Progressives

Too Big to Fail and Too Small to Matter

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:32:05 GMT

Too Big to Fail and Too Small to Matter

These times provide a crash course on the corporate state:

If a company like AIG is too big to fail, the government will rescue it. Mere people -- too small to matter -- are expendable.

The insurance industry is too big to fail. A person's health is too small to matter, so -- when it fails due to the absence or loopholes of insurance coverage -- that's tough luck.

The Defense Department is too big to fail. The people it's killing in Iraq and Afghanistan are too small to matter.

The U.S. nuclear arsenal is too big to fail. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, undermined by Washington, is too small to matter.

Overall, the warfare state is too big to fail. The virtues of peace are too small to matter.

Agribusiness is too big to fail. Family farmers are too dirt-small to matter.

The leverage for the U.S. Treasury to subsidize Wall Street is too big to fail. The leverage to subsidize mothers and children kicked off welfare is too small to matter.

The political momentum for bailing out corporate America is too big to fail. The political momentum for funding adequate payment rates from Medicaid to reimburse healthcare providers is too small to matter.

The oil conglomerates are too big to fail. Global warming is too small to matter.

The prison industry is too big to fail. The need for preschool is too small to matter.

Corporate power is too big to fail. The ordeals of working people and want-to-be-working people are too small to matter.

Human worth as maximized by dollars: too big to fail. Human worth as affirmed by humanistic values: too small to matter.

The current odds of pumping at least several hundred billion taxpayer dollars into corporate America: too big to fail. The current odds of launching a massive federal jobs program: too small to matter.

(Normon Solomon)

Five Dangerous, Disastrous Things About the Proposed Bailout
and
*What You Can Do to Help Stop It

"Free Market Fantasies"
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

.
.
.
.

(Thanks)

U.S-centric - call in day TODAY, 9/17/08

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:04:12 GMT

Hey everyone - I am just passing this message along for some friends. Sorry if we're in several of the same groups and you see this a couple of times because I cross-posted it all over the place. This is pretty important though. . .
If even 1/3 of the members of this group convinced 2 other people to call in, that would be a significant enough number of phone calls to stall this horrible bill in its tracks. Please please please pass it on - post it in your journal, other communities, and email it to all of your list serves.

The nuclear industry in the U.S is proposing more than 30 new reactors - with an estimated cost of 6.2-12 BILLION USD per reactor. (SOURCE: nirs.org/neconomics/nuclearsubsidies2008.pdf )
Not only is Nuclear power is a FALSE solution to the issue of global climate change, but it's intrinsically tied to the nuclear arms industry.
For inspiration on viable solutions, check out www.kilowattours.org/

As a resident of a gulf state, I also hope that folks will oppose off-shore drilling. BUT... the mainstream media is devoting NO attention to the nuclear aspect of this bill, which is quite frankly frightening. Not too much of a surprise, though - considering that many of the more common outlets are owned by General Electric, which is the most profitable nuclear arms manufacturer in the world.
(SOURCES: www.commondreams.org/views05/0403-25.htm , www.corpwatch.org/article.php , and www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main )

Thanks! <3

** From the Nuclear Information and Resource Service... **
GANG OF 10 BILL:
BIGGEST GIVEAWAY TO NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY EVER
NATIONAL CALL-IN DAY: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17

This is it. In the mainstream media, the Gang of 10 (actually, now it's the Gang of 20) energy bill is all about offshore oil drilling. And, to be sure, there's lots of that in the bill, which is expected to come up in the Senate late next week. But the bill would also be the biggest giveaway to the nuclear power industry ever.

Unlimited loan guarantees for construction of new atomic reactors. That's right, unlimited. As much money—hundreds of billions of dollars--as everyone in the nuclear industry wants, when it wants, for as long as it wants.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you how that would absolutely destroy our ability to effectively address the climate crisis and what a disaster that would be for our economy, for our nation, for our planet.

How do these Senators think they can get away with this? Because they're not hearing from enough of us, often enough. They think this is a popular stand. We all need to stand up now and be counted. That's why NIRS, Physicians for Social Responsibility and other national groups are putting out the word for a National Call-In Day to the Senate on Wednesday, September 17. We need at least 10,000 phone calls to the Senate on Wednesday. We need the phones there to be ringing non-stop from dawn to dusk. Will you help?

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

*Please call both of your Senators that day with a very simple message: Take taxpayer loan guarantees for nuclear power out of the Gang of 20 energy bill. (note: the bill does not yet have a number. It's called the New Energy Reform Act of 2008, but everyone will know what you are talking about if you just say 'Gang of 20 energy bill.')
*Please forward this Alert to any and all of your mailing lists.
*Please print this Alert and take it to any public meetings and gather places you go to between now and Wednesday. Post it at food co-ops and other central locations.
*Please talk to your friends and colleagues, congregations this Sunday, PTAs next week. Spread the word.
*If you want to e-mail your Senators, please do (you can do so from this link; NIRS' new e-mail-from- our-Alerts set-up still has some bugs,so we can't quite offer that yet). But also call! It is important to keep those phones ringing all day long!
*Call even if you think your Senator(s) are hopeless. Everyone walking in the halls of the Senate should hear phones ringing everywhere,all day long.

We can't let the nuclear industry get away with this. All that can stop it now are your actions. If we all just sit back and wait for someone else to take action, we will lose. If we all make those two calls—one to each Senator, and ask each of our friends and colleagues to make those two calls, we can show the Senate what the American people really think. And we can win.

It is up to each of us. It's that simple, and that stark. Please take five minutes to make two phone calls Wednesday. And please drop us an e-mail and let us know you called (we'll be looking for 10,000e-mails in our inbox by Thursday morning!).

Thank you for all that you do.

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)
nirsnet@nirs.org
http://www.nirs.org
301-270-6477

September 12, 2008

P.S. For those who want more information: You can read a Physicians for Social Responsibility analysis of the nuclear provisions in the Gang of 20 energy bill here. The bill includes not just loan guarantees, but also more 'risk insurance' for new nukes, construction of a reprocessing plant, and much more. You can read a longer article on the issue I wrote for DailyKos here.

Anyone here read Greg Palast?

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:32:11 GMT

From http://www.gregpalast.com/ --

The McCain Plan:
Homer Simpson without the Donut

By Greg Palast

I’m guessing it was excessive exposure to either radiation or George Bush, but Senator John McCain’s comments from inside a nuclear power plant in Michigan are so cracked-brained that I fear some loose gamma rays are doing to McCain’s gray matter what they did to Homer Simpson’s.

On Tuesday, the presumptive Republican candidate descended into the colon of a nuke to declare we need to build 45 new nuclear plants - that this is the way out of our energy crisis. Nuclear power, declared the senator, is a “safe, efficient [and] inexpensive” alternative to oil.
(Show me more...)

Orson Scott Card

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:18:31 GMT

Wow, Orson Scott Card is a dick. Remind me never again to buy any of his books new.

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:50:44 GMT

I am very sorry if this isn't allowed, but I didn't see anything in the rules, so...

"Young People are the Solution, Not the Problem" shirt for sale now on here.

Check it out? (:

Articles of Impeachment.

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:54:23 GMT

Yesterday, Mr. Dennis Kucinich read his 35 point articles of impeachment for George W. Bush on the floor of the house. the house has a few days to vote on what to do about it. This is technically stalled in the committee, but I am glad he at least made the point of reading it, in it's entirety, into the record, so everyone can read it.

If you think Bush should be Impeached, I'd say now is the time to write your House Representative and get them to support it. Also, it wouldn't hurt to contact your Senators and make them aware that this is of interest to you and the rest of their constituencies.

You da man Dennis! If I were in DC I'd make you the most badass Vegan sandwich and bring it to your office.

Spread the word, Hard to say if the mainstream press is really going to give this a nod. (and if they do it is liable to be negative).

And now a message on saving the children, by Senator John McCain...

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:53:54 GMT

McCain's experience clearly exhibits itself once again. As anyone with any Cup'o'Noodles experience knows, hot water clearly works best.

Because this world is hard enough without cold, crunchy babies.

a small vote against homophobia?

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:25:43 GMT

From the American Family Association:

"Procter & Gamble has resumed using explicit, open-mouth homosexual kissing in their soap opera, “As the World Turns.” P&G decided to include this type of content as a commitment to “diversity.” P&G stopped showing such scenes some months ago, but has now decided to again help promote the homosexual agenda which includes homosexual marriage.

Gay activists are hopeful that the P&G effort will desensitize viewers to the homosexual lifestyle and help make the unhealthy and immoral lifestyle more acceptable to society, especially to children and youth.

“As the World Turns” is owned and controlled completely by P&G. No network made this decision. P&G alone made the decision to support the homosexual agenda.

But, hey, Proctor and Gamble is letting people vote - should they be homophobic jerks or not? It's a free call, very quick.

To vote:
*call the number: 1-800-331-3774.
*you may be asked to Press 1 for English/2 for Spanish, I was not
*then they ask you if you are calling about something else (option 1) or the gay couple storyline (option 2) so hit 2 to get to the As the World Turns poll.
*press 1 to tell them you want the storyline to continue. (or two if you don't)

I don't watch soaps. But I hate the AFA and their desire to make all non-hetro people disappear or at least crawl into a shame hole. So I voted for the story line. I encourage you to do the same.

(and thinks to my wonderful friend for bringing this to my attention)

Politico owners start interjecting themselves into the election's outcome.

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:43:09 GMT

Politco owner/editors John F. Harris & Jim Vanderhei, who previously misrepresented Politico's own interview with Barack Obama, and repeatedly and aggressively attacked John Edwards' haircut with numerous big headline news stories, recently penned a transparently obvious hit piece / editorial against Obama and his supporters, accusing the media as being biased in favor of Obama, accusing Obama supporters of "whining" about the balance of the recent ABC debate, and defending that debate as being "more substantive than other debates".

In an attempt to try to give their latest ludicrously slanted editorial -- which they've been relentlessly hyping -- some degree of credibility, they've posted a poll to the bottom right of their front page, asking:

Obama's secret weapon: the media
Do you think many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon?

Note that they aren't asking whether many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Clinton or McCain campaign. Apparently, everyone knows Bill Kristol's or Paul Krugman's editorials at the NY Times are completely balanced, right?!

Apparently, it's a "phenomenon" and not common sense when the majority of Democrats vote for the most honest, trustworthy, optimistic candidate running the best organized, most successful campaign that focuses primarily on the issues that matter to people, rather than on sleazy attacks.

So, take a few seconds, go vote no to their biased poll... and please feel free to crosspost this to let other Obama supporters know that they should do the same.

The Utopian Design Collective presents Vertical Farms, March 17, Philly

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:20:31 GMT

The Community College of Philadelphia Architecture Program and the Utopian Design Collective are proud to present a Lecture by Dr. Dickson Despommier of the Vertical Farm Project. As an agricultural and environmental crisis looms, Dr. Despommier, a Columbia university luminary, has dared to dream. His vision of an urban agriculture presents an elegant solution to feeding the world, and confronts the challenge of creating sustainable urban space. The multi-disciplinary approach of his project combines environmental science, emergent materials technology and architecture to create the possibility of a radically green city. Join us as we learn more about the realities of Vertical Farms.

March 17th 2008 6:30PM
Community College of Philadelphia
Bonnell Building Auditorium BG-10
16th and Spring Garden
Entrance on 16th or 17th
Lecture Hall on First Floor Large Auditorium.

The Vertical Farm project has been featured on CNN, Wired Science, the BBC and Popular Science. To Learn more about The Vertical Farm Project you can go to www.verticalfarm.com. This is a Free event.

The Utopian Design Collective is an amorphous grouping of dreamers, technophiles, and eco-geeks whose mission it is to spread the word about the liberatory possibilities of design and technology. More information is available at http://www.utopiandeco.com

Ralph Nader announces his candidacy... and promptly censors his forums.

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:16:44 GMT

I posted the following comment to Ralph Nader's forums in response, which was promptly censored.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ralph,
I'm a pro-Green Party California voter who supported you in 2000 and in 2004, although I advocated that those who were in closely contested states should support the Democratic candidate.

(I was very much aware that there was a clear difference between Al Gore / John Kerry and George W. Bush, even if you didn't want to acknowledge that fact yourself.)

But this time around, I have to admit, I'm going to very proudly support Barack Obama for president, even as I vote to support Green candidates at the local level.

While I think that you could perhaps have some positive impact in the dialogue of this race, I find the way you conduct your campaign to be fundamentally at odds with bringing about the kind of policies we'd all like to see.

It's clear enough -- for some admittedly improper, two-party biased structural reasons -- that you won't win the upcoming race. In fact, it is entirely likely that you will find yourself shut out of the debates. So, before you are silenced, what are you going to do to advance the causes you support, other than simply compete primarily for the voters that Barack Obama is going to need to beat "less jobs and 100 years of war" McCain?

Are you willing to withdraw from the race and endorse Barack Obama if he is willing to compromise and adopt *some* of your policies? Are you willing to give him *AND* the public a clear, public list of several useful policies you'd like him to adopt -- there are many that would be beneficial -- and agree to drop from the race if he accepts a couple of them?

No offense, Ralph, but I would be willing to trade your entire political campaign for the promise of a single government policy change that would put people first and help save the lives of just a few dozen Americans a year.

How about you, Ralph? Where do your priorities stand?! Are you just there to fill in the suit of a Green Party ticket, or are you going to actually bring about *some* kind of meaningful change this year?

Can you make a list of, say, twenty specific policies you'd like Obama to adopt, and allow them to select a few in order to get you to drop out and/or endorse? Or is he simply supposed to adopt your entire campaign platform? What assurances do we have, as voters, that you would even consider dropping out under *any* circumstance? Heaven knows, you haven't before, even when *begged* to do so by Michael Moore.

Frankly, you aren't being clear with the voters like me who would be more than happy to support you, if only you used your position to help bring about meaningful change, Ralph. You're not going to win the election, so how are you going to use my support to bring about some good policies? Find a truely convincing, compelling answer to that, and then we'll talk.

Politics isn't about demogogueing on a platform. It's about reaching important compromises to advance the general welfare. This is *ESPECIALLY* important for third parties, as I know full well with my experience with the Liberal Democrats in the UK. A very significant minority support them and help grow and expand the reach of their party, because they are capable of compromising and getting results. What are you capable of, Ralph?! Frankly, I think you are capable of more than you have given us so far, if only you were willing to actually sacrifice in order to get it.

If your campaign this year doesn't enter into this race with a spirit of compromise, where the Green Party is committed to empowering its voters to get *some* meaningful change enacted... well, what good are you, other than just another vote for failure?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I started taking screenshots...

And I posted more comments and took more screenshots...

And more... and more still...

Until it became pretty damn humorous, really.

That (4P) refers to my reputation on the board. People mod it up for the few seconds that the post is visible.

If you think that's amusing, wait until you see how it goes up after this post!

How widespread is this censorship? Well, I saw numerous comments disappear. Even now, nearly four hours after he annouced his candidacy, only FIVE comments to his latest forum post have been approved.

Perhaps Ralph Nader would like to make a public statement about this kind of behavior, or an answer as to why comments that his website's audience greatly approve of are being deleted?

If he wants to run again, he *REALLY* needs to put up or shut up.

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:10:12 GMT

Kristol: It’s ‘Unbelievable’ That Congress Won’t Give Bush ‘The Benefit Of The Doubt’ On Spying

So why is it that the news media still takes people like Kristol so seriously if recent history has proven him--and many of his "comrades" at Commentary--to be apologists for bad and undemocratic policies?

On democracy and unity

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:06:53 GMT

Since at least 1992 we have been hearing a familiar refrain from the democrats, "we must unify in order to win."

The implicit promise in this statement is "from unity comes democracy." I would suggest that that statement is backward, it should be "from democracy comes unity." How does that work?

Democracy is built upon a free exchange of ideas and, it seems, a whole lot of shouting. What matters in the end, though, is that everyone gets a chance to be heard and IF everyone feels that they have been heard and their concerns given serious thought, then they are usually willing to compromise and unite with the majority for the common good. So, if democracy is truly practiced, then unity will likely be the outcome.

This is part of why Bush has been so divisive. Half the country believes that he is an usurper. That could have been fixed by a good, transparent investigation by congress or a more careful examination by our legal process but we didn't get that. We allowed fear to make us rush to judgment, crown a winner and then sweep it all under the carpet.

Now we are hearing that unity refrain again but I have noticed that I don't hear it from the Obama camp. Over and over again I hear that refrain from Clinton supporters. I just read a post in another forum complaining about how ungrateful some of us are for not recognizing all the Clintons have done for us and for not rallying behind Hillary. The writer went on to warn us all against the danger of another '72 convention and complained about how democrats 'eat each other.'

Personally, I long for a contentious convention. If it happens, I might actually become a Democrat again. If the convention is contentious but allowed to work properly, I might have reason to believe their is room for democrats in the Democratic Party.

Yet, I can't unite behind Hillary. I can't unite because I have heard that backward and anti-democratic refrain of "unity first" from that camp for far too long, for at least 16 years. If it were 'just' Hillary vs Barak, I might be able to. But it's not. It's Hillary and Bill and the Democratic Leadership Council ^* and all the anti-democratic policies and maneuvering caused by the New Democratic Movement.

If the Clinton supporters really believed their 'unity first' mantra, they would now be shifting their support to Obama who is the frontrunner. They won't do this, of course. When I start seeing people refer 'the Clintons' and 'all they have done for us' I see the birth of monarchism in America and that makes this tired, cynical patriot's blood boil.

* I have not had time to research all the claims of this article. If there are refutable facts, I'm sure you will let me know.

Hillary Clinton breaks commitments to oppose illegal wiretapping.

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:04:27 GMT

The Senate has voted to give retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies for allowing illegal, unconstitutional wiretapping of people's communications.

Hillary Clinton, despite previous promises to fight to oppose telecommunications immunity, failed to keep to the spirit of her promises, and to perform her job today.

Barack Obama was in attendance in the Senate today, and voted to oppose retroactive immunity for phone companies.
John McCain was also there, voting to grant phone companies legal immunity.

Where was Hillary?!

Answer: Rather than crossing the Potomac and performing her job, she flew out of Virginia early, and started campaigning in Texas, despite the fact that the Texas primary is almost a month away.

News from the UK

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:15:01 GMT

The URC, or United Reformed Church, to which I belong, featured an article in it's monthly magazine 'Reform', which I would like to share.

There was a recent protest at the Ministry of Defence in London, protesting against the British Government's plan to renew Britain's Trident nuclear missile system.

It is argued that Britain needs an independent nuclear deterrent - one that does not come under American control. however, critics point out that although Britain may *possess* the new missiles, they will still require American back up in terms of software and maintenance, making Britain's 'independence' from the USA a hollow sham.

Critics also point out that when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, the fact teat we were a nuclear power and they were not had no deterrent effect whatever. it was conventional forces that liberated the Falklands, "So, why do we need nuclear weapons anyway?" they ask.

With the USA , the UK, France, Russia and China already possessing nuclear weapons 'for security', the please to other countries like Iran not to acquire them 'in the interests of world peace' simply expose the hypocrisy of the non proliferation policies that we try to impose on others.

Peace protesters want to see the British government take a morally consistent stand on the issue and not renew it's nuclear arsenal.
x posted in on_the_issues

Glass ceilings

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:24:22 GMT

The recent attacks by the New York chapter of N.O.W. on Sen. Kennedy has brought to the fore an issue that most people want to avoid in this election.

At this point, it is virtually certain that a glass ceiling will be shattered. Either a woman or a black man will be the democratic nominee. For some people, this raises a conflict. I heard one woman on NPR several months ago say (paraphrased) "It's a tough choice but Obama is my neighbor and Hillary is still two doors down. The heirarchy is still white male, white female, black male, black female." NYNOW, apparently feels that breaking the gender class ceiling is more important than breaking the race glass ceiling.

Setting personalities aside, if you have to choose between breaking down sexism or racism first, which do you choose?

Only a week 'til Super Tuesday...

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:03:21 GMT

Do you believe in the power of LiveJournal to change the world for the better? Do you believe in politicians that don't lie their countries into unnecessary wars? Do you want your leaders to be honest with you for a change? Do you want them to unify Americans, rather than divide them? Do you want them to appeal to your dreams, hopes, and aspirations, rather than to cynically play upon your fears and doubts?

Do you want to spend the next four to eight years complaining about the neverending saga of a John McCain or Hillary Clinton presidency? Or would you rather make Barack Obama your next president?

...might I suggest that you put your money where your mouth is?!

Introducing the LiveJournal Users for Obama donation thermometer. I just donated $50 to get it started, and I'm asking those of you who appreciate the great potential of Barack Obama to donate whatever you can reasonably afford to help it reach the top!

If you support Obama but can't afford much $, you can also help get the word out, by posting the thermometer on your journal or on appropriate LiveJournal communities, letting them know that they can join the obama_2008 to find out more about how to help the campaign to win on Super Tuesday.

You can probably copy-and-paste the thermometer into your journal posts, but here's the html code, just in case...!

<a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/maingroup/LiveJournalUsersforObama"><img alt="" hspace="10" src="http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/graphic/maingroup/LiveJournalUsersforObama" align="left" vspace="10" /></a>

Super Tuesday is just a week away, and Obama has an army of grassroots supporters who are just getting warmed up. Can he come from behind to pull out a victory? You better believe it! There are fewer than 1000 paid staffers for Obama and Clinton, but there are thousands of LiveJournal users. I intend to post daily updates through Super Tuesday, both here and in relevant LJ communities, letting you all know how you can take a bit of your time throughout the day to help give Barack Obama a decisive grassroots advantage in this race.

Expect that thermometer to start to fill up soon. Better yet, be a part of it! Click on the thermometer, contribute a few bucks, and help a great candidate make history!

Prominent AIDS researcher, LGBT advocate endorses Obama.

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 02:15:58 GMT

Jerry L. Cade, M.D., Co-founder and Co-medical director of Nevada AIDS Research, and a prominent local LGBT advocate, has publically announced his support for Barack Obama.

He has written the following in his endorsement:

"For many reasons, I believe that the best hope for the LGBT and HIV/AIDS communities is Senator Barack Obama. In fact, the best hope for this country and the planet is Senator Barack Obama. . . I am ultimately supporting Senator Obama because I think he will do the best job at ensuring we continue our quest for LGBT equality and ensuring that we take care of our brothers and sisters who have been affected by HIV/AIDS. . .

There are clear differences among the candidates on LGBT issue and on HIV/AIDS issues. Furthermore, there is good evidence as to which candidates will most aggressively fight for us and for change. . .

For example, both Senator Obama and Senator Edwards have called for a full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act . . . Unfortunately, Senator Clinton would only partially repeal the act. Senator Clinton would "leave in place the section of DOMA that allows states to self-determine the question of marriage without being obligated to recognize the marriage laws of other states" (from The Advocate, January 8, 2008). . .

Senator Obama's (as well as Senator Edwards's) main presidential websites . . . prominently display special sections showing their support for the LGBT community . . . In fact, I found a LGBT secion on every candidate's main website except for Senator Clinton's. . . . I am told that Senator Clinton supports us, but I feel like she wants to do so quietly. I am also bothered by the fact htat Senator Clinton was the last of the eight candidates to declare her support for civil unions. . .

With respect to HIV/AIDS issues, all three candidates have called ofr increased funding for treatment and provention; however, as late as July of 2007, Senator Clinton had not decided if she supported repealing the ban on using Federal funds for needle exchange programs:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2007/jul/31/important_exchange_re_clinton_ob

Fighting HIV/AIDS needs forethought, leadership, and courage. We need a president who is willing to take the lead in AIDS prevention and treatment. We cannot wait for someone to come around to supporting an issue once everyone else is already there. We need a creative, visionary leader who will implement whatever changes are needed to prevent further HIV infection. We need Senator Obama."

In hopes of derailing the juggernaut, "Why I can't get excited about Obama . . ."

Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:16:46 GMT

When I saw him at the 2004 convention, I said "this guy is our great Democratic hope for the future! He speaks as well as (Bill) Clinton except better because he knows when to stop! He's got all the energy and dynamism that most of the other possible future candidates lack, and he didn't vote for the Iraq invasion!"

Since then, while I still think he's the best and most charismatic speechmaker of the lot and second only to (Hillary) Clinton in debating skills, he's lost me, and has been near the bottom among my Democrat choices for months. Here's why:

(1) His support for nuclear power (see the book "Why Nuclear Power is Not the Answer" by Helen Caldicott, I think, for a better & lengthier and more detailed argument than I could possibly give if you don't think this is a big deal) and liquid coal. Both of these are environmental disasters to a greater degree than oil and gas have been, and horrible ideas all round. To me, saying you support investment in more nuclear power plants is like saying you support more judges like Scalia/Thomas/Alito, and think Iraq worked out so well you want to invade a couple of more countries as soon as possible.

(2) His repeated overtures to the right wing fundamentalists. Now, the other leading democratic candidates are guilty of this to some degree as well, but his overtures to them make me more nervous, especially backed by his refusal to get rid of the homophobic fundie "gayness can be cured" guy from his South Carolina support concert.

(3) Having skimmed his book "The Audacity of Hope", the following things from there:
where he keeps talking about the "undeniably vexing issue of abortion" and you have to read to the end to figure out that he is pro-choice--probably--but clearly has a lot of sympathy for anti-choicers,
where he seems to blame the democrats as much as the republicans for the rancor in washington despite the dems having moved steadily rightwards for years and compromised themselves to death, practically, (aside from your own observations over the years, I strongly recommend Paul Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal" for more details on this) and (related)
his level of sympathy for red-state democrats who vote conservatively and/or don't speak their conscience in order to get elected/re-elected.

(4) He didn't even support the filibuster of Alito . . . . Yes, he voted against him, but he knew the vote wasn't going to be enough without the filibuster, and if ever there was a time for a filibuster, this was it. Almost as bad and a lot more recent than the Iraq votes of Hillary & Edwards, plus far worse coming from someone who claims to be the most outspoken for progressive change.

(5) He *is* the most outspoken for progressive change, but there's absolutely zero indication that he's going to try to accomplish any more than the others -- he's almost never specific except when forced to be, and when he does offer specific policy plans, as with health care, they seem very similar to something one or more of the other candidates has already put forward. When you actually look at both his specifics thus far, combined with what he's done since being in *national* office, he actually seems less likely to accomplish--or even try for--real change than either Edwards or Clinton. Coming from someone with his campaign-speak, this not only rubs me the wrong way, it makes me fearful that an Obama election followed by a socially conservative, economically moderate presidency will make a lot of progressives simply quit voting.

(6) He keeps speaking in vague rousing platitudes without specifics just like that other charismatic, well speaking politician, Ronald Reagan. I don't think Reagan was a good president. And things like "hope freed the slaves" actually bug me far more than "morning in america", since the latter is just empty phrasing, while the former makes it sound like happy feelings rather than grim determination, warfare, and the whole blood sweat & tears thing was what was needed. Except for shooting-type warfare, I think sacrifice and fighting more than hope will be needed to fix many of our problems now, anyone who's studied the current situation realizes this, and anyone who implies different is being well beyond disingenuous.

That said, if he gets the nom I'll almost certainly vote for him -- not only because I like him much, much much more than any of the Republicans, but also because the supreme court appointments are just too important (tho this is another area where I have less confidence in him than Clinton, Edwards or Richardson), plus the Republicans have shown themselves too fond of invading countries for non-existent reasons to be given further opportunity. But I'd a hell of a lot rather see any of the other three top candidates.

(x-posted to my journal)

Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:22:15 GMT

Inviting everyone to check out and consider volunteering creative talent for strike_support to benefit union and non-union writers and creative techs and other support staff out of work due to the WGA strike. How it works is that people offer to make icons or sketches or write short fiction or poetry as a gift for someone in exchange for that person's donating to a legally recognized charity to provide emergency help with rent, food, healthcare, etc for unemployed workers in the television industry. And the artists have a choice about where the donations should be directed - so you may support union people, nonunion people, writers, below-the-line people, individuals, groups, whomever you choose.

I know many of you are incredibly talented with writing, poetry, music, graphic design, etc - and it's a good cause. Many people in the writing industry are not wealthy - they're 'starving artists' looking for a chance to survive while following their dream and working one or more dayjobs between gigs. And this is a creative, democratic, (discordian!) response to the whole situation.

Here's the community's information:

Everyone knows that the writers are out of jobs because they're on strike. It's what being on strike means, and it's a risk they decided to take.

But hundreds of other people are also out of jobs: actors, technicians, staff, crew. These people had no say in whether the writers went on strike or not. They didn't choose to lose their jobs.

Fans have done a lot to support the strike, so that it ends as quickly as possible. But that end is still far out of sight.

But there's a way that you can help now the people who need help the most. strike_support is a general fandom community dedicated to helping those affected by the strike, who don't have their union's funds to fall back on. We're doing this through two charities: The Actors' Fund, based in NYC, and The Motion Picture & Television Fund, based in LA. If you know another charity that supports "below the line" people, please contact esotaria

Choose Your Candidate

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:26:46 GMT

Choose Your Candidate

Environmental Politics

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:09:43 GMT

In the public realm, there are two things that I could say I am passionate about: sustainability issues, and politics. So naturally, the places those overlap are pretty important to me; while issues of peace, education, the justice system, and health care are all front and center for me, where a politician stands on environmental issues can pretty much be a deal-maker or -breaker for me. Ditto for political organizations, or ones that attempt to wield power in some form that we might as well call political.

Organizations such as the National Resource Defense Council, for instance; I was shocked and disappointed last year when I got a mailer from them proclaiming that the answer to our habit of driving way too much was that we could still do it with the right technology and subsidies! Well, yay. No need to restore community infrastructure or local agriculture, or--gulp--make any adjustments to our lifestyle whatsoever.

This came to mind today when Matt Stoller (of openleft.com, my favorite site for political analysis and commentary) laid it on thick today: "Degraded organizations like Frances Beinecke's starfucking obsessed NRDC and the utterly corrupt and industry-owned Environmental Defense don't work." For those not familiar with Matt's colorful and combative style, my suggested translation is, "I've had it with proclamations of environmentalism from people who just want to be hip, or are actually covering up horrendous intentions."

And he has a point. His comment was in response to a climate change bill that passed out of the Senate's Environment Committee last night, which he has a lot of problems with. The biggest one is that it sets up a cap-and-trade system which theoretically uses market forces to get people to reduce their pollution most cost-effectively... but this bill (written by independent Sen. Lieberman and Republican Sen. Warner) subsidizes the cost to coal-burning plants, passing the burden of carbon reduction on to everyone but the largest corporate polluters, and handing hundreds of billions of dollars of tax revenue to those polluters.

His other big problem is with environmental groups and progressives who are doing what's easy, not what's right. For instance, while most environmental groups have opposed this bill -- likely calculating that if a Democrat enters the White house a year from now, we could see leadership towards something much better -- they haven't had anything to say about the ones that have endorsed it. A political movement's health can be measured by its ability to have internal debates, but it seems like everyone's acting like there's no difference in opinion here. (The NRDC actually helped write part of this bill, so of course they're supporting it.)

And not just groups, but individuals as well. Sen. Boxer is often considered a strong progressive, but on this issue she has clearly disappointed. She shut down amendments in committee to improve it, and now lauds the authors for "breaching the partisan divide" -- as if that was somehow the global threat to life as we know it.

This is frustrating of course, but ultimately it serves mainly to illustrate the state of environmental politics today. As the environmental movement gains popular credibility, it also gains political power. Right now that's being siphoned off to provide "green-washing" for people who want to look good, but there are plenty of politicians and organizations who take this seriously and aren't going away. The big question for me remains: when will this issue develop to being a point of serious political debate? With the Lieberman-Warner bill now headed for the full Senate -- but a far better bill having been raised in the House -- one can only hope this instance might amount to more than an illustration.

UPDATE: If this post made you feel less hopeful -- about the strength of the environmental movement or the hope of getting meaningful climate change legislation -- there's also reason to take heart. I meant it when I said there are also plenty of good-faith actors, and they've just achieved a huge success in the House. Also, regarding the Senate bill, John Edwards actually gets it. What do you know?

This is real progress.

[Cross-posted in Sustainable_Dev]

Amnesty Writeathon, San Mateo

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:36:38 GMT

Announcing that I'm hosting a local Amnesty Writeathon event - a group letter and petition and holiday card-writing day tentatively scheduled for Saturday, December 8th from 12-4 (drop-in) in the Laurel Meeting Room of the San Mateo Library. 55 Third Street, in the downtown, off of South El Camino.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/Individuals_at_Risk/Global_Writeathon/page.do?id=1108452&n1=3&n2=34&n3=65

Designed to coincide with International Human Rights Day, the event involves writing letters, signing petitions, and sending holiday cards to forgotten political prisoners around the world who are persecuted for nonviolently expressing their political or religious or cultural viewpoints. In the past Amnesty has supported democracy activists, environmentalists, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, women's rights activists, and many others. Amnesty is nonpolitical and nonreligious in itself and simply advocates for freedom of expression and against torture, arbitrary jail sentences, the death penalty, etc.

I'll bring cookies, tea, stamps, international Putumayo music, preaddressed envelopes, and some stationery my supervisor gave me today at work to donate to this event.

This is listed on the Amnesty Writeathon web page - already received a couple emails from interested people. All are welcome and we may go out to dinner as a group afterwards if people would like.

In addition to supporting human rights, this event is a great way to network with intelligent, successful professionals! One never knows whose company may be hiring, or who may know of awesome events happening in the SF Bay Area, or who may have great ideas to assist your university's student organization, or who may know someone who knows someone who...etc.

For those unable to make the event in person I can post links in my journal to the letters and petitions we're writing so you can sign on or mail letters of your own (as well as YouTube links of some musical highlights supporting human rights).

Please comment here (or email me) if you are interested and I will keep you posted.

Would be appreciated if some people here helped promote this on Facebook or elsewhere on LJ :)

Progressive Support for Ron Paul - Not so bizarre

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:25:40 GMT

While you might find it bizarre, that Congressman Ron Paul has leftist supporters in his campaign, you suddenly find yourself in a camp with Romney supporters who find it bizarre how many conservative supporters he has among previous GOP voters.

He is a GOP candidate, or at least wants to be one. For some of you that might preclude even considering ever supporting him, let alone vote for his ticket, should it come up in your primaries. Well, so be it. For others, that makes him a viable alternative they never had, which Rudy McRomney never would offer. It also makes him eligible for a lot of non-voters, who still are the largest voter group in the US, albeit one split by many interests and desinterests.

He is not running for the Dem nomination and thus is not running against Dennis Kucinich, and never will be at a later stage, as you well should know, even if he would, as I do hope, run as an independant candidate if the GOP fails to nominate him.

Ron Paul is running against Rudy McRomney and is on so many accounts a better candidate by far for progressive minds: Digital freedom and civil liberties, the war, torture - and government spending, to name just a few. And these stands make him stand out as a candidate against any likely proponent of the Dem nomination as well. Hilary is by far to much of a centrist to do any progressive moves, in Iraq, on civil liberties or on lean government spending. And Obama? Tries to be everything for everyone and would try to be a good war president as well, if it comes to it (as it will, I suppose, not).

Ron Paul is a candidate with a clear conscience - and stands now for what he stood and voted like before (hence the conservative slogan: "Say Yes to Dr. No").

Coming to your claims:
* He is pro life. That's a matter of conscience for him and I respect that. Is overturning Roe vs. Wade one of his issues? It is not. Asked in the recent CNN YouTube debate, he clearly stated that he is against criminal charges against any woman who out of desperation has an abortion performed even at a latest stage. In his opinion the criminal is someone else, not the woman, and I tend to agree. Unlike other Pro-Lifers he extends his pro-life stand to adults, which is one of many reasons why he wants to quit the US fighting in the middle east immedieately. Is that good? From a progressivve standpoint, I say yes.

* Is he pro school prayer? As a Christian he is rather convinced that a school prayer would not turn a good school into a bad one, and I tend to agree. Is he convinced that schools should have school prayers and would he endorse that as a candidate? Not even when hell freezes over. Ron Paul is convinced that Washington should stay out of decisions like this and that member states of the union or even the local levels, school boards and parent-teacher meetings, should be free to decide that. Freedom and civil liberties are the focus of his campaign (together with a sound fiscal policy) and that includes the freedom for any school to have a school prayer or to allow for a wiccan performance on Halloween.

* Is he a homophobe or racist? Not as far as I can tell. He is convinced that all US citizens are equal in right and should be - he opposes federal laws which single out any one group, be it for or against them. Gays in the military? His stand is that people should be stripped of their uniform if they show disruptive behaviour, not if their personal preferences are other than his own. He opposes hate-based crime very much because it goes against his conviction that all citizens - be the afro-american, hispanic, atheits, GOP, Dem, GLBT or straight, have the same rights and should be treated the same way. He has no anti-GLBT agenda, and to say he has a racist is as blatantly wrong as would be calling everyone who critizes the policies of Israel (torture, war on water, war on neighbours) 'anti-semitic'.

It was Senator McCain who pulled a Godwin against Ron Paul, and while I applaud the clear stand John McCain takes on torture and the Geneva convention, issues very important to me, I oppose McCain on most other accounts, most of all his 'winning the war', which some Dems would still like just as much.

Let us not pull a Godwin on Ron Paul but keep the line here, even if Pandagon completely confuses the man with some of his supporters - and invokes Godwins law in favour of Israel. Ron Paul has spoken clearly against segregation of citizens by colour, belief, gender or sexual orientation.

Ron Paul also makes a clear and important point of the fact that any policy which increases public debt and which devalues the dollar, which increases inflation, is entirely anti-social.
* Sound fiscal policy is the only sustainable social policy for the future
* Open and fair trade with everyone, including countries who fell out of favour with the Bush or the Clinton administration, is a much better policy that interventionism.

If you want to restore the republic and its democracy against big centralized government - and to end these 'wars' - and to bring back liberties in the digital age - vote Ron Paul. AND support him in the primaries.

Ron Paul is proud to have a rainbow coalition of supporters - of all colours, genders, sexual orientations.

While I might not agree with Congressman Ron Paul in every single issue, and not share each of his convictions in the same way, I admire the way he stands for them - and for not imposing the Presidents opinions on everyone else in the world.

Let us remember the 5th of November to see what is possible, and let us have a tea party on December 16th - I for one will invite my friends for a tea on that day. Over here, in Europe.

Read! Write! Kill your Television!

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:24:53 GMT

My response to the WGA writers' strike, posted on the Petition Site:

In support of the Writers' Guild of America's strike for compensation when their work gets streamed on the Internet, sign up here to pledge to read or write yourself instead of watching TV at least one night a week.

Not all Hollywood writers are wealthy and successful - some are "starving artists" who remain unemployed and work second and third jobs between writing gigs. I've personally met some members, actually of the Screenwriters' Guild, and they traveled the country in a trailer performing at poetry slams for extra cash to live on in between gigs - and I'm sure many WGA members are in a similar situation.

Some writers produce content mainly or exclusively intended for the Internet, and the Internet is growing in influence and writers should be compensated for the use of their work.

And - writing/reading on your own will be fun! Whether you produce poetry, a memoir, a novel, short stories, vignettes, even decorated shopping lists - or finally finish that novel you've been meaning to get to someday, you'll open yourself up to new horizons.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/18/support-the-wga-writers---pledge-to-write-or-read-one-night-a-week-instead-of-watching-tv-till-the

Progressives

Too Big to Fail and Too Small to Matter

Five Dangerous, Disastrous Things About the Proposed Bailout and *What You Can Do to Help Stop It

U.S-centric - call in day TODAY, 9/17/08

Anyone here read Greg Palast?

The McCain Plan: Homer Simpson without the Donut

Orson Scott Card

Articles of Impeachment.

And now a message on saving the children, by Senator John McCain...

a small vote against homophobia?

Politico owners start interjecting themselves into the election's outcome.

The Utopian Design Collective presents Vertical Farms, March 17, Philly

Ralph Nader announces his candidacy... and promptly censors his forums.

On democracy and unity

Hillary Clinton breaks commitments to oppose illegal wiretapping.

News from the UK

Glass ceilings

Only a week 'til Super Tuesday...

Prominent AIDS researcher, LGBT advocate endorses Obama.

In hopes of derailing the juggernaut, "Why I can't get excited about Obama . . ."

Choose Your Candidate

Environmental Politics

Amnesty Writeathon, San Mateo

Progressive Support for Ron Paul - Not so bizarre

Read! Write! Kill your Television!

Five Dangerous, Disastrous Things About the Proposed Bailout
and
*What You Can Do to Help Stop It

The McCain Plan:
Homer Simpson without the Donut