for my parents, olvlzl
All of the dead, some in uniform, parents, old, children too young.
Holes in families, empty houses. Shadows on people. A name in rock.
A person remembers someone. A town, a life.
Countries give speeches. Speeches about speeches.
Speeches about people. Too far away to know.
And I can't tell you. You had to see them. In their towns. Both sides.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Troubled Youth, The Green Party At the Age Of Majority
Posted by olvlzl.
John Eder, the only Green State Legislator in Maine is listed in Wikipedia as the highest office holder in the history of the Green Party of the United States*. I was truly sorry to read that he had lost his reelection bid. I like John. He’s smart and daring and has a future in practical politics. The Greens should have a presence in the Maine Legislature, more than just one person. I would love to see a Green caucus that could hold the balance of power in coalition with progressive Democrats and such independents as might constitute a leftist block. This time John Eder’s constituents in Portland didn’t see it that way, electing a Democrat to replace him. But his loss and his position as the Green holding the highest office after twenty-one years of dedication, hard work and great expense by Green Party members all with wildly disproportionate publicity forces a number of questions.
Why would rank-and-file Greens continue allowing the show candidacies favored by their leadership when it has proven to be counter-productive? Nader in 2000 was certainly enough for any sane person to learn that a Green Presidential candidate can only serve to put the worst president in the history of the country into place. That is the only political result that Greens have achieved in a presidential election, certainly not what they hoped for.
This year’s Green candidate for the Senate in Pennsylvania, Carl Romanelli, with the clear and gloating financial help of Republican fat-cats, came one court ruling away from risking the return of Rick Santorum to the Senate. As we have seen that would have made Dick Cheney the deciding vote in a dead-locked Senate. Instead of Leahy running the Judiciary Committee it would have been Arlen “Rubber Stamp for Roberts and Alito” Specter again. And that’s only one committee in the Senate. It’s time for Green Party Members to force their leadership to stop playing pretend before it contributes to the extension of Republican control of the United States.
In the election just concluded, two Greens who ran for governor are listed on the national party’s website as their great successes. Rich Whitney in Illinois got 11% of the vote, Pat LaMarche, again in Maine, got just under 10% of the vote. Clearly neither came close to being elected.
In Maine, my home state, it seemed for a time that Pat LaMarche and the two other “third- party” candidates on the ballot could have succeeded in only one thing, insuring a victory by the paleo-Republican, Chandler Woodcock over the Democrat, Governor John Baldacci. Along with the certain negative direction for the environment and possible overturning of recently passed gay rights legislation, that a Woodcock administration would bring; his victory would have brought the end of Dirigo Health, Baldacci’s attempt at expanding health care to all uninsured Mainers. I wonder how many Greens are uninsured. I wonder how many of them are not fully-covered, white-collar workers who aren’t dependent on the minimum wage. That certainly wouldn’t have been raised by a Chandler Woodcock with a veto pen anymore than a Republican controlled Congress would have. And to top it off, LaMarch wasn’t even the top vote getter among the not-a-chance, “third-party” candidates in the race, Barbara Merrill getting much more than double her percentage of the vote. Though she did swamp People's Hero Phillip Morris NaPier** who got about one-percent.
While I would never downplay the honorable, very important and often thankless job of serving in local government, the Greens have not even had much success on that level. In the figures available for this election they have had a grand total of 38 wins listed on their national web-site.
Greens who look at the glossed over election figures touted as such a great success by the parties leadership should really ask themselves if they are getting their time and money’s worth. Clearly not. I don’t see that they have ever gotten close to a thousand office holders nationwide, thought I haven’t had much luck finding those figures. Why not trumpet the success by the numbers? Non-Greens should look at the Green’s seldom mentioned electoral record to see what the twenty-one years of struggle by Greens in the United States has built. Those who hope for a national third party should seriously consider, with all that work and hype and the history of failed third-parties here, if that is anything but a romantic pipe-dream.
Am I suggesting that Greens give up? Not at all. After twenty-one years they should grow up. Greens are not a national party, there is no chance that they will win national office without a lot of ground work taking decades. They should stop wasting their supporters’ time, money and hope on these stupid, counter-productive, show candidacies. Getting on the ballot doesn’t matter much when there is no chance that it’s going to win you any elections. Study the electoral history of those states where Greens have been on the ballot if you doubt that is true. One, only one state legislative seat in one of the Greenest states in the country and that in one of the greenest cities in the country, now lost.
When they first started in my state I was hoping that Greens would present a real alternative to the, then, failing Democrats. Tip O’Neill, Tom Foley and a host of other ineffectual leaders had me tearing my hair too. The Greens’ decision to have a radically decentralized structure gave me hope that they were going to build from the grass roots, though even I knew that any leftist political meeting that ran on the basis of consensus wouldn’t work.
How did such an allegedly decentralized party start down the path of nominating that black hole of ego, Ralph Nader? Someone too conceited to even join the party that honored him with its nomination? Who was responsible for encouraging Romanelli in his Republican financed, Republican enabling spoiler campaign? Anyone in the leadership of the party who was enthusiastic about those is just too stupid to listen to, they should be replaced with people who have a clear head.
Greens, look at where you have actually had some success on the local level. Build in those places, get more than one person on the local bodies and make certain that they do a good job. That is where your resources and time will get you the success you deserve. Work with progressive Democrats and independents to form an effective power base. Get the people their money’s worth of vital services, educate their children, make their streets safe and then you can ask them to trust you with larger responsibilities. If you have built strong bridges with the Democrats in your area they might sometimes agree to not run a weaker candidate against a stronger Green one. They might also nominate a Green who looks like a safer bet. It’s certainly worth trying. Look at Sanders in Vermont. What has the present strategy gotten you?
A state legislature is the logical next step but only if your candidates can win. Don’t run against anyone if the results will be an even worse candidate has a good chance to win the race. That is the Nader-spoiler model, it will only win you enemies who could have been your allies.
I began this by praising the daring of John Eder. I should have said intelligent daring. In their wrap up of the elections the U.S. Greens include this statement:
Strong antiwar vote in favor of warhawk Democrats shows a disconnect in U.S. politics; only Greens offered an antiwar platform; Greens warn that Democrats in Congress will do little to reverse Bush's foreign policy
Democrats? Since it was the Green candidate Nader who helped put Bush in place to wage his war of conquest this prediction presented in the form fact isn’t daring, it’s intolerable arrogance. It is dishonesty of Rovian proportions. There would be no Iraq war if Bush had not squeaked out a stolen election with the aid of the Green candidate that year.
You’re not going to be forgiven another spoiler on the national level or even on the State level. One more of those, the now strained friendship is over. On their website the U.S. Greens anticipate their presidential bid in 2008, for crying out loud. Read the links to their own web site paying attention to the numbers of successful candidates, many of those winners of non-partisan elections. You’ll see what I mean.
* Here is the election summary for the year 2002 on the Green’s national website.
Greens Continue Growth in 2002.
The Green Party had a successful Nov 5 election day and elected more Greens in 2002 than any previous year. With some results still coming in, we have elected at least 71 people this year and have a new officeholder count of 170. We achieved our main goal of electing someone to a state house - John Eder in Maine. We elected our first people in Texas and North Carolina. Tuesday's election was a defeat for the Democratic Party, but not for the progressive values that they hide from. Nonetheless, our government has moved to the right and our challenges are greater than ever. This country needs a political party that confronts those challenges directly and the Green Party is ready to stand up to the challenge.
Notice the hostility is directed towards Democrats and not Republicans, that is a continuing feature of Green discourse. After six years of Bush II it’s gotten absurdly old. Also notice the number of office holders and people elected.
** His legal name, I kid you not. Actually he was both entertaining and not as crazy as this sounds. His being on the ballot shows how easy it is to get on here, however.
John Eder, the only Green State Legislator in Maine is listed in Wikipedia as the highest office holder in the history of the Green Party of the United States*. I was truly sorry to read that he had lost his reelection bid. I like John. He’s smart and daring and has a future in practical politics. The Greens should have a presence in the Maine Legislature, more than just one person. I would love to see a Green caucus that could hold the balance of power in coalition with progressive Democrats and such independents as might constitute a leftist block. This time John Eder’s constituents in Portland didn’t see it that way, electing a Democrat to replace him. But his loss and his position as the Green holding the highest office after twenty-one years of dedication, hard work and great expense by Green Party members all with wildly disproportionate publicity forces a number of questions.
Why would rank-and-file Greens continue allowing the show candidacies favored by their leadership when it has proven to be counter-productive? Nader in 2000 was certainly enough for any sane person to learn that a Green Presidential candidate can only serve to put the worst president in the history of the country into place. That is the only political result that Greens have achieved in a presidential election, certainly not what they hoped for.
This year’s Green candidate for the Senate in Pennsylvania, Carl Romanelli, with the clear and gloating financial help of Republican fat-cats, came one court ruling away from risking the return of Rick Santorum to the Senate. As we have seen that would have made Dick Cheney the deciding vote in a dead-locked Senate. Instead of Leahy running the Judiciary Committee it would have been Arlen “Rubber Stamp for Roberts and Alito” Specter again. And that’s only one committee in the Senate. It’s time for Green Party Members to force their leadership to stop playing pretend before it contributes to the extension of Republican control of the United States.
In the election just concluded, two Greens who ran for governor are listed on the national party’s website as their great successes. Rich Whitney in Illinois got 11% of the vote, Pat LaMarche, again in Maine, got just under 10% of the vote. Clearly neither came close to being elected.
In Maine, my home state, it seemed for a time that Pat LaMarche and the two other “third- party” candidates on the ballot could have succeeded in only one thing, insuring a victory by the paleo-Republican, Chandler Woodcock over the Democrat, Governor John Baldacci. Along with the certain negative direction for the environment and possible overturning of recently passed gay rights legislation, that a Woodcock administration would bring; his victory would have brought the end of Dirigo Health, Baldacci’s attempt at expanding health care to all uninsured Mainers. I wonder how many Greens are uninsured. I wonder how many of them are not fully-covered, white-collar workers who aren’t dependent on the minimum wage. That certainly wouldn’t have been raised by a Chandler Woodcock with a veto pen anymore than a Republican controlled Congress would have. And to top it off, LaMarch wasn’t even the top vote getter among the not-a-chance, “third-party” candidates in the race, Barbara Merrill getting much more than double her percentage of the vote. Though she did swamp People's Hero Phillip Morris NaPier** who got about one-percent.
While I would never downplay the honorable, very important and often thankless job of serving in local government, the Greens have not even had much success on that level. In the figures available for this election they have had a grand total of 38 wins listed on their national web-site.
Greens who look at the glossed over election figures touted as such a great success by the parties leadership should really ask themselves if they are getting their time and money’s worth. Clearly not. I don’t see that they have ever gotten close to a thousand office holders nationwide, thought I haven’t had much luck finding those figures. Why not trumpet the success by the numbers? Non-Greens should look at the Green’s seldom mentioned electoral record to see what the twenty-one years of struggle by Greens in the United States has built. Those who hope for a national third party should seriously consider, with all that work and hype and the history of failed third-parties here, if that is anything but a romantic pipe-dream.
Am I suggesting that Greens give up? Not at all. After twenty-one years they should grow up. Greens are not a national party, there is no chance that they will win national office without a lot of ground work taking decades. They should stop wasting their supporters’ time, money and hope on these stupid, counter-productive, show candidacies. Getting on the ballot doesn’t matter much when there is no chance that it’s going to win you any elections. Study the electoral history of those states where Greens have been on the ballot if you doubt that is true. One, only one state legislative seat in one of the Greenest states in the country and that in one of the greenest cities in the country, now lost.
When they first started in my state I was hoping that Greens would present a real alternative to the, then, failing Democrats. Tip O’Neill, Tom Foley and a host of other ineffectual leaders had me tearing my hair too. The Greens’ decision to have a radically decentralized structure gave me hope that they were going to build from the grass roots, though even I knew that any leftist political meeting that ran on the basis of consensus wouldn’t work.
How did such an allegedly decentralized party start down the path of nominating that black hole of ego, Ralph Nader? Someone too conceited to even join the party that honored him with its nomination? Who was responsible for encouraging Romanelli in his Republican financed, Republican enabling spoiler campaign? Anyone in the leadership of the party who was enthusiastic about those is just too stupid to listen to, they should be replaced with people who have a clear head.
Greens, look at where you have actually had some success on the local level. Build in those places, get more than one person on the local bodies and make certain that they do a good job. That is where your resources and time will get you the success you deserve. Work with progressive Democrats and independents to form an effective power base. Get the people their money’s worth of vital services, educate their children, make their streets safe and then you can ask them to trust you with larger responsibilities. If you have built strong bridges with the Democrats in your area they might sometimes agree to not run a weaker candidate against a stronger Green one. They might also nominate a Green who looks like a safer bet. It’s certainly worth trying. Look at Sanders in Vermont. What has the present strategy gotten you?
A state legislature is the logical next step but only if your candidates can win. Don’t run against anyone if the results will be an even worse candidate has a good chance to win the race. That is the Nader-spoiler model, it will only win you enemies who could have been your allies.
I began this by praising the daring of John Eder. I should have said intelligent daring. In their wrap up of the elections the U.S. Greens include this statement:
Strong antiwar vote in favor of warhawk Democrats shows a disconnect in U.S. politics; only Greens offered an antiwar platform; Greens warn that Democrats in Congress will do little to reverse Bush's foreign policy
Democrats? Since it was the Green candidate Nader who helped put Bush in place to wage his war of conquest this prediction presented in the form fact isn’t daring, it’s intolerable arrogance. It is dishonesty of Rovian proportions. There would be no Iraq war if Bush had not squeaked out a stolen election with the aid of the Green candidate that year.
You’re not going to be forgiven another spoiler on the national level or even on the State level. One more of those, the now strained friendship is over. On their website the U.S. Greens anticipate their presidential bid in 2008, for crying out loud. Read the links to their own web site paying attention to the numbers of successful candidates, many of those winners of non-partisan elections. You’ll see what I mean.
* Here is the election summary for the year 2002 on the Green’s national website.
Greens Continue Growth in 2002.
The Green Party had a successful Nov 5 election day and elected more Greens in 2002 than any previous year. With some results still coming in, we have elected at least 71 people this year and have a new officeholder count of 170. We achieved our main goal of electing someone to a state house - John Eder in Maine. We elected our first people in Texas and North Carolina. Tuesday's election was a defeat for the Democratic Party, but not for the progressive values that they hide from. Nonetheless, our government has moved to the right and our challenges are greater than ever. This country needs a political party that confronts those challenges directly and the Green Party is ready to stand up to the challenge.
Notice the hostility is directed towards Democrats and not Republicans, that is a continuing feature of Green discourse. After six years of Bush II it’s gotten absurdly old. Also notice the number of office holders and people elected.
** His legal name, I kid you not. Actually he was both entertaining and not as crazy as this sounds. His being on the ballot shows how easy it is to get on here, however.
Isn't This Worse Than Having That Justin Timberlake Creep Rip Your Blouse?
Are there any laws that Laura Ingraham encouraged her listeners to break?
Full transcript:
DEAN (recorded): We have a hotline — 1 888 DEM VOTE — anybody can call that. If they feel like there are voting irregularities, we’ll send some folks over to the polling place in a matter of minutes.
(Phone ringing) OPERATOR: Leave a message with your question or press pound to be transferred at no extra charge to your local election protection team or the state Democratic Party. (Dialing) Your call cannot be completed at this time. Please try your call again later.
INGRAHAM: Wait a second! So — (Laughter) you call 1 888 DEM VOTE — otherwise ‘Dim Bulb Vote’ or ‘Dumb Vote’ — and all you do is get tranferred to muzak, then they cut you off. This is what I’m thinking. Tell me if you think I’m crazy. This is what I’m thinking. I think we all need to call 1 888 DEM VOTE all at the same time. And, by the way, when you call, when you call the number — and remember, it’s ‘Dem Vote’ not ‘Dumb Vote’ — when you call the number, as we did, and we got transferred, transferred, then we just got hung up upon. You know, we’re supposed to have these election teams within a matter of minutes, they’re supposed to be coming to the polls. Can you imagine what those people look like? Halloween all over again. So if you have trouble with the poll, you’re supposed to call, via 1 888 ‘Dumb Vote,’ and this is what you get.
OPERATOR: Thank you for calling 1 888 DEM VOTE. To continue in English, press 1. Para continuar in Espanol, oprima el dos.
INGRAHAM: Oh, and if you’re Saddam Hussein, no problem. Vote absentee, in Maryland or Ohio.
If you want to hear one of the quality folk who took Ingraham's advice you can hear one here.
So, there it is. Laura Ingraham was encouraging crank phone calls for the purpose of covering up problems Voters had in exercising not only their rights but their responsiblitites as citizens. Shouldn't there be a criminal investegation in those places where it might be illegal to encourage this kind of behavior? And shouldn't the FCC fine any station that carried this? Cancel the questionmark. This should be grounds for loss of a broadcasting license.
Full transcript:
DEAN (recorded): We have a hotline — 1 888 DEM VOTE — anybody can call that. If they feel like there are voting irregularities, we’ll send some folks over to the polling place in a matter of minutes.
(Phone ringing) OPERATOR: Leave a message with your question or press pound to be transferred at no extra charge to your local election protection team or the state Democratic Party. (Dialing) Your call cannot be completed at this time. Please try your call again later.
INGRAHAM: Wait a second! So — (Laughter) you call 1 888 DEM VOTE — otherwise ‘Dim Bulb Vote’ or ‘Dumb Vote’ — and all you do is get tranferred to muzak, then they cut you off. This is what I’m thinking. Tell me if you think I’m crazy. This is what I’m thinking. I think we all need to call 1 888 DEM VOTE all at the same time. And, by the way, when you call, when you call the number — and remember, it’s ‘Dem Vote’ not ‘Dumb Vote’ — when you call the number, as we did, and we got transferred, transferred, then we just got hung up upon. You know, we’re supposed to have these election teams within a matter of minutes, they’re supposed to be coming to the polls. Can you imagine what those people look like? Halloween all over again. So if you have trouble with the poll, you’re supposed to call, via 1 888 ‘Dumb Vote,’ and this is what you get.
OPERATOR: Thank you for calling 1 888 DEM VOTE. To continue in English, press 1. Para continuar in Espanol, oprima el dos.
INGRAHAM: Oh, and if you’re Saddam Hussein, no problem. Vote absentee, in Maryland or Ohio.
If you want to hear one of the quality folk who took Ingraham's advice you can hear one here.
So, there it is. Laura Ingraham was encouraging crank phone calls for the purpose of covering up problems Voters had in exercising not only their rights but their responsiblitites as citizens. Shouldn't there be a criminal investegation in those places where it might be illegal to encourage this kind of behavior? And shouldn't the FCC fine any station that carried this? Cancel the questionmark. This should be grounds for loss of a broadcasting license.
We Need What Works, Not Nice Sounding Words
Posted by olvlzl.
"Berger's approach to politics flowed from his understanding that there was no immediate prospect for a transition to socialism in the United States -- or, for that matter, in any other part of the world. That led him to take the long view, and to seek alliances with other reformers. Among other things he was a leader of the Milwaukee local of the International Typographical Union and editor of the Milwaukee Federated Trades council's official publication. This approach led his detractors to call Berger a "sewer socialist" -- a reference to the Milwaukee local's promise to build a sewage system designed to last fifty years. In fact, the sewer was built, and it was only a part of the local reforms and stable electoral organizations that Berger championed -- all of which helped to make him the party's most successful politician." [James Weinstein: 2003 The Long Detour]
Of course, in the America of those days sewage and safe drinking water were life or death issues. Having bad water meant serious illness or a horrible and rapid death. No antibiotics. Often the purity of the water improved with income, sometimes not. A good sewage system meant life. While his more ideologically pure contemporaries might have scoffed at these reforms, perhaps believing that they were unworthy of their lofty goals, or for their exalted persons, Victor Berger helped get the sewer built. One assumes that this action saved lives, improved lives, perhaps made people stronger to fight for their rights. One of the most important political results would have been that it provided a tangible example of what the left could do for people. Nothing impresses people like not having to worry that the water is going to kill their children. Avoiding such vulgar projects, the pure of heart felt a higher calling. Which produced talk.
Victor Berger might have failed to enter the pantheon of the more legendary leftists, he was not a failure with the voters. Milwaukee sent him to the congress in 1910, the first Socialist to be elected to the congress and seated. It elected him again in 1920, though by then he had been convicted of essentially opposing the First World War and was not allowed to take the seat. Eventually his constituents kept electing him and he did serve in Congress for three more terms. But even that first time he did serve in congress he racked up a record that betters most of the more remembered leftists in our history. And after winning the right to his seat in court he was reelected twice in the 1920s.
What does this mean for us a hundred years later? Berger's practicality, of facing the situation without wishful thinking and working with the means possible to produce real improvements for people is the model we need to follow. Nothing contained in the most brilliant minds with the highest ideals with the greatest daring and the most solid commitment to the cause is as radical as a bill voted on and made into a law that overturns a bad law. No brilliant idea, rigorous in its logic and comprehensive in its supporting facts is as good as a small civil service project that improves living conditions for people. It is only when the idea is made into law by people who hold elected office that the truly radical can happen, lives improve. Words, true and well chosen, only matter when they are put into effect and change material reality. It is simply a fact that political change relies on politicians who are dependent on the consent of the governed. If the governed see results they will support the politicians who deliver them. These days sewage and safe drinking water are still life or death issues.
Post Script:
Bernie Sanders became the first Socialist elected to the Senate last Tuesday. He represents the position farthest left in the coalition that just barely dominates the Senate. This coalition is what we’ve got to work with we’ve got no other one. The alternative is what we’ve had for the past six years. In our coalition there are lots of competing viewpoints and needs. We’ve got to choose our issues and concentrate on the most important ones that can be achieved now.
There are voices on the left who were trying to promote a situation which would lead to nothing getting done, holding out on principle for the glorious future that we never seem to get closer to. I’ve gone on and on here about how it seems that strict adherence to some principles is getting us nowhere on the left. Maybe we’ve got to choose among our principles too, those which will lead to the coalition falling apart before it even takes over are the first to toss.
"Berger's approach to politics flowed from his understanding that there was no immediate prospect for a transition to socialism in the United States -- or, for that matter, in any other part of the world. That led him to take the long view, and to seek alliances with other reformers. Among other things he was a leader of the Milwaukee local of the International Typographical Union and editor of the Milwaukee Federated Trades council's official publication. This approach led his detractors to call Berger a "sewer socialist" -- a reference to the Milwaukee local's promise to build a sewage system designed to last fifty years. In fact, the sewer was built, and it was only a part of the local reforms and stable electoral organizations that Berger championed -- all of which helped to make him the party's most successful politician." [James Weinstein: 2003 The Long Detour]
Of course, in the America of those days sewage and safe drinking water were life or death issues. Having bad water meant serious illness or a horrible and rapid death. No antibiotics. Often the purity of the water improved with income, sometimes not. A good sewage system meant life. While his more ideologically pure contemporaries might have scoffed at these reforms, perhaps believing that they were unworthy of their lofty goals, or for their exalted persons, Victor Berger helped get the sewer built. One assumes that this action saved lives, improved lives, perhaps made people stronger to fight for their rights. One of the most important political results would have been that it provided a tangible example of what the left could do for people. Nothing impresses people like not having to worry that the water is going to kill their children. Avoiding such vulgar projects, the pure of heart felt a higher calling. Which produced talk.
Victor Berger might have failed to enter the pantheon of the more legendary leftists, he was not a failure with the voters. Milwaukee sent him to the congress in 1910, the first Socialist to be elected to the congress and seated. It elected him again in 1920, though by then he had been convicted of essentially opposing the First World War and was not allowed to take the seat. Eventually his constituents kept electing him and he did serve in Congress for three more terms. But even that first time he did serve in congress he racked up a record that betters most of the more remembered leftists in our history. And after winning the right to his seat in court he was reelected twice in the 1920s.
What does this mean for us a hundred years later? Berger's practicality, of facing the situation without wishful thinking and working with the means possible to produce real improvements for people is the model we need to follow. Nothing contained in the most brilliant minds with the highest ideals with the greatest daring and the most solid commitment to the cause is as radical as a bill voted on and made into a law that overturns a bad law. No brilliant idea, rigorous in its logic and comprehensive in its supporting facts is as good as a small civil service project that improves living conditions for people. It is only when the idea is made into law by people who hold elected office that the truly radical can happen, lives improve. Words, true and well chosen, only matter when they are put into effect and change material reality. It is simply a fact that political change relies on politicians who are dependent on the consent of the governed. If the governed see results they will support the politicians who deliver them. These days sewage and safe drinking water are still life or death issues.
Post Script:
Bernie Sanders became the first Socialist elected to the Senate last Tuesday. He represents the position farthest left in the coalition that just barely dominates the Senate. This coalition is what we’ve got to work with we’ve got no other one. The alternative is what we’ve had for the past six years. In our coalition there are lots of competing viewpoints and needs. We’ve got to choose our issues and concentrate on the most important ones that can be achieved now.
There are voices on the left who were trying to promote a situation which would lead to nothing getting done, holding out on principle for the glorious future that we never seem to get closer to. I’ve gone on and on here about how it seems that strict adherence to some principles is getting us nowhere on the left. Maybe we’ve got to choose among our principles too, those which will lead to the coalition falling apart before it even takes over are the first to toss.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Increase Your Volume In Just Days
I thought this e-mail I got today was about how to get bouffant Southern-style hair:
It is possible today with excellent formula
It's the best thing you had ever seen!
Any man wants to last longer and make his partner happy with that. Try it now!
Until I caught that word "man" and that verb "last".
What I really want to know is this: Will the volume stay increased all the time? And how does one accommodate that? Will all the jeans have to be re-tailored? Are wheelbarrows perhaps necessary?
More seriously, this stuff is a little like the continuous pressure on women to sprout bigger breasts.
From the Peerless Molly Ivins
She is so good:
The sheer pleasure of getting lessons in etiquette from Karl Rove and the right-wing media passeth all understanding. Ever since 1994, the Republican Party has gone after Democrats with the frenzy of a foaming mad dog. There was the impeachment of Bill Clinton, not to mention the trashing of both Clinton and his wife -- accused of everything from selling drugs to murder -- all orchestrated by that paragon of manners, Tom DeLay.
Media Matters collected some gems of fairness. For instance, Monica Crowley with MSNBC, in the wake of John Kerry's botched program, astutely observed "how lucky we are that he was not elected president. ... The Republicans remain the grown-ups, the responsible ones on national security."
How many dead Americans has this grown-up war resulted in?
And how darling of Fox's Juan Williams, upon learning polls show the people favor Democrats on taxes, to say, "To me, that's crazy."
And how many times did Chris Matthews use the Republican talking points about Nancy Pelosi? Extremist, uncooperative, incapable, unwilling to work with the president.
So after 12 years of tolerating lying, cheating and corruption, the press is prepared to lecture Democrats on how to behave with bipartisan manners.
And just a small reminder how bipartisanship worked under the wingnut rule in 2003:
The morning began routinely enough. The 41-member Ways and Means Committee convened in 1100 Longworth to consider a bipartisan bill that would revise the nation's pension and retirement-saving system.
Democrats objected when the panel's acerbic chairman, Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), brought up a 90-page substitute measure that had been released shortly before midnight the night before. Democrats said they needed more time to read it. Thomas disagreed.
In response, Democrats objected to a normally perfunctory motion to dispense with the reading of the dense legislation. A clerk obligingly began reading it line by line, pausing only when Thomas interrupted to announce: "In the House, the minority can delay. They cannot deny."
As the reading resumed, the Democrats departed to a library just off the main hearing room, leaving only Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.) to prevent the Republicans from obtaining unanimous consent to skip the reading. After a few minutes, Thomas asked again for the unanimous consent, and instantly brought down his gavel. Stark told reporters he had objected, but Thomas had replied, "You're too late."
Even before Thomas gaveled the reading to an end, he had dispatched the Capitol Police to remove the Democrats from the ornate library. Two officers arrived and, realizing they wanted no part of arresting House members for milling in a library, called a watch commander.
Now, none of this means that I'm urging the Democrats to behave as badly. But why is the media whipping the ones who indeed have behaved fairly well?
Front Page News
In Washington Post is the name of Pelosi's tailor (or what would be called a tailor if Pelosi was a man). The associated article states:
But what does a woman of great power look like? Does she choose her own version of camouflage and, as Hillary Rodham Clinton famously did during her first campaign for the Senate, wear a black pantsuit as a personal uniform? Does she wear stiffly tailored suits and a lapel festooned with patriotic brooches in the manner of former secretary of state Madeleine Albright? Or, like current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, does she mix professorial reserve with a hint of confident sex appeal?
Pelosi had to decide how a woman who will be second in line of succession to the presidency should look. And what she came up with is someone who wears a neutral-colored, softly tailored power suit. One that is accessorized with style rather than rote references to love of country. She looks dignified and serious. And in this case, she also happens to look quite good.
And yes, the article is in the fashion section, and yes, it is true that we really don't have a clear dress language for powerful women who are powerful because of their own professional achievements. But isn't it interesting how quickly we have decided to talk about clothes?
Oh, and just for comparison: The current Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert (on the left):
The Sensible Center
I've got this thing in my throat. I keep gagging and it will NOT come up. Mostly because the traditional media keeps poking it back down there, "it" being the new myth that is being created right now: The Democrats MUST go to the center because Americans are conservatives. This is the only sensible approach to the horrible and negative victory the Democratic party somehow accidentally gained. Otherwise disaster will follow as surely as night follows day.
Do you remember a similar campaign telling the wingnuts that all will be lost if they choose to rule from the extreme right wing of their base? Neither do I.
Of course the Democrats must try to engage moderate Republicans, of course. But the same urgings were not applied in reverse. The wingnuts were allowed to stomp and reap wherever they wanted. Why are different rules applied to the Democrats?
I'm grumpy, because I'm not allowed to enjoy this honeymoon we have all so vastly deserved in peace.
Added later: Come to think of it, where are the exhortations to the Republicans to move more towards the center? They lost, after all.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The Natural Next Stage
After victory comes a certain period of gloating and rest. So while I'm engaged in that (having my muse Erato pop grapes into my mouth) I decided to Write A Book. Wonkette did that and look what happened! She transmogrified into two guys and got herself a studious job.
Not that I want to get a job (too much work), but a book would be very nice. The covers could be made of simulated snakeskin with a facsimile of my fangs for a bookmark. The only question that remains to be answered is what it should be all about. Any suggestions are received with eager arms.
Though I do have a tentative name for the book: My Life As An Old Man. Note that I don't plan the title to have anything to do with the contents; it's just too good a title not to use.
On Social Conservatism
Is social conservatism less distasteful to liberals and progressives than economic conservatism? Or does it matter less, in the grand scheme of things?
The answer may depend on whom you ask. For white heterosexual men social conservatism is something which is annoying and may be harmful when children are taught religion in biology classes, but it's not going to impinge on their own lives that much. For the rest of us social conservatism is much more painful. In its extreme form it puts women and gays into tiny little boxes, puts the lid on those boxes and throws the keys away. And it keeps blacks at the bottom of the society.
For that reason it's hard for me to see certain liberals and progressives suggest that we should welcome social conservatives with open arms, without at least checking what they mean by being a "social" or "cultural" conservative. I'm not going to be in a big tent with someone who plans to put me into a box, sorry.
Today's Funny Pic
From Glenn Greenwald's blog, this picture of George Bush with Nancy Pelosi speaks volumes to me. Heh.
A Wild Thought For The Day
This is really extreme stuff: But do you think we might have come to a point where the word "liberal" could take its old meaning and be differentiated from "communist", "extremist" and "radical"?
Nah.
Digesting the Election Results
It's quite difficult to do, this getting used to the world being turned upside down in a minor way, and I see a fairly desperate attempt to explain that nothing has really changed even though everything has changed. The truth is something in the middle, of course. We still live in the Bush reign, he is still going to decide on the foreign policy of this country, but it will now be more difficult to stomp on the Constitution, and the general brakes of this country have been fixed. And those brakes are certainly needed, because we need accountability and oversight and real debates in the Congress. The Republicans refused to have the Democrats in any of these debates, refused bipartisanship. So we had one party in power everywhere, and within that party its extreme wing ran most things, trying to make wild and impossible delusions into reality.
That was the faith-based reality. The real reality wasn't budged by any of those wishes, and the consequences were very bad. The reason I'm elated with the election results is not because they would be good for people who think like I do (which they may or may not be), but because they are good for the country and for the world at least in a band-aid sense, and this sense is not to be belittled. A band-aid stuck in at the right time can staunch a bleeding which unattended can kill a civilization.
That's how far I've managed to digest the results.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Tweety Has A Large Yellow Head
So some minor Greek goddesses say, Tweety being Chris Matthews. Those same goddesses add that a large yellow head is not among the first ten items on the list of things that make men hawt.
However did I get so nasty? I do that in defense only, and the reason is this:
Discussing the victory speeches of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) during MSNBC's special election coverage on November 7, co-anchor Chris Matthews told Republican pollster Frank Luntz that Clinton gave a "barn-burner speech, which is harder to give for a woman; it can grate on some men when they listen to it -- fingernails on a blackboard." Matthews then noted that Pelosi, who will likely be elected House speaker now that the Democrats have gained control of the U.S. House of Representatives, will "have to do the good fight with the president over issues" such as the minimum wage and prescription drugs. He then asked: "How does she do it without screaming? How does she do it without becoming grating?" Matthews later returned to criticizing Clinton, when, during a conversation with co-anchor Keith Olbermann and with a clip of Clinton's victory event playing in the background, Matthews stated that Clinton's "clapping" was "not appealing" and that "it's Chinese or something," as Salon.com's weblog The War Room noted. Matthews added that former President Bill Clinton, who was standing behind Sen. Clinton at the podium, was a "gigantic guy behind her and he's just there," adding: "It's a strange sight."
Bolds mine.
Many thanks, Tweety (the one with the large yellow head), for just making it a lot harder for women in politics.
Echidne Puts On A Pundit Helmet
After staying up all night following the election results and eating far too many chocolate M&Ms I turned on my radio to hear what the local Nice, Polite Republicans have to say on the elections. And I found out that I know no-o-o-thing! Nothing. So.
This is what I learned, seriously: The Congress is becoming more conservative, because moderate Republicans were thrown out but dyed-in-the-wool extreme wingnuts retained their seats. AND the new Democrats are more conservative than, say, Noam Chomsky, which means, by simple arithmetic, that Americans are becoming more right-wing. So this was a victory for conservatism. (Just to keep a small ray of sanity in this game, might I remind the experts at the NPR that the Democrats just took the House and probably the Senate, too. FROM the Republican party.)
I need a new radio, by the way, which is sad but I was also elated by the sudden realization that Echidne, too, could be a pundit in the media. Though I need some training in how to explain why a conservative Democrat is to the right of a moderate Republican in every single case.
Ezra Klein posted about a somewhat more refined version of the same myth:
It's nice to finally write one of these election wrap-ups that doesn't have to account for a massive Democratic disappointment. Change is good, right? What it does have to do is punch back against the remarkably coordinated and quick campaign from the right (and sometimes the right includes the left) seeking to paint this election as some sort of victory for ... conservatism.
The ideological spectrum is a tricky thing. Take Heath Schuler, exhibit A in the rightwing Democrats meme. He's a cultural conservative, no doubt. But however far right he drifts on those issues -- which, under a Democratic Congress, he won't be voting on because they won't be brought to floor -- he's notably left on economic issues. Today, for instance, he's giving a press conference under the auspices of the United Steelworkers with Great Liberal Hope Sherrod Brown, where they'll discuss the need for new trade policies and their success in making active opposition to NAFTA a winning issue. That's not centrist Democrat. It's not moderate liberal. That's populism, kids, and it's leftier than polite company has allowed for quite some time.
See how quickly the so-called liberal media functions to rearrange our memories and understanding? We are becoming more conservative.....more conservative....your eyes are closing....more conservative....you're feeling sleepy...
If you are one of the group which can't be hypnotized perhaps you'd care for a nice plateful of the sensible center? That's the other new meme, eagerly disseminated by pundits in the know:
In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party's liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year. Democrats will hold 30 or 35 seats that went for Bush in the past, meaning that Democratic candidates such as Brad Ellsworth in rural Indiana are likely to face competitive races again in 2008. Still, their interests are likely to collide with those of veteran liberals such as Reps. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.) and John Conyers Jr., (Mich.), who will chair committees.
Now this is fascinating, especially when you compare it to this quote from the very same article:
The loss provoked the start of what could be a painful period of self-examination among Republicans eager to find answers, or place blame. With moderates in the Northeast falling, the Republican conference will grow more conservative. Some said they expect Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.) to step aside as party leader after the fallout from the page scandal and a new younger generation vowing to return to the promise and principles of the Gingrich revolution hopes to take the reins. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), one of several younger conservatives who has lashed out at his party's veering from core fiscal and social principles, is planning to run for leadership.
So the wingnuts will move out towards the most extreme wing, the one that just gently tickles Attila the Hun's tinfoil helmet, and the Democrats crawl behind them towards the mythical middle. Ok.
Here comes the Echidne-in-a-serious-pundit-suit bit: The election was mostly a loud scream of rage at the Bush administration and at the corruption and the twisted sexuality scandals of the wingnut party. A tsunami of screams, if you like, and in some areas the tsunami took away moderate Republicans because there was a less moderate non-Republican alternative, and in other areas it took away more conservative Republicans and let the somewhat less conservative Democrats stay alive. In some places the conservatism was too ingrained to move with the tsunami. And that's why the landscape looks like it does today.
This didn't cost you anything, either, though you could send me some chocolate for my blogiversary if you so desire. Or money for it...
Just a Second, Before You Go Getting All Palsy Across the Aisle
Posted by olvlzl
I want to know who stole the money, how much they stole and I want it back in the American People’s Treasury where it belongs.
There is probably going to be a real downturn in the economy with the new year, the Democrats in the House and maybe in the Senate need to document the full scale theft of everything the Republicans stole over the past six years. They need to be able to hold up the guilty and the evidence of their guilt for the People to see. We need to document it and get it back. From Haliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater, wherever . We need to prosecute where possible and nail the hides of those corporations to the fence as a warning to others who would try to rob the American People.
We also need to be able to explain how this wholesale theft happened and who was holding the door open for the crooks to come in and steal everything, including the credit cards.
Democrats have won control of the congress, they have to fulfill their obligations for oversight as specified by the Constitution. They should be happy to do their duty, they asked for the responsibility.
Another thing, The Voters. The Voters have to be taken care of. We have to get rid of those stinking, vote stealing machines and replace them with a National Ballot for the four federal Constitutional offices. All across the country, one form of ballot, one way to mark it, one way to count it. The United States will never be a safe democracy without that. We have to spend more on the most important part of government, THE ROOTS than we do on the frills and perks of the Executive branch and the Courts.
The People, The Vote, they should always be capitalized. The People are the supreme power in the government. Their Vote is the supreme act of government. Never again should a Supreme Court “justice” have the ability to say that The People have no right to vote. No judge, no “justice” no “chief justice” no one, holds their office with any legitimacy except that derived from the results of The People’s Vote. Never again should any court or corrupt Secretary of State have the ability to steal an election for their party. And yes, that means the Republican Party in all its corrupt infamy.
And in the culture at large, nothing, no joke no entertainment should ever belittle The People or The Vote. Nothing that discourages the vote should be allowed to go unchallenged. We have had the benefit of the cynical belittling of both over the past six years. That isn’t a job for The Congress, that is a job for all of us. Democracy dies in a cess pool of cynicism. It can’t survive in the filthy spew of Murdoch style entertainment. We need a new birth of clear-eyed, strong-willed, idealism free of lying sentimentality and wishful thinking. We need to change the culture of cynicism. Democracy, decency and our lives depend on it.
I want to know who stole the money, how much they stole and I want it back in the American People’s Treasury where it belongs.
There is probably going to be a real downturn in the economy with the new year, the Democrats in the House and maybe in the Senate need to document the full scale theft of everything the Republicans stole over the past six years. They need to be able to hold up the guilty and the evidence of their guilt for the People to see. We need to document it and get it back. From Haliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater, wherever . We need to prosecute where possible and nail the hides of those corporations to the fence as a warning to others who would try to rob the American People.
We also need to be able to explain how this wholesale theft happened and who was holding the door open for the crooks to come in and steal everything, including the credit cards.
Democrats have won control of the congress, they have to fulfill their obligations for oversight as specified by the Constitution. They should be happy to do their duty, they asked for the responsibility.
Another thing, The Voters. The Voters have to be taken care of. We have to get rid of those stinking, vote stealing machines and replace them with a National Ballot for the four federal Constitutional offices. All across the country, one form of ballot, one way to mark it, one way to count it. The United States will never be a safe democracy without that. We have to spend more on the most important part of government, THE ROOTS than we do on the frills and perks of the Executive branch and the Courts.
The People, The Vote, they should always be capitalized. The People are the supreme power in the government. Their Vote is the supreme act of government. Never again should a Supreme Court “justice” have the ability to say that The People have no right to vote. No judge, no “justice” no “chief justice” no one, holds their office with any legitimacy except that derived from the results of The People’s Vote. Never again should any court or corrupt Secretary of State have the ability to steal an election for their party. And yes, that means the Republican Party in all its corrupt infamy.
And in the culture at large, nothing, no joke no entertainment should ever belittle The People or The Vote. Nothing that discourages the vote should be allowed to go unchallenged. We have had the benefit of the cynical belittling of both over the past six years. That isn’t a job for The Congress, that is a job for all of us. Democracy dies in a cess pool of cynicism. It can’t survive in the filthy spew of Murdoch style entertainment. We need a new birth of clear-eyed, strong-willed, idealism free of lying sentimentality and wishful thinking. We need to change the culture of cynicism. Democracy, decency and our lives depend on it.
Listening to Bush's Press Conference
I can't help wondering why he can't cover up his grumpiness just a little better. He is the president, after all, not some undergraduate student who got a D- on an exam paper. Though of course an undergraduate can't get rid of the blame by firing Donald Rumsfeld.
Hugs And Kisses
To you, my lovely and talented readers. Thank you for these three years. Have lots of fun today and lots of chocolate always.
Good News For All Women
The South Dakota abortion ban was voted down. In Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline lost his re-election bid. Kline is famous for his extreme anti-choice stance. These are very good news for women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)