how dumb we are to expect to impeach Bush.
DHinMI can ban you if you talk back to him after he insults you like you’re a bratty kid and he’s your minder.
That’s what we get for all the time, effort, money we’ve contributed. We get treated like brats.
My message to those arrogant bloggers is this: Fuck you, assholes!
My message to the back-stabbing, Bush Dogs again is: Fuck you, assholes!
I no longer call myself a Democrat, and I probably never will again because some people have insisted on ruining it for the rest of us.
I’m not a Democrat, not a coward, not a torture and war-crime enabler. No, I’m not a Democrat.
Dec 06 2007
This diary is going to consist primarily of partisan invective and vitriolic ad-hominem attacks.
It is intended to be divisive of the enemies and unifying for the base of the Democratic Party.
By “Surrendercrats” I mean Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and to some extent, John Edwards.
I’m deliberately leaving a bit of wiggle room for John Edwards because of the top three candidates whom are all uniformly disappointing, John Edwards is not as bad as Obama, whom himself is not as bad as Hillary.
I won’t vote for Hillary, but I probably would vote for Obama because he doesn’t have two terms of insulting the base of his party under his belt like the Clintons.
Ok, those are the “Surrendercrats”.
Kucinich stands in stark contrast to the “Surrendercrats”.
I sure like the way “Surrendercrats” sounds, BTW. I also call them “Republicrats” and “Bush-boot-licker-crats” as well.
Kucinich is the opposite of a “Surrendercrat”. Kucinich raps John Edwards for his vote for the Iraq War, the
Patriot Treason Act. Kucinich raps Obama for voting to fund the Iraq occupation without any accountability from Bush. Kucinich raps Clinton for being the war-pimping skag and Bush-lover that she is.
Kucinich stands head and shoulders above his rivals. He is a DEMOCRAT. They are Surrendercrats.
Now, about the Bourgeoise Bloggers, Impeachment Obstructors, Sell-Outs, and enablers of the Surrendercrats…
These people tend to be “A-list” bloggers with over 100,000 visits per day. These bloggers have become shills for the Surrendercrats. Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is a fine example of a Bourgeoise Blogger of the Blogger Aristocracy.
Markos is and always has been against impeachment. Why is that? Could it be related to the fact that he was once a registered Republican who worked for Henry Hyde?
Since when do real Democrats welcome Republicans to lead us by the nose against our better judgment? Markos is a sellout.
Also, Atrios is a wuss who only made the faintest noise in favor of impeachment.
There are other big bloggers who are also very weak and undeserving of their traffic.
They are our opposition now and they will remain our opposition after 2008. They have shown that they are sunshine patriots who are willing to sell out the constitution in favor of a little ad-revenue and higher traffic to their blog.
I’ll finish this screed with praise for Kucinich, long may he reign.
I beseech all readers of this diary to do the only ethical thing and to support Kucinich as he works to impeach Bush, Cheney, and humiliate the Surrendercrats who enable Bush and Cheney, and to make the Bourgeoise Bloggers who enable the Surrendercrats eat crow as they so richly deserve.
Dec 02 2007
There’s a horrible phrase that we’ve heard a lot of since the election of 2006 – “impeachable offenses”.
“Impeachable” is probably not even a real word. The word “impeachable” makes me sick. From now on, when I hear someone use that word, I’m going to ask that they don’t use it any more.
“Impeachable” is a word that we should not use if we intend to further the process of impeachment.
The problem is this – the word “impeachable” implies we have two options – to impeach or not to impeach.
I’d like to see a contextual analysis of all the occurrences of the pseudo-word “impeachable”. I have a feeling the opponents of impeachment may be the ones pushing this word into the lexicon by repeating some variation of this excuse – “Yes Bush has committed impeachable offenses, but… [insert unpatriotic rationalization here]”
The fact is, Bush’s grave offenses against the constitution leave us no choice but to impeach, or to lose our freedom.
Bush and Cheney are not merely “impeachable”. They must be impeached. I wish I could think of a new word or phrase which means “impeachment is required or else we lose our freedom”.
I suppose there are offenses which might be accurately described as “impeachable”. That is to say – there are things Bush has done which make us think “perhaps we should impeach” or “maybe it’s a good idea”, but these things are trifles.
Legislation we don’t like is a fine reason to consider maybe impeaching Bush and Cheney.
I think maybe we should impeach just because the opposition party is pissing us off with their bad attitudes.
Maybe we should impeach their president just to see the veins in their ugly heads bulge, and with the hope that we may cause a few strokes or heart attacks among the senior members of the Republican Congress.
These are all fine reasons to impeach, but they’re optional, not required.
The real crimes of the Bush administration require impeachment for the preservation of freedom and democracy in America.
Please answer my poll to help choose new words or phrases which conveys the meaning – “impeachment-requiring” offenses.