Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Thousands Mob Clinton In Berkeley
There was a rock concert parking lot feel to downtown Berkeley Tuesday as thousands camped out to get Clinton to sign prebought copies of his book. Several protesters played "Love me I'm a Liberal" on a boombox and yelled at the crowd about how Clinton's policies while in office were as bad as Bush's but the crowd chanted down the protesters wanting to endulge in nostalgia rather than think about government policies. Clinton signed books from around 12:300 until 4:00 at which point he came out and worked the crowd.
A mixture of Arsenio Hall style woofing, high pitched screaming and chants of "we love you" gave Clinton's appearance the feel of a rock concert more than a book signing by a political figure.
There were a lot of signs about defeating Bush, people engaged in voter registration, and some antiwar signs. But, there didn't seem to be much interest in Clinton as a politician as much as Clinton as a symbol of a pre 9/11 world and perhaps even Clinton as an Elvis like sex symbol.
Almost all the crowd reacted negatively to talk of Clinton's shifting of the American political discourse to the right and his bombing of Iraq, Serbia and Sudan. But its likely that many in the crowd disagreed with Clinton and was either engaging in lesser evilism or just wanted to treat seeing Clinton as an excuse to think back to a world without a Patriot Act, an Iraqi Occupation and constant fear mongering about terrorism.
With an election comming up things will get interesting with the "anyone but Bush" camp starting to get traction backed up by real anger. Gore probably would have done most things Bush did but tell that to the new "anyone but Bush" camp and you will likely get a rock thrown in your face. People want to forget the last four year. While Clinton's foreign policies were in places just as bloody as Bush's, the public had an easier time ignoring it. The radical-left has an uphill battle.
There were a lot of signs about defeating Bush, people engaged in voter registration, and some antiwar signs. But, there didn't seem to be much interest in Clinton as a politician as much as Clinton as a symbol of a pre 9/11 world and perhaps even Clinton as an Elvis like sex symbol.
Almost all the crowd reacted negatively to talk of Clinton's shifting of the American political discourse to the right and his bombing of Iraq, Serbia and Sudan. But its likely that many in the crowd disagreed with Clinton and was either engaging in lesser evilism or just wanted to treat seeing Clinton as an excuse to think back to a world without a Patriot Act, an Iraqi Occupation and constant fear mongering about terrorism.
With an election comming up things will get interesting with the "anyone but Bush" camp starting to get traction backed up by real anger. Gore probably would have done most things Bush did but tell that to the new "anyone but Bush" camp and you will likely get a rock thrown in your face. People want to forget the last four year. While Clinton's foreign policies were in places just as bloody as Bush's, the public had an easier time ignoring it. The radical-left has an uphill battle.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The rich parasites who an afford to spend $200 on a book by a war criminal deserve our contempt. That good Democrat Clinton proudly had a Republican as a member of his cabinet, Bill Cohen, the Secretary of War, a very important cabinet position. He earned his war criminal status with his constant bombings of Iraq for 8 years, his suppot of sanctions against the people of Iraq, his war in Somalia, his bombing of Yugoslavia and use of depleted uranium in Yugoslavia.
On the domestic scene, he is best known to the workingclass as the proud promoter of the Repeal of Welfare, the legislation that GUARANTEED that most workingclass Democrats stayed home in 2000, making it easy for George W. Bush to commit election fraud. THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT FLORIDA TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY. They can thank Bill Clinton for handing the 2000 election to Bush and his election fraud team, not just in Florida, but in every major city, where the Democratic Party machine routinely commits election fraud to keep the Reds out of office so the Democrats can perpetrate (yes, it is a crime) the same capitalist agenda as the Republicans.
Clinton did not rest with his Repeal of Welfare. He also successfully promoted increases in the death penalty law, a class weapon of terror by the capitalist class against the workingclass, which has been banned in Europe.
He proudly promoted the anti-gay federal marriage law, although marriage is a state function. And, he constantly repeated the despicable line that he wants to make abortion rare, but legal, when it should be common and legal.
The overwhelming majority of us did not experience any long-term improvement in the quality of our lives as a result of Clinton's economic policies. The homeless crisis worsened as did the healthcare crisis, the education crisis, and all other human service areas. The prison population continued to grow under Clinton.
When the incumbent does nothing to improve the lives of the workingclass, he or his party are usually tossed out of office. The presidential race is just a referendum on the economy.
Clearly, the people lining up for this war criminal have yet to experience the reality of the American workingclass. The world wants to know how much poverty will it take for Americans to wake up to the fact that both the Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for the bankrupt social order that perpetuates poverty?
On the domestic scene, he is best known to the workingclass as the proud promoter of the Repeal of Welfare, the legislation that GUARANTEED that most workingclass Democrats stayed home in 2000, making it easy for George W. Bush to commit election fraud. THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT FLORIDA TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY. They can thank Bill Clinton for handing the 2000 election to Bush and his election fraud team, not just in Florida, but in every major city, where the Democratic Party machine routinely commits election fraud to keep the Reds out of office so the Democrats can perpetrate (yes, it is a crime) the same capitalist agenda as the Republicans.
Clinton did not rest with his Repeal of Welfare. He also successfully promoted increases in the death penalty law, a class weapon of terror by the capitalist class against the workingclass, which has been banned in Europe.
He proudly promoted the anti-gay federal marriage law, although marriage is a state function. And, he constantly repeated the despicable line that he wants to make abortion rare, but legal, when it should be common and legal.
The overwhelming majority of us did not experience any long-term improvement in the quality of our lives as a result of Clinton's economic policies. The homeless crisis worsened as did the healthcare crisis, the education crisis, and all other human service areas. The prison population continued to grow under Clinton.
When the incumbent does nothing to improve the lives of the workingclass, he or his party are usually tossed out of office. The presidential race is just a referendum on the economy.
Clearly, the people lining up for this war criminal have yet to experience the reality of the American workingclass. The world wants to know how much poverty will it take for Americans to wake up to the fact that both the Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for the bankrupt social order that perpetuates poverty?
The crowd was about 50% white liberals but did contain a lot of people of color. There probably was a higher percentage of African Americans than at most protests. It was only the cost of a book to get in; the $200 sign was someone who went in trying to sell a presigned copy and I didnt really see him sell any. While middle class nostaglia for the 90s is tied to the dot com boom, the economic collapse of the past few years have hurt the poor more than the rich and attacks on poor communities have also increased.
Electoralism isnt really a purely middle class phenomena, so I think there is a risk that radical critique will backfire when it relies too much on seeing it as comming from white liberals. Lesser evilism exists in every community not just those that benefit the most from Capitalism (even the most exploited communities will vote for a candidate on single-issues like abortion, healthcare policies, etc..). Just mentioning that someone had bad policies on a set of issues is not always a productive way to talk about electorialism when dealing with people who know they are voting for a lesser evil. One has to address how campaigning for a lesser evil can move the overall discourse in a negative direction and get in the way of radical organizing.
In cases where people dont know the negatives pointing it out is productive, but the sense i got from people at the Clinton thing who were not middle-class white liberals was that they already knew the negatives and the deeper issues of lesser evilism needed to be dealt with.
Electoralism isnt really a purely middle class phenomena, so I think there is a risk that radical critique will backfire when it relies too much on seeing it as comming from white liberals. Lesser evilism exists in every community not just those that benefit the most from Capitalism (even the most exploited communities will vote for a candidate on single-issues like abortion, healthcare policies, etc..). Just mentioning that someone had bad policies on a set of issues is not always a productive way to talk about electorialism when dealing with people who know they are voting for a lesser evil. One has to address how campaigning for a lesser evil can move the overall discourse in a negative direction and get in the way of radical organizing.
In cases where people dont know the negatives pointing it out is productive, but the sense i got from people at the Clinton thing who were not middle-class white liberals was that they already knew the negatives and the deeper issues of lesser evilism needed to be dealt with.
..There's a time and a place for everything -- and why not Berkeley! I've always hated that town!
What is the small white box under the left sleave of this Secret Service agent? It seems a little big to be a communication device.
Might be a standard-issue Secret Service wrist mic, assuming it's not a dart gun or web spinner. This clinton-era page explains it:
For more information:
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/kids/inside/ht...
Most of the workingclass does not vote because they know none of these millionaires, Democrats and Republicans, represents them. Thus, 50% of the adults in this society, overwhelmingly those who sell their labor for less than $40,000 per year, never vote. Yes it is true, the lesser evil garbage is pervasive in this backward society; our white receptionist wanted to go to one of these book signings. In fact, we can be sure in this election, as in every election within memory, the black community which votes will vote 90% and the Latino community which votes will vote 65% for whoever is the Democratic candidate for president. They do not even think about lesser evilism; they think voting means voting Democrat and that the Democrats somehow represent the workingclass. There is no socialist consciousness among the American workingclass, and the black and Latino communities are majority workingclass.
The reality is some 80% of the voters are white. And most voters of all colors are property owners who make over $100,000 per year. That is why we get these ridiculous polls stating Bush has some 48% support among voters. He has no support among the workingclass, those of us who sell our labor for less than $70,000 per year. The only problem is, voting for workingclass alternatives still has not been learned.
The reality is some 80% of the voters are white. And most voters of all colors are property owners who make over $100,000 per year. That is why we get these ridiculous polls stating Bush has some 48% support among voters. He has no support among the workingclass, those of us who sell our labor for less than $70,000 per year. The only problem is, voting for workingclass alternatives still has not been learned.
You said " And most voters of all colors are property owners who make over $100,000 per year. That is why we get these ridiculous polls stating Bush has some 48% support among voters. He has no support among the workingclass, those of us who sell our labor for less than $70,000 per year. "
State your reference source you liar! Just wishing so DOES NOT MAKE IT SO! Is this how you socialists think other people will join your cause? by lying? It perverts your views (which are totally perverted to begine with!)
State your reference source you liar! Just wishing so DOES NOT MAKE IT SO! Is this how you socialists think other people will join your cause? by lying? It perverts your views (which are totally perverted to begine with!)
FROM 1998:
One of the most interesting findings in this year's exit polls was that higher income Americans turned out in much higher proportions than they did four years ago, yet Democrats did better in this election than they did in 1994, both overall and among those high income voters. Voters with household incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 made up 9 percent of the 1994 electorate, increased their share to 12 percent, a 33 percent jump, with Democrats increasing their support in that group from 40 percent in 1994 to 47 percent in 1998. The share of voters with household incomes over $100,000 went from seven to 12 percent of the electorate, a 71 percent jump, with the Democratic proportion growing from 36 to 44 percent.
That Republicans only won 53 percent of the vote among those with household incomes between $75,000-100,000 and 56 percent among those with incomes over $100,000 is a shocking statistic for the GOP. Did it happen because these are the people who have benefited from a strong economy and decided to reward the party holding the White House? An alternative view is that Republicans did not draw clear distinctions between themselves and Democrats on economic issues, allowing attitudes on other issues to become dominant.
A third possibility combines elements of the first two views: that these voters are quite satisfied with the economy, while Republicans have failed to draw clear distinctions on economic issues and seem to have placed a higher priority on impeaching President Clinton than on dealing with more substantive problems. It also could be that this income group simply opposes GOP efforts to impeach Clinton and were trying to send a signal.
Less perplexing but equally important is that a substantially higher proportion of the total vote came from minorities than four years ago or, for that matter, is the norm in midterm elections. These voters continue to give Democrats the lion's share of their support. For example, the Hispanic vote constituted 3 percent of the electorate in 1994, moving to 5 percent in 1998 -- a 66 percent increase in their share, with Democrats getting 63 percent of the vote, up from 61 percent two years ago.
Black turnout nationwide increased more modestly, from nine percent overall in 1994 to ten percent this year, an 11 percent increase in their share, with Democrats getting 89 percent, down slightly from 92 percent in 1994. It would appear, however, that black turnout increased substantially in several key states and districts where there were hotly contested races. In Georgia, Maryland and South Carolina, for example, there was a sharp increase in black votes; Democrats did much better than expected in gubernatorial races in all three states.
Unfortunately, one of the most interesting stories of this election will never really be known: how voters in labor union households voted compared to 1994. In 1998, the Voter News Service placed the labor union membership question in a different place on the questionnaire than in 1994, including it in a "grab bag" of questions on the back of a page, which fewer voters reached by the survey bothered to fill out.
As a result, while we know that voters in union households in 1998 constituted 22 percent of the overall electorate and cast 64 percent of their ballots for Democrats and 36 percent for Republicans -- compared to 60 percent for Democrats and 40 percent for Republicans four years ago -- we cannot make a direct comparison of how much the labor vote grew. Both from anecdotal and election results, it is pretty firmly established that labor turnout increased substantially, but the 14 percent figure from the 1994 exit poll is thought to have understated union turnout that year.
http://www.cookpolitical.com/column/1998/111798.php
Income gaps translate into voting gaps. In the ten states with the smallest income gap, an average 57 percent of the voting age population turned out to vote in the 1996 presidential election, according to Federal Election Commission data. The ten states with the widest income gap had an average voter turnout of only 48 percent.
Voter turnout has fallen dramatically and rising economic inequality is one reason why. Upper-income Americans participate in the electoral process at much higher levels than middle- and low-income Americans.
Among the eligible citizen population, 76 percent of those with family incomes above $75,000 voted in 1996, the last presidential election. Only 63 percent of those with family incomes ranging from $35,000 to $49,999 and 57 percent of those in the $25,000-$34,999 range voted, according to the Census Bureau. Among those with family incomes under $10,000, just 38 percent voted.
Looking at turnout by occupation, 73 percent of those in managerial and professional jobs voted in 1996, compared with only 43 percent of those employed as operators, fabricators, and laborers.
As the Keystone Research Center noted in a 1999 report on democracy in Pennsylvania, “Over half of middle- and low-income Americans believe, ‘People like me don’t have any say about what the government does.’ Only 30 percent of Americans held this view in the 1960s.”
Democracy’s dilemma is that the more people feel like they have no influence, the less they participate in the electoral process—and the less influence they have. When upper-income Americans provide a disproportionate share of the campaign contributions and votes, democracy is not rule by the people, but rule by the people with more money. If the trend continues, we will be left with a democracy in name only.
http://zmag.org/zmag/articles/march2000sklar.htm
The median income among voters looks like it should factor in more rich people than poor people by about a factor of two, but there are more poor people than rich people. Since the median income nationwide is the in low twenty thousands the median income among voters is probably in the high twenties or low thirties.
One of the most interesting findings in this year's exit polls was that higher income Americans turned out in much higher proportions than they did four years ago, yet Democrats did better in this election than they did in 1994, both overall and among those high income voters. Voters with household incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 made up 9 percent of the 1994 electorate, increased their share to 12 percent, a 33 percent jump, with Democrats increasing their support in that group from 40 percent in 1994 to 47 percent in 1998. The share of voters with household incomes over $100,000 went from seven to 12 percent of the electorate, a 71 percent jump, with the Democratic proportion growing from 36 to 44 percent.
That Republicans only won 53 percent of the vote among those with household incomes between $75,000-100,000 and 56 percent among those with incomes over $100,000 is a shocking statistic for the GOP. Did it happen because these are the people who have benefited from a strong economy and decided to reward the party holding the White House? An alternative view is that Republicans did not draw clear distinctions between themselves and Democrats on economic issues, allowing attitudes on other issues to become dominant.
A third possibility combines elements of the first two views: that these voters are quite satisfied with the economy, while Republicans have failed to draw clear distinctions on economic issues and seem to have placed a higher priority on impeaching President Clinton than on dealing with more substantive problems. It also could be that this income group simply opposes GOP efforts to impeach Clinton and were trying to send a signal.
Less perplexing but equally important is that a substantially higher proportion of the total vote came from minorities than four years ago or, for that matter, is the norm in midterm elections. These voters continue to give Democrats the lion's share of their support. For example, the Hispanic vote constituted 3 percent of the electorate in 1994, moving to 5 percent in 1998 -- a 66 percent increase in their share, with Democrats getting 63 percent of the vote, up from 61 percent two years ago.
Black turnout nationwide increased more modestly, from nine percent overall in 1994 to ten percent this year, an 11 percent increase in their share, with Democrats getting 89 percent, down slightly from 92 percent in 1994. It would appear, however, that black turnout increased substantially in several key states and districts where there were hotly contested races. In Georgia, Maryland and South Carolina, for example, there was a sharp increase in black votes; Democrats did much better than expected in gubernatorial races in all three states.
Unfortunately, one of the most interesting stories of this election will never really be known: how voters in labor union households voted compared to 1994. In 1998, the Voter News Service placed the labor union membership question in a different place on the questionnaire than in 1994, including it in a "grab bag" of questions on the back of a page, which fewer voters reached by the survey bothered to fill out.
As a result, while we know that voters in union households in 1998 constituted 22 percent of the overall electorate and cast 64 percent of their ballots for Democrats and 36 percent for Republicans -- compared to 60 percent for Democrats and 40 percent for Republicans four years ago -- we cannot make a direct comparison of how much the labor vote grew. Both from anecdotal and election results, it is pretty firmly established that labor turnout increased substantially, but the 14 percent figure from the 1994 exit poll is thought to have understated union turnout that year.
http://www.cookpolitical.com/column/1998/111798.php
Income gaps translate into voting gaps. In the ten states with the smallest income gap, an average 57 percent of the voting age population turned out to vote in the 1996 presidential election, according to Federal Election Commission data. The ten states with the widest income gap had an average voter turnout of only 48 percent.
Voter turnout has fallen dramatically and rising economic inequality is one reason why. Upper-income Americans participate in the electoral process at much higher levels than middle- and low-income Americans.
Among the eligible citizen population, 76 percent of those with family incomes above $75,000 voted in 1996, the last presidential election. Only 63 percent of those with family incomes ranging from $35,000 to $49,999 and 57 percent of those in the $25,000-$34,999 range voted, according to the Census Bureau. Among those with family incomes under $10,000, just 38 percent voted.
Looking at turnout by occupation, 73 percent of those in managerial and professional jobs voted in 1996, compared with only 43 percent of those employed as operators, fabricators, and laborers.
As the Keystone Research Center noted in a 1999 report on democracy in Pennsylvania, “Over half of middle- and low-income Americans believe, ‘People like me don’t have any say about what the government does.’ Only 30 percent of Americans held this view in the 1960s.”
Democracy’s dilemma is that the more people feel like they have no influence, the less they participate in the electoral process—and the less influence they have. When upper-income Americans provide a disproportionate share of the campaign contributions and votes, democracy is not rule by the people, but rule by the people with more money. If the trend continues, we will be left with a democracy in name only.
http://zmag.org/zmag/articles/march2000sklar.htm
The median income among voters looks like it should factor in more rich people than poor people by about a factor of two, but there are more poor people than rich people. Since the median income nationwide is the in low twenty thousands the median income among voters is probably in the high twenties or low thirties.
Although crowds have followed Clinton wherever he goes, the scene had a distinctly Berkeley flavor. The Cal Band belted out brassy tunes, while a man who donned a Clinton mask flashed a peace sign from a fifth-floor balcony. There was also that pro-Clinton sign, hung on a pole, with its endearing -- if unprintable -- phrase about certain sex acts being preferable to war.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/30/BAGEN7E6IF1.DTL
Clinton-Mania Day 2
"All night the Clinton Woodstock grew and like any other encampment, this one had its camp followers."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=350&e=6&u=/kpix/20040630/lo_kpix/10530
BERKELEY-- OUTSIDE THE book-signing frenzy at Cody's Books on Tuesday, Darryl Randall was offering to pay up to $400 in cash for an autographed copy of former President Clinton's new book. Randall had a wad of greenbacks stuffed in his front pocket and carried a sign displaying his generous offer. He flashed a salesman smile to anyone toting a signed copy of "My Life."
But as hundreds of people -- some of whom had camped out in line for 29 hours to see Clinton -- filed out of their store, he had no takers.
"You ain't gettin' mine," snapped a gray-haired woman in her 70s.
"It's worth at least a thousand, baby," said a brunette in her late 30s, skipping off.
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~2244093,00.html
Throng gathers at San Jose book store to see Clinton
PROBLEMS WITH WAITING LINE; WOMAN HITS HEAD AND IS TAKEN TO HOSPITAL
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/9039658.htm?1c
Clinton fans line up at Costco
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001968976_webclinton30.html
http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/167318
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/30/BAGEN7E6IF1.DTL
Clinton-Mania Day 2
"All night the Clinton Woodstock grew and like any other encampment, this one had its camp followers."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=350&e=6&u=/kpix/20040630/lo_kpix/10530
BERKELEY-- OUTSIDE THE book-signing frenzy at Cody's Books on Tuesday, Darryl Randall was offering to pay up to $400 in cash for an autographed copy of former President Clinton's new book. Randall had a wad of greenbacks stuffed in his front pocket and carried a sign displaying his generous offer. He flashed a salesman smile to anyone toting a signed copy of "My Life."
But as hundreds of people -- some of whom had camped out in line for 29 hours to see Clinton -- filed out of their store, he had no takers.
"You ain't gettin' mine," snapped a gray-haired woman in her 70s.
"It's worth at least a thousand, baby," said a brunette in her late 30s, skipping off.
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~2244093,00.html
Throng gathers at San Jose book store to see Clinton
PROBLEMS WITH WAITING LINE; WOMAN HITS HEAD AND IS TAKEN TO HOSPITAL
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/9039658.htm?1c
Clinton fans line up at Costco
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001968976_webclinton30.html
http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/167318
Z: It's a panic button - the princes of Englad have ones, too.
clinton. this piece of shit comes to berkeley to sign his new fluff book, written by some ghost writer hack no doubt, and smile at the cameras. and wave to the disgusting crowd.
so i go there to talk some politics. he's a politician, right?
apparently not. my union organizer friend with a bullhorn got booed by the crowd, harassed, and people threw things at him, because he was out there asking difficult questions about clinton's policies and foreign aggressions.
i went and asked one guy throwing gravel at the man with the bullhorn why he thinks he gets to throw things at people for speaking. he presses his nose against my face while yelling "get out of my face, or else." after i make it clear to him that i'm not going anywhere, a few minutes later and once i'm in a conversation with someone else, he shouts at my friend with the bullhorn, then yells at me to "shut up, you pink haired faggot!" gotta love those lgbt-friendly democrats, eh?
i actually saw clin-ton (was he kang or kodos?) for a few minutes. i kept yelling simple questions, like "hey bill, does your book talk about all those thousands of iraqi kids you killed? how about how you still support the gulf war? hey bill, does your book talk about the time you bombed the factory producing half the medicine for the sudan with no evidence it was anything else? hey bill, does your book talk about how you slashed welfare to build prisons?"
all these people around me kept yelling "shut up, bitch!" at me, with no coherent argument why i should shut up, or why they should still be cheering for a war criminal who tapped everyone's phone. i asked them for one. the best any of them could muster was that they thought i was a white man. bill is what now? (and don't even make me school you on genderqueer in front of an ex-prez)
oh, also, an undercover cop/secret service type guy came and stood with his body half turned toward me, pressing against me, in between me and the ex-prez. like if i was going to do something stupid, i would start out with shouting a bunch of polite policy questions.
oh yeah, and some vapid fashionista/hipster girl told me, "it's not even about politics, he's just such a dreamboat!"
he looked like any other politician robot to me.
moral:
political questioner = "faggot" and/or "oppressor"
child killing president = "dreamboat"
so i go there to talk some politics. he's a politician, right?
apparently not. my union organizer friend with a bullhorn got booed by the crowd, harassed, and people threw things at him, because he was out there asking difficult questions about clinton's policies and foreign aggressions.
i went and asked one guy throwing gravel at the man with the bullhorn why he thinks he gets to throw things at people for speaking. he presses his nose against my face while yelling "get out of my face, or else." after i make it clear to him that i'm not going anywhere, a few minutes later and once i'm in a conversation with someone else, he shouts at my friend with the bullhorn, then yells at me to "shut up, you pink haired faggot!" gotta love those lgbt-friendly democrats, eh?
i actually saw clin-ton (was he kang or kodos?) for a few minutes. i kept yelling simple questions, like "hey bill, does your book talk about all those thousands of iraqi kids you killed? how about how you still support the gulf war? hey bill, does your book talk about the time you bombed the factory producing half the medicine for the sudan with no evidence it was anything else? hey bill, does your book talk about how you slashed welfare to build prisons?"
all these people around me kept yelling "shut up, bitch!" at me, with no coherent argument why i should shut up, or why they should still be cheering for a war criminal who tapped everyone's phone. i asked them for one. the best any of them could muster was that they thought i was a white man. bill is what now? (and don't even make me school you on genderqueer in front of an ex-prez)
oh, also, an undercover cop/secret service type guy came and stood with his body half turned toward me, pressing against me, in between me and the ex-prez. like if i was going to do something stupid, i would start out with shouting a bunch of polite policy questions.
oh yeah, and some vapid fashionista/hipster girl told me, "it's not even about politics, he's just such a dreamboat!"
he looked like any other politician robot to me.
moral:
political questioner = "faggot" and/or "oppressor"
child killing president = "dreamboat"
For more information:
http://www.dontjustvote.com
this thing with clinton really reminds me just how not into the democratic party that I am. Not that I ever thought about it since I was 19, I was at the founding cacaus of the green party as a rep. So I have pretty much not looked back, but seeing the democrats for what they are slightly less ugly republicans. Um, not a great world to live in. Now with the terrible choice of anybody but Bush, um can people really respect themselves in the morning after voting for kerry?
um can people really respect themselves in the morning after voting for kerry?
Only if don't I actually campaign for SOB and only if I continue struggling against the old system while, creating a new meta-narative for the future.
. If Kerry actually wins, it will simply show that Amerikkan public is capable of perceiving an obvious reality, in spite of the forth-coming Republican/Corporate televised propaganda. Yes, a Kerry victory would give me some faint hope. Faint, but hope never-the-less. I still won't put any effort into campaigning for him, though I probably will vote, (with regrets), in this election.
bush must fail, and to fail he must lose.
it's really not a vote for anything. it is a repudiation.
and the neocons must be repudiated.
it really is that simple.
it's really not a vote for anything. it is a repudiation.
and the neocons must be repudiated.
it really is that simple.
the thing is, there is NO policy difference between the "neocons" and "neolibs."
a vote for kerry is a vote for bush.
if kerry wins, bush and the neo-liberal/neo-conservative corporate agenda he, clinton, and bush sr. pushed forward will win.
a vote for kerry is a vote for bush.
if kerry wins, bush and the neo-liberal/neo-conservative corporate agenda he, clinton, and bush sr. pushed forward will win.
For more information:
http://www.dontjustvote.com
no one said all you have to do is vote.
but if you dont go vote against bush, you are a fucking idiot. what, you had something more important to do in those 15 minutes (max) it takes? you spend every waking moment making very important and successful revolution? you never get drunk or sleep in?
pick your favorite dead iraqi baby and go vote for her. do someone else a favor. to refuse to vote because it violates your precious, precocious ideology is the ultimate in bourgeois-wanker behavior.
really, it means there's no difference between you and the typical american frat boy.
but if you dont go vote against bush, you are a fucking idiot. what, you had something more important to do in those 15 minutes (max) it takes? you spend every waking moment making very important and successful revolution? you never get drunk or sleep in?
pick your favorite dead iraqi baby and go vote for her. do someone else a favor. to refuse to vote because it violates your precious, precocious ideology is the ultimate in bourgeois-wanker behavior.
really, it means there's no difference between you and the typical american frat boy.
there.
"but if you dont go vote against bush, you are a fucking idiot. what, you had something more important to do in those 15 minutes (max) it takes? you spend every waking moment making very important and successful revolution? you never get drunk or sleep in?"
there is no "vote against bush." you vote FOR a candidate, and if you don't understand that, you're the fucking idiot. worse, if you think kerry represents a different party (and thus different policy) from bush, you're a bigger fucking idiot.
it isn't a question of having anything better to do. the problem is that your basic assumptions (voting "against" someone, the democrats are a different party than the republicans rather than a faction of the same capitalist party, etc) are so far off you're not even capable of asking the right questions. getting drunk or sleeping in are both *better* than voting FOR kerry, the confessed war criminal.
"pick your favorite dead iraqi baby and go vote for her. do someone else a favor. to refuse to vote because it violates your precious, precocious ideology is the ultimate in bourgeois-wanker behavior."
if i did vote for my "favorite dead iraqi baby," i sure as fuck wouldn't vote for someone who killed her. kerry killed her as much as bush did. he voted for the war, and plans to continue it.
you clearly don't even know what the word bourgeois means, since you use it as a lifestyle epithet rather than a class description. besides, insulting someone as 'ruling class,' 'bourgeois,' 'working class,' or 'unemployed' ("get a job" is popular) all fail to address any political point. misuse of such terms as insults in a political discussion shows that you lack any real political point AND shows that you lack any real understanding of class. congratulations. you've killed two birds with one stone!
"wanker" is british slang for someone who masturbates. are you telling us you don't? maybe you should try. it might loosen the grip of democratic-party ideology on your feeble, sexually repressed little brain.
i don't refuse to vote due to ideology. you vote due to ideology.
i refuse to vote because in looking at american history, i see clearly that a lot of good has been accomplished. none of it, however, has been accomplished through voting, especially for a fucking democrat. i refuse to vote out of ideological faith when i see what happens in the real world - the democrats are the happy-face faction of the business party, and they carry out the same policies as the republicans, with different rhetoric.
remember the party that brought you vietnam? the democrats. the party of clinton, who slashed welfare and food stamps to build prisons. etc...
"really, it means there's no difference between you and the typical american frat boy."
more ignorant lifestyle insults. how politically astute. you must really know what should be done to make social change in this country right now, since you're armed with such vicious insults about frat boys. i'm shivering. is it cold in here? no, it's not. i must be exhilarated to the marrow by your deep, insightful analysis.
lead me, oh democratic party apologist, lead me to salvation!
there is no "vote against bush." you vote FOR a candidate, and if you don't understand that, you're the fucking idiot. worse, if you think kerry represents a different party (and thus different policy) from bush, you're a bigger fucking idiot.
it isn't a question of having anything better to do. the problem is that your basic assumptions (voting "against" someone, the democrats are a different party than the republicans rather than a faction of the same capitalist party, etc) are so far off you're not even capable of asking the right questions. getting drunk or sleeping in are both *better* than voting FOR kerry, the confessed war criminal.
"pick your favorite dead iraqi baby and go vote for her. do someone else a favor. to refuse to vote because it violates your precious, precocious ideology is the ultimate in bourgeois-wanker behavior."
if i did vote for my "favorite dead iraqi baby," i sure as fuck wouldn't vote for someone who killed her. kerry killed her as much as bush did. he voted for the war, and plans to continue it.
you clearly don't even know what the word bourgeois means, since you use it as a lifestyle epithet rather than a class description. besides, insulting someone as 'ruling class,' 'bourgeois,' 'working class,' or 'unemployed' ("get a job" is popular) all fail to address any political point. misuse of such terms as insults in a political discussion shows that you lack any real political point AND shows that you lack any real understanding of class. congratulations. you've killed two birds with one stone!
"wanker" is british slang for someone who masturbates. are you telling us you don't? maybe you should try. it might loosen the grip of democratic-party ideology on your feeble, sexually repressed little brain.
i don't refuse to vote due to ideology. you vote due to ideology.
i refuse to vote because in looking at american history, i see clearly that a lot of good has been accomplished. none of it, however, has been accomplished through voting, especially for a fucking democrat. i refuse to vote out of ideological faith when i see what happens in the real world - the democrats are the happy-face faction of the business party, and they carry out the same policies as the republicans, with different rhetoric.
remember the party that brought you vietnam? the democrats. the party of clinton, who slashed welfare and food stamps to build prisons. etc...
"really, it means there's no difference between you and the typical american frat boy."
more ignorant lifestyle insults. how politically astute. you must really know what should be done to make social change in this country right now, since you're armed with such vicious insults about frat boys. i'm shivering. is it cold in here? no, it's not. i must be exhilarated to the marrow by your deep, insightful analysis.
lead me, oh democratic party apologist, lead me to salvation!
For more information:
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interven...
Touché!
To imply that an American citizen "votes" by selecting one brand of corporate doublespeak over another (Democrat/Republican) is to fail to grasp the single most important element of American society;
There is no vote.
There is only a sham that can only be maintained as long as the majority of American citizens (as elsewhere) are kept in their irrationally ignorant state of awareness.
The sham is maintained by a media that is controlled by the same corporate oiligarch that has the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of our so called government held captive to the greed for false social and material privilege of those elected to represent the peoples will.
Moral and ethical cretins were always easy to subvert....or get to run for office.
To imply that an American citizen "votes" by selecting one brand of corporate doublespeak over another (Democrat/Republican) is to fail to grasp the single most important element of American society;
There is no vote.
There is only a sham that can only be maintained as long as the majority of American citizens (as elsewhere) are kept in their irrationally ignorant state of awareness.
The sham is maintained by a media that is controlled by the same corporate oiligarch that has the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of our so called government held captive to the greed for false social and material privilege of those elected to represent the peoples will.
Moral and ethical cretins were always easy to subvert....or get to run for office.
Abstentionist politics are so droll, really. To make such a nonsensical statement as:
"i refuse to vote because in looking at american history, i see clearly that a lot of good has been accomplished. none of it, however, has been accomplished through voting, especially for a fucking democrat."
proves your lack of knowledge of history and how political decisions are made.
There certainly are major differences between Democrats and Republicans both historically and in the present. The policies of FDR versus those of Reagan come to mind but we need not go back that far. Under Clinton, the drug war was rolled back, the economy improved, our relations with Cuba were improved and we advocated a multilateral policy of international relations. Under Bush Jr., the drug war returned, our economy is in the dumps, our relations with Cuba have gone back to the Cold War era and we are pushing a unilateralist foreign policy. These are differences between the ideologies of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism and between the interpretations and opinions of these two men.
These are just a few of the differences, there are plenty of others. Just because YOU can not tell the difference does not mean that the rest of America can not.
Ever stop and wonder why your simplistic political "analysis" is so marginal? Ever stop to wonder why your views are so unpopular among the classes you claim to speak for (workers, people of color, etc.)?
No, of course you don't. Your ultra-leftist self-righteousness speaks for itself. So knock yourself out. Don't vote and pretend you are some "revolutionary" while the rest of us try to improve our lives.
"i refuse to vote because in looking at american history, i see clearly that a lot of good has been accomplished. none of it, however, has been accomplished through voting, especially for a fucking democrat."
proves your lack of knowledge of history and how political decisions are made.
There certainly are major differences between Democrats and Republicans both historically and in the present. The policies of FDR versus those of Reagan come to mind but we need not go back that far. Under Clinton, the drug war was rolled back, the economy improved, our relations with Cuba were improved and we advocated a multilateral policy of international relations. Under Bush Jr., the drug war returned, our economy is in the dumps, our relations with Cuba have gone back to the Cold War era and we are pushing a unilateralist foreign policy. These are differences between the ideologies of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism and between the interpretations and opinions of these two men.
These are just a few of the differences, there are plenty of others. Just because YOU can not tell the difference does not mean that the rest of America can not.
Ever stop and wonder why your simplistic political "analysis" is so marginal? Ever stop to wonder why your views are so unpopular among the classes you claim to speak for (workers, people of color, etc.)?
No, of course you don't. Your ultra-leftist self-righteousness speaks for itself. So knock yourself out. Don't vote and pretend you are some "revolutionary" while the rest of us try to improve our lives.
Just out of idle curiosity, exactly how much "influence" is
gained by the citizen when, in the case of the USA, a large
segment, at times, even a majority, do not even vote at all
due to their clear understanding that they have been
effectively shut out of the "political decision" process?
Those who rule without a mandate do so as despots only.
gained by the citizen when, in the case of the USA, a large
segment, at times, even a majority, do not even vote at all
due to their clear understanding that they have been
effectively shut out of the "political decision" process?
Those who rule without a mandate do so as despots only.
"Just out of idle curiosity, exactly how much "influence" is
gained by the citizen when, in the case of the USA, a large
segment, at times, even a majority, do not even vote at all
due to their clear understanding that they have been
effectively shut out of the "political decision" process?"
I ddon't agree with your assertion. I doubt the majority of the people who choose not to vote have a "clear understanding that they have been effectively shut out of the "political decision" process?""
Some people in the U.S. share your views, most are just plain lazy. Another way of looking at it is people agree with the current policies and think voting is a waste of their precious time. They feel their time is better spent being with family or working or hanging out smoking dope or whatever they choose to do...
As far as individuals not having any impact, I would tend to agree. One person voicing their opinion on a topic is just that. But, when you allocate precious resources and mobilize many individuals around a cause, you can have a tremendous impact. Look at the civil rights movement, or gay rights, or AIPAC for that matter. In short, politics do matter and so does voting.
If you CHOOSE not to vote, you have no one to blame for your lack of influence than yourselves. It's no conspiracy, it's just laziness on your part or fear that if you really did take the time to organize, you'd realize how marginalized your notions of politics truly are.
gained by the citizen when, in the case of the USA, a large
segment, at times, even a majority, do not even vote at all
due to their clear understanding that they have been
effectively shut out of the "political decision" process?"
I ddon't agree with your assertion. I doubt the majority of the people who choose not to vote have a "clear understanding that they have been effectively shut out of the "political decision" process?""
Some people in the U.S. share your views, most are just plain lazy. Another way of looking at it is people agree with the current policies and think voting is a waste of their precious time. They feel their time is better spent being with family or working or hanging out smoking dope or whatever they choose to do...
As far as individuals not having any impact, I would tend to agree. One person voicing their opinion on a topic is just that. But, when you allocate precious resources and mobilize many individuals around a cause, you can have a tremendous impact. Look at the civil rights movement, or gay rights, or AIPAC for that matter. In short, politics do matter and so does voting.
If you CHOOSE not to vote, you have no one to blame for your lack of influence than yourselves. It's no conspiracy, it's just laziness on your part or fear that if you really did take the time to organize, you'd realize how marginalized your notions of politics truly are.
"a large segment, at times, even a majority, do not even vote at all due to their clear understanding that they have been
effectively shut out of the "political decision" process?"
I agree with a lot of what is said about there not being a major difference between political parties, but I think the interpretation of voting trends is not correct. Wealthier Americans vote at twice the rate of poorer Americans partly out of apathy and partly out of the cost of voting. Workplaces are required to give you time off to vote, but if you are paid hourly one is still paying to vote. While the radical left often opposes voting the number of those not voting for political reasons is small and is probably higher among the upper middle class who dont depend on any social services and really see no difference between the parties. Poorer voters tend to be more pragmatic and are less bothered by voting for a lesser evil if the lesser evil will make even a small difference in their lives compared to the greater evil; thats why one sees a fairly wealthy demographic voting Green.
Ideas about the effects of voting vs not voting become clearest when you look at local elections. When specific local policies are at stake radicals almost universally change tact on voting (look how people responded to Matt in SF last year). Interestingly I bet you would find the income disparities dont change in such elections since the reason for poor people not voting is not really that related to the politics of the election. More people vote in a higly publicized election but the factors that discourage poorer people from voting dont go away.
The Bush Kerry election is complicated by election rhetoric that most people know to ignore. Bush and Kerry are appealing to get the most votes not stating what they will do when elected. One has to look back to what the Democrats and Republics said last year to get a better feel for what the future will hold if either one is elected. The major difference vis-a-vis Iraq will not be one of policy but one of international reponse. The international community will have a much easier time working with Kerry than Bush due to the politics of how the war started; the result will probably be a more diverse force in Iraq with fewer US troops. Depending on you politics this could be just as bad or worse (the Iraqi resistance could lose most of its strength when Bush is gone since he is so easy to demonize). Of course a decrease in hatred in the Middle East for the US following a Kerry victory could force the extremists to stage some large attack to generate a US response to keep thing moving so its really hard to say what the future will hold... it most likely will be different depending on who wins but the difference has little to do with what Bush or Kerry are saying
effectively shut out of the "political decision" process?"
I agree with a lot of what is said about there not being a major difference between political parties, but I think the interpretation of voting trends is not correct. Wealthier Americans vote at twice the rate of poorer Americans partly out of apathy and partly out of the cost of voting. Workplaces are required to give you time off to vote, but if you are paid hourly one is still paying to vote. While the radical left often opposes voting the number of those not voting for political reasons is small and is probably higher among the upper middle class who dont depend on any social services and really see no difference between the parties. Poorer voters tend to be more pragmatic and are less bothered by voting for a lesser evil if the lesser evil will make even a small difference in their lives compared to the greater evil; thats why one sees a fairly wealthy demographic voting Green.
Ideas about the effects of voting vs not voting become clearest when you look at local elections. When specific local policies are at stake radicals almost universally change tact on voting (look how people responded to Matt in SF last year). Interestingly I bet you would find the income disparities dont change in such elections since the reason for poor people not voting is not really that related to the politics of the election. More people vote in a higly publicized election but the factors that discourage poorer people from voting dont go away.
The Bush Kerry election is complicated by election rhetoric that most people know to ignore. Bush and Kerry are appealing to get the most votes not stating what they will do when elected. One has to look back to what the Democrats and Republics said last year to get a better feel for what the future will hold if either one is elected. The major difference vis-a-vis Iraq will not be one of policy but one of international reponse. The international community will have a much easier time working with Kerry than Bush due to the politics of how the war started; the result will probably be a more diverse force in Iraq with fewer US troops. Depending on you politics this could be just as bad or worse (the Iraqi resistance could lose most of its strength when Bush is gone since he is so easy to demonize). Of course a decrease in hatred in the Middle East for the US following a Kerry victory could force the extremists to stage some large attack to generate a US response to keep thing moving so its really hard to say what the future will hold... it most likely will be different depending on who wins but the difference has little to do with what Bush or Kerry are saying
I appreciate your comments and your taking the time to engage in a dialogue regarding the issue of voting;
While I understand your basic p.o.v. that voting itself is a viable path for citizen influence, my point, perhaps poorly put forward, is not whether or not to vote, but whether or not there
is any point whatsoever to "voting" , when in "presidential" or national elections it is an entirely empty gesture given the lack of a genuine difference in the political agenda between the so called democratic or republican parties.
There is not one shred of difference in real terms between the two versions of corporate interest manipulation. The only difference is mediaspin; democrats are elected when the rising tide of public awareness becomes visible, republicans when the consumers are appeased. The policies remain the same.
Need examples?
Let me give you just one:
The US government and the American people through their, as you claim, elected representatives, have willfully murdered or worse tens of thousands of innocent civilians and others in the sovereign state of Iraq. This crime has been perpetrated in order to maintain a despots wrongful control over the peoples and resources of the Middle East and Central Asia.
Where, in the "democratic" platform is it stated that full and impartial justice for those wrongful murders will be meted out to the guilty...because the democratic party is a party that upholds the rule of law?
The democratic party of the United States is not worth the spit of one dead Iraqi. It is a hoax, a sham, and a deliberate
exercise in criminality for the profits of less than 500 corporate owners. The names and identities of whom are known.
The republican party of the United States is not worth the spit of one dead Iraqi. It is a hoax, a sham, and a deliberate exercise in criminality for the profits of less than 500 corporate owners. The names and identities of whom are known.
There is no point in voting when there is no honest representation to be gained from the gesture. Speaking on a national administrative or "presidential" level that is.
Local issues tend to galvanize a larger public response simply because the issues are more directly tangible for the
broader populace and I will wager because it IS still possible to impose the peoples will upon elected officials on a local
level, given as you rightly say, mobilization of the peoples voice, or vote.
Local, public castigation is a powerful weapon.
A vote for a "democrat" who freely admits participating in the equally criminal genocide (which is still ongoing today) of millions of innocent Vietnamese, who is the wealthiest member of congress, who believes that a continuation of the illegal and criminal occupation of a sovereign state is a "solution", who favours open support for the Israeli regime which is proven to be a rogue state operating outside the rule of international law, is a "vote" by the american consumer (oh, I am so sorry, I of course mean citizen) in support of lawlessness and blatant racist criminality. So by all means, why don´t you "vote your conscience" for a change, if you in fact have one, instead of your spoonfed soundbites concerning a national election that does not even exist in real terms?
As for republicans I need say nothing, Bush and his associated unelected criminals for hire speak so all the world hears and knows the value as well as the awareness, of American "voting".
We want and we will have full justice served upon the guilty and there will be no escape. It may take 2 days, 2 years, or even 20 years. Retribution will be had and the consequences of the personal actions and choices of those individuals will be reaped. My life, and the lives of many are forfeited long since to this goal.
For truly, the spit of one wrongfully murdered Iraqi is worth much, much, more than my personal life.
Aren´t you aware that the american party system is seen to be a laughable farce across European societies?
While I understand your basic p.o.v. that voting itself is a viable path for citizen influence, my point, perhaps poorly put forward, is not whether or not to vote, but whether or not there
is any point whatsoever to "voting" , when in "presidential" or national elections it is an entirely empty gesture given the lack of a genuine difference in the political agenda between the so called democratic or republican parties.
There is not one shred of difference in real terms between the two versions of corporate interest manipulation. The only difference is mediaspin; democrats are elected when the rising tide of public awareness becomes visible, republicans when the consumers are appeased. The policies remain the same.
Need examples?
Let me give you just one:
The US government and the American people through their, as you claim, elected representatives, have willfully murdered or worse tens of thousands of innocent civilians and others in the sovereign state of Iraq. This crime has been perpetrated in order to maintain a despots wrongful control over the peoples and resources of the Middle East and Central Asia.
Where, in the "democratic" platform is it stated that full and impartial justice for those wrongful murders will be meted out to the guilty...because the democratic party is a party that upholds the rule of law?
The democratic party of the United States is not worth the spit of one dead Iraqi. It is a hoax, a sham, and a deliberate
exercise in criminality for the profits of less than 500 corporate owners. The names and identities of whom are known.
The republican party of the United States is not worth the spit of one dead Iraqi. It is a hoax, a sham, and a deliberate exercise in criminality for the profits of less than 500 corporate owners. The names and identities of whom are known.
There is no point in voting when there is no honest representation to be gained from the gesture. Speaking on a national administrative or "presidential" level that is.
Local issues tend to galvanize a larger public response simply because the issues are more directly tangible for the
broader populace and I will wager because it IS still possible to impose the peoples will upon elected officials on a local
level, given as you rightly say, mobilization of the peoples voice, or vote.
Local, public castigation is a powerful weapon.
A vote for a "democrat" who freely admits participating in the equally criminal genocide (which is still ongoing today) of millions of innocent Vietnamese, who is the wealthiest member of congress, who believes that a continuation of the illegal and criminal occupation of a sovereign state is a "solution", who favours open support for the Israeli regime which is proven to be a rogue state operating outside the rule of international law, is a "vote" by the american consumer (oh, I am so sorry, I of course mean citizen) in support of lawlessness and blatant racist criminality. So by all means, why don´t you "vote your conscience" for a change, if you in fact have one, instead of your spoonfed soundbites concerning a national election that does not even exist in real terms?
As for republicans I need say nothing, Bush and his associated unelected criminals for hire speak so all the world hears and knows the value as well as the awareness, of American "voting".
We want and we will have full justice served upon the guilty and there will be no escape. It may take 2 days, 2 years, or even 20 years. Retribution will be had and the consequences of the personal actions and choices of those individuals will be reaped. My life, and the lives of many are forfeited long since to this goal.
For truly, the spit of one wrongfully murdered Iraqi is worth much, much, more than my personal life.
Aren´t you aware that the american party system is seen to be a laughable farce across European societies?
Your examples, while somewhat accurate, do nothing to discount the differences that I listed between Democrats and Republicans. You seem to live in an ideal world where everything is black and white. Democrats and Republicans both get corporate money, so they are bad. Democrat and Republican administrations have led us to war, therefore both are bad, etc.
I would contend that life is not so simple and straight forward. Yes, Democrats and Republicans both get money from corporations and money (and power) definitely influence the political process and political decision making.
But lets examine the current presidential race. Both the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce have come out with both guns blazing, primarly against Edwards but against the Democratic ticket as a whole. Unions, by and large, are supporting Democrats. You--and the rest of the extreme left--may view that as a "sell out", I view it as a clear indication where resources, ideas, and bodies are being mobilized for a particular set of candidates who adhere to different world views.
And the policies reflect that. Yes, Clinton passed NAFTA but his administration was still more pro-labor (in terms of being responsive to unions, on issues of workplace protection, etc.) than Papa Bush and especially Bush Jr. Yes, Clinton led the US into foreign adventures in Haiti (to put a democratically elected president back in power) and Yugoslavia (to prevent Southern Europe from being drawn into a fratricidal bloodbath) but he did it with overwhelming support at home, in the global community.
Bush Jr. (and "conservatives" in general) have proven themselves to have little regard for environmental protection (supported by Democrats), public schools (ditto), affirmative action (likewise) and display a rigid hatred of abortion (most Democrats are pro-choice).
Now, these may not be your pet issue but they do resonate with a significant percentage of the electorate. People want clean water to drink and decent public schools. Many people--men and women--do consider abortion to be a crucial issue. And they vote accordingly.
I would concede that both world-views are fundamentally pro-capitalist but as they say, "the devil is in the details". In other words, there are differences and most people in the U.S. can see them, even if you can not.
And please explain this comment about the:
"genocide (which is still ongoing today) of millions of innocent Vietnamese"
What genocide are you talking about?
As far as the "Israel rogue state" comment, I'll let that speak for itself. You people on the extreme left make the most absurd comments. Sometimes I think you are living on a different planet than the rest of us. Have you ever been to Israel or do you get all of your information off of the Internet?
Israel is the most democratic state in the Middle East. Israel has a multi-party democracy where Muslims, Christians, and Jews can serve in parliament. Israel has a thriving civil society with peace organizations, free trade unions, an independent media, and so on.
Sure Israel has problems. Plenty of them. All democratic states do. Ever been to Texas? ;-)
But to constantly demonize Israel as so many on the extreme left do really reveals a perverse obsession when there are so many states doing far worse things than Israel is doing. And I'm not only talking about the Middle East. China, Sudan, Colombia, the list goes on and on but for some reason the extreme left is absolutely obsessed with Israel.
As far as the treatment of the Palestinians, I think it is horrible. War is a horrible thing. The sooner there is peace in the region, the better. I am active in some peace organizations myself. How about you? What are you doing to *solve* the conflict beyond hurling incendiary rhetoric about Israel. I really wonder about you people some times...
When you make a comment that you think that the "spit" of a dead Iraqi is worth more than your own life, I seriously wonder about your mental stability. Self preservation is the primary motivation of every animal, human or otherwise. You seem really jaded. Not sure what's happended to you but I think your hatred of capitalism has led you to nihlism, self-hatred and a generally f*ed up way of looking at the world.
I would contend that life is not so simple and straight forward. Yes, Democrats and Republicans both get money from corporations and money (and power) definitely influence the political process and political decision making.
But lets examine the current presidential race. Both the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce have come out with both guns blazing, primarly against Edwards but against the Democratic ticket as a whole. Unions, by and large, are supporting Democrats. You--and the rest of the extreme left--may view that as a "sell out", I view it as a clear indication where resources, ideas, and bodies are being mobilized for a particular set of candidates who adhere to different world views.
And the policies reflect that. Yes, Clinton passed NAFTA but his administration was still more pro-labor (in terms of being responsive to unions, on issues of workplace protection, etc.) than Papa Bush and especially Bush Jr. Yes, Clinton led the US into foreign adventures in Haiti (to put a democratically elected president back in power) and Yugoslavia (to prevent Southern Europe from being drawn into a fratricidal bloodbath) but he did it with overwhelming support at home, in the global community.
Bush Jr. (and "conservatives" in general) have proven themselves to have little regard for environmental protection (supported by Democrats), public schools (ditto), affirmative action (likewise) and display a rigid hatred of abortion (most Democrats are pro-choice).
Now, these may not be your pet issue but they do resonate with a significant percentage of the electorate. People want clean water to drink and decent public schools. Many people--men and women--do consider abortion to be a crucial issue. And they vote accordingly.
I would concede that both world-views are fundamentally pro-capitalist but as they say, "the devil is in the details". In other words, there are differences and most people in the U.S. can see them, even if you can not.
And please explain this comment about the:
"genocide (which is still ongoing today) of millions of innocent Vietnamese"
What genocide are you talking about?
As far as the "Israel rogue state" comment, I'll let that speak for itself. You people on the extreme left make the most absurd comments. Sometimes I think you are living on a different planet than the rest of us. Have you ever been to Israel or do you get all of your information off of the Internet?
Israel is the most democratic state in the Middle East. Israel has a multi-party democracy where Muslims, Christians, and Jews can serve in parliament. Israel has a thriving civil society with peace organizations, free trade unions, an independent media, and so on.
Sure Israel has problems. Plenty of them. All democratic states do. Ever been to Texas? ;-)
But to constantly demonize Israel as so many on the extreme left do really reveals a perverse obsession when there are so many states doing far worse things than Israel is doing. And I'm not only talking about the Middle East. China, Sudan, Colombia, the list goes on and on but for some reason the extreme left is absolutely obsessed with Israel.
As far as the treatment of the Palestinians, I think it is horrible. War is a horrible thing. The sooner there is peace in the region, the better. I am active in some peace organizations myself. How about you? What are you doing to *solve* the conflict beyond hurling incendiary rhetoric about Israel. I really wonder about you people some times...
When you make a comment that you think that the "spit" of a dead Iraqi is worth more than your own life, I seriously wonder about your mental stability. Self preservation is the primary motivation of every animal, human or otherwise. You seem really jaded. Not sure what's happended to you but I think your hatred of capitalism has led you to nihlism, self-hatred and a generally f*ed up way of looking at the world.
"Aren´t you aware that the american party system is seen to be a laughable farce across European societies?"
I don't think that it is. I think it depends who you talk to and what country you are in. Many Europeans want direct elections as opposed to having to vote for a party. They are sick of party oligarchs making decisions for them. When I was in Spain two years ago, people were pissed off at the PP and PSE. They wanted to vote for candidates, not for the party. Ditto in Britain. And in Greece and Italy the parties are viewed as ossified and corrupt. I think this anti-party perspective is less common in France and Germany. Not sure about Scandanavia.
Outside of Europe, Brazil went to a direct election system after a grassroots popular movement (Directas Ja) forced a recalcitrant military and party oligarchy to back down.
Are you talking about proportional representation? If so, I used to support it (when I was in my 20s) but I am sceptical today. I used to think it would be great because it would allow a diversity of *left* candidates (greens, social democrats, etc.) to get on the ballot. Problem is, this country is overwhelmingly conservative so the people who would make out the best are the xenophobes and right-populist types with the lefties you support getting--at best--about 5% of the seats. I say, "No thank you." I'll stick with our present system, flawed as it is.
And why are you so concerned with how Europe views our political system anyway?
European friends giving you a hard time?
Well, you can remind them that Continetal European nations are facing plenty of problems right now. Their health systems are overloaded (esp. France) and both France and Germany are facing possible fines in the billions of Euros to the European Union for spending too much on domestic programs. Plus their taxes seem outrageous to most people in the middle class in the U.S. who feel our tax burden is too high as it is. This may not reflect you views but we vote...
I don't think that it is. I think it depends who you talk to and what country you are in. Many Europeans want direct elections as opposed to having to vote for a party. They are sick of party oligarchs making decisions for them. When I was in Spain two years ago, people were pissed off at the PP and PSE. They wanted to vote for candidates, not for the party. Ditto in Britain. And in Greece and Italy the parties are viewed as ossified and corrupt. I think this anti-party perspective is less common in France and Germany. Not sure about Scandanavia.
Outside of Europe, Brazil went to a direct election system after a grassroots popular movement (Directas Ja) forced a recalcitrant military and party oligarchy to back down.
Are you talking about proportional representation? If so, I used to support it (when I was in my 20s) but I am sceptical today. I used to think it would be great because it would allow a diversity of *left* candidates (greens, social democrats, etc.) to get on the ballot. Problem is, this country is overwhelmingly conservative so the people who would make out the best are the xenophobes and right-populist types with the lefties you support getting--at best--about 5% of the seats. I say, "No thank you." I'll stick with our present system, flawed as it is.
And why are you so concerned with how Europe views our political system anyway?
European friends giving you a hard time?
Well, you can remind them that Continetal European nations are facing plenty of problems right now. Their health systems are overloaded (esp. France) and both France and Germany are facing possible fines in the billions of Euros to the European Union for spending too much on domestic programs. Plus their taxes seem outrageous to most people in the middle class in the U.S. who feel our tax burden is too high as it is. This may not reflect you views but we vote...
Tell that to Cuban Americans:
In early May, a Bush-appointed “Committee for Assistance to a Free Cuba” recommended that Cuban Americans be allowed to visit relatives every third year rather than once a year, and then only by special permission. The new rules limit them to a 14-day visit, and they must conform to new limitations on money they can spend there themselves and take to their relatives.
There are even new definitions of what constitutes family. Visits to cousins, aunts, and uncles are now out. The new regulations took effect on June 30.
The days leading up to that date were marked by mob scenes at the Miami Airport, as flights were cancelled and ticket holders were kept from boarding planes. Many of those rebuffed had already traveled long distances to connect with flights to Cuba. Charter companies sent extra planes to Havana to bring back visitors concerned about overstaying their 14-day limit. Animosity toward the Bush administration from the assembled throng was palpable, according to media reports.
For some time public opinion polls have suggested that at least half of Florida’s Cubans are raising questions about U.S.-Cuba policy, and polls now show that a majority opposes the new regulations. Most respondents place the blame for the cruel and anti-family measures on an older generation of right-wing, politically influential Cuban Americans, and say Bush is pandering to the old guard. Even that kingpin of right-wing connivance, the Cuban American National Foundation, takes exception to the travel restrictions.
A nationwide coalition of Cuban Americans has set up the Cuban American Commission for Family Rights. Silvia Wilhelm, the group’s director, regards the new restrictions as disastrous for human rights and family values. Commission President Alvaro Fernandez notes that “a vast majority of Cuban Americans support family travel. This is a policy that panders to a minority of Cuban Americans and is nothing more than election year politics.” The commission will be utilizing the courts and upcoming elections to oppose the travel regulations.
On June 24, members of the House of Representatives met with Bush officials to urge them to back away from the new policies, and the next day members of Congress’ Cuba Working Group indicated that they will try to block funding for enforcing the regulations. Joining them was Rep. Jim Davis (D-Fla.), who until now has been a hard-liner against Cuba.
In a July 1 letter to the New York Times, Miguel Rivas of New Jersey writes, “This is just cheap politics aimed at older Cuban Americans with little family left in Cuba, who vote in higher numbers. Other Cuban Americans vote too, and Mr. Bush is in for a surprise.”
The new restrictions come at a time when Cubans on the socialist island nation are deeply concerned about the increased hostility towards them coming from the Bush administration.
In addition to the new travel restrictions, George W. Bush has directed some $59 million dollars to be spent on undermining Cuban sovereignty, including broadcasting State Department propaganda through U.S.-run Radio and TV Marti.
According to the Center for Defense Information (CDI) Cuba Project, the White House decided to deploy military “Commando Solo” airborne platforms in coordination with the U.S. government’s Office of Cuba Broadcasting. “It is unclear whether this aircraft will be operated by the military or the OCB,” the CDI’s June 17 press statement said. The OCB is run largely by Cuban exiles based in Miami who maintain ties to extremist, shadowy elements who “seek to trigger a violent incident that could create a pretext for military action against Cuba,” the CDI said.
Two U.S. carrier strike groups also recently sailed in the vicinity of Cuba as part of a new kind of Navy exercise. These actions have caused great concern among the Cuban people and officials about the growing possibility of a U.S. military action there, according to the CDI.
http://pww.org/article/articleview/5472/1/223/
In early May, a Bush-appointed “Committee for Assistance to a Free Cuba” recommended that Cuban Americans be allowed to visit relatives every third year rather than once a year, and then only by special permission. The new rules limit them to a 14-day visit, and they must conform to new limitations on money they can spend there themselves and take to their relatives.
There are even new definitions of what constitutes family. Visits to cousins, aunts, and uncles are now out. The new regulations took effect on June 30.
The days leading up to that date were marked by mob scenes at the Miami Airport, as flights were cancelled and ticket holders were kept from boarding planes. Many of those rebuffed had already traveled long distances to connect with flights to Cuba. Charter companies sent extra planes to Havana to bring back visitors concerned about overstaying their 14-day limit. Animosity toward the Bush administration from the assembled throng was palpable, according to media reports.
For some time public opinion polls have suggested that at least half of Florida’s Cubans are raising questions about U.S.-Cuba policy, and polls now show that a majority opposes the new regulations. Most respondents place the blame for the cruel and anti-family measures on an older generation of right-wing, politically influential Cuban Americans, and say Bush is pandering to the old guard. Even that kingpin of right-wing connivance, the Cuban American National Foundation, takes exception to the travel restrictions.
A nationwide coalition of Cuban Americans has set up the Cuban American Commission for Family Rights. Silvia Wilhelm, the group’s director, regards the new restrictions as disastrous for human rights and family values. Commission President Alvaro Fernandez notes that “a vast majority of Cuban Americans support family travel. This is a policy that panders to a minority of Cuban Americans and is nothing more than election year politics.” The commission will be utilizing the courts and upcoming elections to oppose the travel regulations.
On June 24, members of the House of Representatives met with Bush officials to urge them to back away from the new policies, and the next day members of Congress’ Cuba Working Group indicated that they will try to block funding for enforcing the regulations. Joining them was Rep. Jim Davis (D-Fla.), who until now has been a hard-liner against Cuba.
In a July 1 letter to the New York Times, Miguel Rivas of New Jersey writes, “This is just cheap politics aimed at older Cuban Americans with little family left in Cuba, who vote in higher numbers. Other Cuban Americans vote too, and Mr. Bush is in for a surprise.”
The new restrictions come at a time when Cubans on the socialist island nation are deeply concerned about the increased hostility towards them coming from the Bush administration.
In addition to the new travel restrictions, George W. Bush has directed some $59 million dollars to be spent on undermining Cuban sovereignty, including broadcasting State Department propaganda through U.S.-run Radio and TV Marti.
According to the Center for Defense Information (CDI) Cuba Project, the White House decided to deploy military “Commando Solo” airborne platforms in coordination with the U.S. government’s Office of Cuba Broadcasting. “It is unclear whether this aircraft will be operated by the military or the OCB,” the CDI’s June 17 press statement said. The OCB is run largely by Cuban exiles based in Miami who maintain ties to extremist, shadowy elements who “seek to trigger a violent incident that could create a pretext for military action against Cuba,” the CDI said.
Two U.S. carrier strike groups also recently sailed in the vicinity of Cuba as part of a new kind of Navy exercise. These actions have caused great concern among the Cuban people and officials about the growing possibility of a U.S. military action there, according to the CDI.
http://pww.org/article/articleview/5472/1/223/
The dude on the roof is berkley police swat sniper
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network