For years, people have used terms like partisanship and bi-partisanship; it has been both good and bad. It has been blamed for grid lock in Congress and it has been heralded as the best thing for the country. But where did it begin?
The vile side of partisanship became popular with the Daisy ad that Johnson ran against Goldwater. But it became the gut wrenching crap we have today during the Reagan years. Where it was boiled down to "us against them". One side was always right and the other was always wrong. Before Reagan the two sides pretty much respected each other and each others ideas and issues. But with Reagan the people got involved and it has degraded into the crappy system we have now. The insults and the hatred for their opponents has grown.
Just look at the present, the debates are seldom about "real" issues and digress quickly into platitudes and insults. The people learn nothing from this, but it makes for excellent press. There is NO true leadership of the people, just elected handlers. People lose, politicians win and the song goes on.
28 November 2007
26 November 2007
Participatroy Democracy
THE AIMS OF INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY
I. The ultimate cause of the present multidimensional crisis (political, economic, social, ecological, cultural) is the concentration of power in the hands of various elites, which is maintained and reproduced by the dynamics of the system of the market economy (in its present internationalised form) and its political complement, representative "democracy", i.e. the economic and political system that emerged in the West just two centuries ago.
II. Overcoming, therefore, the chronic crisis which started with the emergence of this system, and has worsened in the last few years with the internationalisation of the market economy, is not possible through the reforming of the system ? as is utopianly supported by civil societarians, Green parties and organisations, who in the final analysis function as its apologists. Overcoming the crisis is possible only through the creation of a new form of political, social and economic organisation which secures the equal distribution of power among citizens at all levels (political, economic, social, cultural). Inclusive Democracy, therefore, is not simply a new utopia, but a new form of social organisation which aims at securing the equal distribution of power at all levels and consequently the final overcoming of the present multidimensional crisis. The ultimate aim is the creation of a Democratic World Order based on confederations of Inclusive Democracies, which will replace the hierarchical world orders of the present and the past.
III. Inclusive Democracy constitutes the highest form of Democracy since it secures the institutional preconditions for political (or direct) democracy, economic democracy, democracy in the social realm and ecological democracy. At the subjective level, Inclusive Democracy is grounded on the conscious choice of citizens for autonomy, and not on dogmas, religions and irrational systems or closed theoretical systems, which rule out any questioning about the ultimate grounds of these beliefs ? the cornerstone of democracy.
IV. Political democracy involves the creation of institutions of direct democracy at the political level, so that all decisions are taken by the demotic assemblies (i.e. the local citizen assemblies at the level of the demos) which confederate at the regional, national, and ultimately continental and global levels and consist of delegates, who are subject to immediate recall by the demotic assemblies. The function of regional, national and confederal assemblies is only to implement and coordinate the policy decisions of the demotic assemblies. Political democracy secures, therefore, the re-integration of society with polity, and replaces the state as a separate authority over the citizens ? an arrangement which, essentially, has transformed citizens into subjects.
V. Economic democracy involves the creation of institutions of collective ownership of the productive resources (i.e. of the sources of social wealth) and collective control over them by the demotic assemblies. The market economy system, which has led to the present huge concentration of wealth at the hands of the few, as well as to unemployment, underemployment, insecurity, the degradation of social services and the ecological catastrophe, would be replaced by new institutions of democratic control of the means of production which aim at covering the basic needs of all citizens, as well as at securing the individual citizen?s freedom of choice with respect to the covering of his/her non basic needs, according to his/her choices for work/leisure. Economic democracy secures, therefore, the re-integration of society with economy, and replaces the money/market economy, which divides citizens into privileged ones, who more than cover every real or imaginary need they may have, and non-privileged ones, who are incapable of covering even their basic needs.
VI. Democracy in the social realm involves the creation of institutions of self-management in the factories, offices and generally the places of production, as well as in educational and cultural institutions (media, art etc.) The worker councils, the student councils, and so on, secure the self-management of the production places, the education places etc., guided by the general aims set by the demotic assemblies, as well as by the preferences of citizens as producers but also as consumers. A model describing how an economic democracy might function in general, and specifically how the decisions of citizens as members of the demotic assemblies might interrelate to the decisions of citizens as members of the self-managed institutions, is described in Vol. 3, No. 2 (1995) of the journal Democracy & Nature, and in more detail in the book Towards an Inclusive Democracy (Cassell/Continuum, 1997), ch.6.
VII. Ecological democracy involves the creation of institutions and a culture that secure the re-integration of society and nature. This means that the goal of economic activity is not the present eco-catastrophic "development" which is necessitated by competition and profit demands, but the covering of the needs of all citizens in a way that secures the true quality of life that only a harmonious relationship between society and nature can bring about. Ecological democracy, therefore, can be achieved neither within the present market economy system and the consequent ?growth economy?, nor within any system mainly aiming at growth, like the centralised system of ?actually existing socialism?.
VIII. Inclusive Democracy is neither the outcome of a dialectical unfolding in Nature or Society determined by some "laws/tendencies" of natural or social evolution, nor just another utopia like the ones that appear in the libertarian space. Inclusive Democracy, therefore, is incompatible with any closed theoretical system and of course with any religious (or not) irrationalism. The Inclusive Democracy project aims at building a massive movement that will be the synthesis as well as the transcendence of the social movements for socialism, democracy and autonomy, as well as of the new social movements for equality regardless of gender, race, ethnicity etc.
IX. The transition to Inclusive Democracy presupposes, therefore, the creation of a massive movement at the local, regional, national and ultimately continental and global levels aiming at replacing the system of the market economy and representative ?democracy? with institutions of direct, economic, ecological democracy, as well as democracy in the social realm. This movement intervenes at all levels (political, economic, social, ecological, cultural) with the aim of creating new institutions and culture. This intervention does not manifest itself only through the creation of alternative forms of individual or social life (?by example?), direct action, or participation in the local elections, but through the combination of these and similar other forms of action ? on the condition that all these activities will be an integral part of a comprehensive political programme of radical social change for an Inclusive Democracy. Participating in the local elections (the only elections compatible with the goal of Inclusive Democracy) aims only at the creation of ID-based institutions and culture at a significant social scale. The ultimate goal is the creation of a dual power in relation to the existing system, through the development of the massive consciousness brought about by the struggle against the existing institutions, as well as the struggle for the new institutions and the setting up of the new institutions themselves. When the majority of citizens has accepted the principles of democratic organisation and takes part in the new institutions en masse, then no power on Earth could stop the collapse of the old system of concentration of power at the hands of the few ? the cause of all troubles for the majority of the human race (the transition strategy towards an Inclusive Democracy is described in detail in Democracy & Nature, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2002).
X. The intermediate goal is the building of a Network of Citizens for Inclusive Democracy which will aim at the creation of an alternative democratic consciousness, through political intervention as well as cultural activities, with the final goal of contributing to the creation of a wider political movement for the transition to Inclusive Democracy. A first step in this direction might be the creation of study groups which provide the opportunity to deepen the knowledge of activists on the various aspects of the inclusive democracy project including the crucial issues of strategy and tactics.
I. The ultimate cause of the present multidimensional crisis (political, economic, social, ecological, cultural) is the concentration of power in the hands of various elites, which is maintained and reproduced by the dynamics of the system of the market economy (in its present internationalised form) and its political complement, representative "democracy", i.e. the economic and political system that emerged in the West just two centuries ago.
II. Overcoming, therefore, the chronic crisis which started with the emergence of this system, and has worsened in the last few years with the internationalisation of the market economy, is not possible through the reforming of the system ? as is utopianly supported by civil societarians, Green parties and organisations, who in the final analysis function as its apologists. Overcoming the crisis is possible only through the creation of a new form of political, social and economic organisation which secures the equal distribution of power among citizens at all levels (political, economic, social, cultural). Inclusive Democracy, therefore, is not simply a new utopia, but a new form of social organisation which aims at securing the equal distribution of power at all levels and consequently the final overcoming of the present multidimensional crisis. The ultimate aim is the creation of a Democratic World Order based on confederations of Inclusive Democracies, which will replace the hierarchical world orders of the present and the past.
III. Inclusive Democracy constitutes the highest form of Democracy since it secures the institutional preconditions for political (or direct) democracy, economic democracy, democracy in the social realm and ecological democracy. At the subjective level, Inclusive Democracy is grounded on the conscious choice of citizens for autonomy, and not on dogmas, religions and irrational systems or closed theoretical systems, which rule out any questioning about the ultimate grounds of these beliefs ? the cornerstone of democracy.
IV. Political democracy involves the creation of institutions of direct democracy at the political level, so that all decisions are taken by the demotic assemblies (i.e. the local citizen assemblies at the level of the demos) which confederate at the regional, national, and ultimately continental and global levels and consist of delegates, who are subject to immediate recall by the demotic assemblies. The function of regional, national and confederal assemblies is only to implement and coordinate the policy decisions of the demotic assemblies. Political democracy secures, therefore, the re-integration of society with polity, and replaces the state as a separate authority over the citizens ? an arrangement which, essentially, has transformed citizens into subjects.
V. Economic democracy involves the creation of institutions of collective ownership of the productive resources (i.e. of the sources of social wealth) and collective control over them by the demotic assemblies. The market economy system, which has led to the present huge concentration of wealth at the hands of the few, as well as to unemployment, underemployment, insecurity, the degradation of social services and the ecological catastrophe, would be replaced by new institutions of democratic control of the means of production which aim at covering the basic needs of all citizens, as well as at securing the individual citizen?s freedom of choice with respect to the covering of his/her non basic needs, according to his/her choices for work/leisure. Economic democracy secures, therefore, the re-integration of society with economy, and replaces the money/market economy, which divides citizens into privileged ones, who more than cover every real or imaginary need they may have, and non-privileged ones, who are incapable of covering even their basic needs.
VI. Democracy in the social realm involves the creation of institutions of self-management in the factories, offices and generally the places of production, as well as in educational and cultural institutions (media, art etc.) The worker councils, the student councils, and so on, secure the self-management of the production places, the education places etc., guided by the general aims set by the demotic assemblies, as well as by the preferences of citizens as producers but also as consumers. A model describing how an economic democracy might function in general, and specifically how the decisions of citizens as members of the demotic assemblies might interrelate to the decisions of citizens as members of the self-managed institutions, is described in Vol. 3, No. 2 (1995) of the journal Democracy & Nature, and in more detail in the book Towards an Inclusive Democracy (Cassell/Continuum, 1997), ch.6.
VII. Ecological democracy involves the creation of institutions and a culture that secure the re-integration of society and nature. This means that the goal of economic activity is not the present eco-catastrophic "development" which is necessitated by competition and profit demands, but the covering of the needs of all citizens in a way that secures the true quality of life that only a harmonious relationship between society and nature can bring about. Ecological democracy, therefore, can be achieved neither within the present market economy system and the consequent ?growth economy?, nor within any system mainly aiming at growth, like the centralised system of ?actually existing socialism?.
VIII. Inclusive Democracy is neither the outcome of a dialectical unfolding in Nature or Society determined by some "laws/tendencies" of natural or social evolution, nor just another utopia like the ones that appear in the libertarian space. Inclusive Democracy, therefore, is incompatible with any closed theoretical system and of course with any religious (or not) irrationalism. The Inclusive Democracy project aims at building a massive movement that will be the synthesis as well as the transcendence of the social movements for socialism, democracy and autonomy, as well as of the new social movements for equality regardless of gender, race, ethnicity etc.
IX. The transition to Inclusive Democracy presupposes, therefore, the creation of a massive movement at the local, regional, national and ultimately continental and global levels aiming at replacing the system of the market economy and representative ?democracy? with institutions of direct, economic, ecological democracy, as well as democracy in the social realm. This movement intervenes at all levels (political, economic, social, ecological, cultural) with the aim of creating new institutions and culture. This intervention does not manifest itself only through the creation of alternative forms of individual or social life (?by example?), direct action, or participation in the local elections, but through the combination of these and similar other forms of action ? on the condition that all these activities will be an integral part of a comprehensive political programme of radical social change for an Inclusive Democracy. Participating in the local elections (the only elections compatible with the goal of Inclusive Democracy) aims only at the creation of ID-based institutions and culture at a significant social scale. The ultimate goal is the creation of a dual power in relation to the existing system, through the development of the massive consciousness brought about by the struggle against the existing institutions, as well as the struggle for the new institutions and the setting up of the new institutions themselves. When the majority of citizens has accepted the principles of democratic organisation and takes part in the new institutions en masse, then no power on Earth could stop the collapse of the old system of concentration of power at the hands of the few ? the cause of all troubles for the majority of the human race (the transition strategy towards an Inclusive Democracy is described in detail in Democracy & Nature, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2002).
X. The intermediate goal is the building of a Network of Citizens for Inclusive Democracy which will aim at the creation of an alternative democratic consciousness, through political intervention as well as cultural activities, with the final goal of contributing to the creation of a wider political movement for the transition to Inclusive Democracy. A first step in this direction might be the creation of study groups which provide the opportunity to deepen the knowledge of activists on the various aspects of the inclusive democracy project including the crucial issues of strategy and tactics.
24 November 2007
Liberal Vs Conservative
This is what we talked about at the meeting of the Inkwell 4 T/giving meeting. Thoughts?
LIBERAL VERSES CONSERVATIVE
Are a liberal or a conservative? How about Republican or Democrat? Does it matter? Actually, it does not! With the approaching primaries and then the election, I have been thinking about this very subject for awhile. There seems to be very little that separates the two parties, other than minor emotional bullsh*t.
Really? Why? Look at the candidates in the upcoming election. The major candidates are corporate liberals. Rudy or Hilary, not much difference between the two. One is "liberal" repub and the other is a "conservative" dem. Ask why corporate owned media is pushing Giuliani and Clinton. Why does the media want a cat fight between obama and Clinton?
Actually, the whole system is lead and controlled by corporate liberals. And they have been in control since 1933. Their control is extended by such organizations as the Council on Foreign Affairs.
Why do I say this? Well, they both approve of moderate trade unions, integration of minorities, moderate welfare, heavy involvement in the economy, foreign aid. Again there is minor differences on how they think these policies should be used.
Corporate liberals control both the Republican and Democratic parties. Only once did it deviate from this formula; that was in 1964 when the Repub nominee was Goldwater over the corportate choice of Rockefeller. And then they lost control of the dems in 1972 when McGovern was picked over Humphrey or Muskie.
The upper class right wing and the corporate liberals have basically the same direction for policy. The differences center on whose approach is best for the maximization of profits and necessary conditions for the continuation of the upper class rule.
Now there is the upper class left wing--they function as the innovators and the guardians of class rule. Their innovations are basically on how to stabilize capitalism and the define the acceptable limits of the left's boundary. They also spend a major amount of time and resources opposing any third party that would jeopardize the control of the corporate liberals. Especially any third party that will not defend a big business controlled foreign policy.
If there is any doubt about this, then I suggest looking at the candidates that are running now. Any of the major candidates have a platform that does not favor the upper class. Remember, I said major. That would be Clinton, Giuliani, Obama, McCain, Romney, Edwards can be eliminated somewhat, he is a bit of an anomely. There will be NO difference in whoever you elect, there will be only minor differences in their approach.
This whole two party thing is just f*cking silly! The whole partisan, us against them, thing is just as damn silly. No matter where you put you vote; you will be voting for the same people, the corporate liberals.
Put a little thought into your vote. Stop listening to the bovine fecal matter that impresses you. Learn where to put your vote, so that the American people, your children and grandchildren, will have a descent life. Stop worrying about who said or who did not. Stop worrying about your pathetic little life and show some concern for the country you pretend to love.
Yes, I said this and I mean every f*cking word of it!
CHUQ
22 Nov 07
LIBERAL VERSES CONSERVATIVE
Are a liberal or a conservative? How about Republican or Democrat? Does it matter? Actually, it does not! With the approaching primaries and then the election, I have been thinking about this very subject for awhile. There seems to be very little that separates the two parties, other than minor emotional bullsh*t.
Really? Why? Look at the candidates in the upcoming election. The major candidates are corporate liberals. Rudy or Hilary, not much difference between the two. One is "liberal" repub and the other is a "conservative" dem. Ask why corporate owned media is pushing Giuliani and Clinton. Why does the media want a cat fight between obama and Clinton?
Actually, the whole system is lead and controlled by corporate liberals. And they have been in control since 1933. Their control is extended by such organizations as the Council on Foreign Affairs.
Why do I say this? Well, they both approve of moderate trade unions, integration of minorities, moderate welfare, heavy involvement in the economy, foreign aid. Again there is minor differences on how they think these policies should be used.
Corporate liberals control both the Republican and Democratic parties. Only once did it deviate from this formula; that was in 1964 when the Repub nominee was Goldwater over the corportate choice of Rockefeller. And then they lost control of the dems in 1972 when McGovern was picked over Humphrey or Muskie.
The upper class right wing and the corporate liberals have basically the same direction for policy. The differences center on whose approach is best for the maximization of profits and necessary conditions for the continuation of the upper class rule.
Now there is the upper class left wing--they function as the innovators and the guardians of class rule. Their innovations are basically on how to stabilize capitalism and the define the acceptable limits of the left's boundary. They also spend a major amount of time and resources opposing any third party that would jeopardize the control of the corporate liberals. Especially any third party that will not defend a big business controlled foreign policy.
If there is any doubt about this, then I suggest looking at the candidates that are running now. Any of the major candidates have a platform that does not favor the upper class. Remember, I said major. That would be Clinton, Giuliani, Obama, McCain, Romney, Edwards can be eliminated somewhat, he is a bit of an anomely. There will be NO difference in whoever you elect, there will be only minor differences in their approach.
This whole two party thing is just f*cking silly! The whole partisan, us against them, thing is just as damn silly. No matter where you put you vote; you will be voting for the same people, the corporate liberals.
Put a little thought into your vote. Stop listening to the bovine fecal matter that impresses you. Learn where to put your vote, so that the American people, your children and grandchildren, will have a descent life. Stop worrying about who said or who did not. Stop worrying about your pathetic little life and show some concern for the country you pretend to love.
Yes, I said this and I mean every f*cking word of it!
CHUQ
22 Nov 07
21 November 2007
The Vanguard Party
What is a vanguard party?
well the vanguard party concept was demonized during the USSR days. But look at the two that we have in the US. They are vanguard parties. They control everything, just like the old Communist party of the USSR. All issues are either Repub or Dem issues, never is it an issue of the people. They dictate to the voter what it is they will vote on. That is just as controlling as anything the Communist party of the USSR ever did.
Wake up and smell the coffee!
A Party is an organisation aspiring to administer public political power on behalf of a social class (even though it may enjoy support in only a part of that class).
Any social formation, be it a pressure group, social movement, trade union, political party or whatever, in one way or another reflects the interests of specific social strata. However, political parties, bear a very specific relation to social classes because a political party is either the government party, or a “government-in-waiting”, and a government, by administering a state, either overtly defends the interest of the ruling social class (even if specifically defending interests of a sub-class), or seeks to replace it with that of another class. A party which does not aspire to administer public political power, is not really a party at all.well the vanguard party concept was demonized during the USSR days. But look at the two that we have in the US. They are vanguard parties. They control everything, just like the old Communist party of the USSR. All issues are either Repub or Dem issues, never is it an issue of the people. They dictate to the voter what it is they will vote on. That is just as controlling as anything the Communist party of the USSR ever did.
Wake up and smell the coffee!
19 November 2007
Waterboarding
There has been a bunch of crap written and said and thought about the torture technique of waterboarding. I have seen it defended on discussion forums and I have seen it condemned on some of the same forums. But what is waterboarding?
It was first used, as far as I can tell, during the Spanish Inquisition in the 1500's against Jews, Protestants and other heretics. The Nazis and the Japanese used it during WWII, the North Vietmese employed it and the Khmer rouge of Cambodia used it on difficult prisoners. And that brings us to today and the US use of it.
What is it? The prisoner is secured with head down and feet up, then water is trickled on to a cloth over his/her face. The water filling the nose and throat triggers a primal survival mechanism and the prisoner becomes desperate to escape. But they are secure and cannot move or hold their breath for very long. as they fight to escape the water overwhelms them and they feel that they are about to die. This is a short synopsis of the technique.
Now does it work? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. The prisoner could give outlandish answers to questions just to make the torture stop. I am sure that some credible intel is gained, but I am also as sure that most of it is NOT!
So is it torture? IMO, yes it is and it should be outlawed. I am not the sole answer to this and I am sure that many do not agree with me. But until they have been tortured, whether with waterboarding or other, their opinion does not matter. It is a crime to take away a person humanity.
CHUQ
It was first used, as far as I can tell, during the Spanish Inquisition in the 1500's against Jews, Protestants and other heretics. The Nazis and the Japanese used it during WWII, the North Vietmese employed it and the Khmer rouge of Cambodia used it on difficult prisoners. And that brings us to today and the US use of it.
What is it? The prisoner is secured with head down and feet up, then water is trickled on to a cloth over his/her face. The water filling the nose and throat triggers a primal survival mechanism and the prisoner becomes desperate to escape. But they are secure and cannot move or hold their breath for very long. as they fight to escape the water overwhelms them and they feel that they are about to die. This is a short synopsis of the technique.
Now does it work? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. The prisoner could give outlandish answers to questions just to make the torture stop. I am sure that some credible intel is gained, but I am also as sure that most of it is NOT!
So is it torture? IMO, yes it is and it should be outlawed. I am not the sole answer to this and I am sure that many do not agree with me. But until they have been tortured, whether with waterboarding or other, their opinion does not matter. It is a crime to take away a person humanity.
CHUQ
18 November 2007
The Youth Vote
First of all, that is not happening. They will play the game in primaries and such, but will not show up for the general election. The youth have little to gain by participation. In the 70's they had a lot at stake; the draft and the war, but now what do they have? They are not concerned.
CNN did a story about the young and took a poll at NYU and 78% said they would give up their right to vote if their schooling was paid for in full. Now there is a group, a voting block that has its priorities in line. In the last election only 7% of the 18-25 actually voted. They have no reason to be concerned about the future; it is all about the now.
If we want to get these little shits to vote maybe we should use a Huey Long technique and use the slogan, "an X box in every house". This is a pathetic block of voters. But we made them the pathetic little shits they are. I hope we are happy, our future looks bleak.
CHUQ
CNN did a story about the young and took a poll at NYU and 78% said they would give up their right to vote if their schooling was paid for in full. Now there is a group, a voting block that has its priorities in line. In the last election only 7% of the 18-25 actually voted. They have no reason to be concerned about the future; it is all about the now.
If we want to get these little shits to vote maybe we should use a Huey Long technique and use the slogan, "an X box in every house". This is a pathetic block of voters. But we made them the pathetic little shits they are. I hope we are happy, our future looks bleak.
CHUQ
16 November 2007
Another Democratic Debate
Last nite in the city of Lost Wages 7 dem candidates got together for yet another debate. I watched and was a bit surprised. The closer we get to the primaries the more they ratch up the politics of debate. This time there was good exchanges. The only problem I saw was that CNN seem to favor the frontrunners and did not give Biden and Kucinich as much front time as the others.
Here is how I saw the debate:
Clinton--she was on her game--no slips as before--well rehearsed.
Obama--He seem to wake up and do some minor attacks on policies of Clinton and the others. He was deliberate and well rehearsed. Took on Clinton and did fairly well.
Edwards--still the attack dog, especially Clinton and her policies--he is beginning to look desparate.
Biden--Confrontational, strong on foreign policy, especially Iran--made good points.
Richardson--was on his game well for this--strong on environment, foreign policy, vet position and on immigration.
Dodd--Good, articulate and inform, but still no fire.
Kucinich--almost totally ignored, when asked question--no hestitation, attack all other candidates policies and was confrontational when given the chance.
Now , who won the debate? remember this is my personal opinion and do not endorse anyone of them in this process. And the winner was---Richardson. He was straight forward had answer to all questions and even added the vets into the mix. Second was Biden--he punched holes in almost everyone's foreign policy position. Spoke with authority and a bit of passion. Tied for third is Obama/Clinton--they gave their canned responses to questions that needed more. And then the rest--Kucinich did not have a chance to shine, which he probably would have; Dodd is a great guy, but no fire; and Edwards, IMO, he just looks too damn desparate.
I know this will not jive with the media, but the media has already picked its favs; I on the other hand, go by what they say and how they say it.
I am CHUQ and I have approved this message and I guarantee that it is not terror related.
Here is how I saw the debate:
Clinton--she was on her game--no slips as before--well rehearsed.
Obama--He seem to wake up and do some minor attacks on policies of Clinton and the others. He was deliberate and well rehearsed. Took on Clinton and did fairly well.
Edwards--still the attack dog, especially Clinton and her policies--he is beginning to look desparate.
Biden--Confrontational, strong on foreign policy, especially Iran--made good points.
Richardson--was on his game well for this--strong on environment, foreign policy, vet position and on immigration.
Dodd--Good, articulate and inform, but still no fire.
Kucinich--almost totally ignored, when asked question--no hestitation, attack all other candidates policies and was confrontational when given the chance.
Now , who won the debate? remember this is my personal opinion and do not endorse anyone of them in this process. And the winner was---Richardson. He was straight forward had answer to all questions and even added the vets into the mix. Second was Biden--he punched holes in almost everyone's foreign policy position. Spoke with authority and a bit of passion. Tied for third is Obama/Clinton--they gave their canned responses to questions that needed more. And then the rest--Kucinich did not have a chance to shine, which he probably would have; Dodd is a great guy, but no fire; and Edwards, IMO, he just looks too damn desparate.
I know this will not jive with the media, but the media has already picked its favs; I on the other hand, go by what they say and how they say it.
I am CHUQ and I have approved this message and I guarantee that it is not terror related.
12 November 2007
New Problem For Iraq
At the weekend meeting of the Inkwell 4, we look at the situation with Turkey, Iraq and the US. We looked at the whole scope. The US is in a bad place damned if they do and damned if they do not. The PKK is a terrorist organization, as defined by the UN and other agencies. The US is either gonna fight terrorism, all terrorism or it is not. If it does not help Turkey, the US will be seen as a hypocrite. If they do nothing but talk and Turkey crosses the border in pursuit of the PKK, it could embolden Iran, who has probs with Kurds, also to invade from the East and they could use the pursuit of the PKK as a pretense for that invasion.
This is a situation that has far reaching consequences for Iraq, Iran, Turkey the US and possibly the entire Middle east. The US has to handle this very carefully and quickly or it will set a precedent that the US will have a helluva time extracting itself from.
Watch and wait--will stupidity and greed overshadow logic and commonsense?
CHUQ
This is a situation that has far reaching consequences for Iraq, Iran, Turkey the US and possibly the entire Middle east. The US has to handle this very carefully and quickly or it will set a precedent that the US will have a helluva time extracting itself from.
Watch and wait--will stupidity and greed overshadow logic and commonsense?
CHUQ
10 November 2007
Announcement
The Inkwell 3 will become the Inkwell 4. We are adding a new member who has proven herself to be a free thinker and very vocal. Her name is Aidan Francis Patterson--Welcome aboard!
We look forward to your input and discussions.
We look forward to your input and discussions.
08 November 2007
The Music Of Protest
At the weekly meeting of the Inkwell 3, we discussed many things and many issues, but this one we felt needed to be covered. The new music of protest--hip-hop. I recall the music for change of the 60's and 70's, not hip-hop is becoming the new songs of protest.
It started off as the voice of the inner city and the problems that were lived by the singers. I recent years it has exploded on the world as the music of protest. From the reservations for Native Americans to the world of war, performers are voicing their opinions and feelings about the world and the world situation.
There are groups like Off The Rez, a NA rap group or groups in Senegal or South Korea or The Palestinians Territories, or those in the Southern part of Asia. The music style is growing and as it grows it is becoming the voice of political oppression, poverty, hunger and hopelessness.
I know that too many people see rap or hip-hop as a group of guys with lots of gold and barely clothed women, but it is evolving into so much more and it is becoming the music of protest and the music for change.
CHUQ
It started off as the voice of the inner city and the problems that were lived by the singers. I recent years it has exploded on the world as the music of protest. From the reservations for Native Americans to the world of war, performers are voicing their opinions and feelings about the world and the world situation.
There are groups like Off The Rez, a NA rap group or groups in Senegal or South Korea or The Palestinians Territories, or those in the Southern part of Asia. The music style is growing and as it grows it is becoming the voice of political oppression, poverty, hunger and hopelessness.
I know that too many people see rap or hip-hop as a group of guys with lots of gold and barely clothed women, but it is evolving into so much more and it is becoming the music of protest and the music for change.
CHUQ
06 November 2007
Waiting For The World To Change
The song by John Maher is the perfect theme song for the American voter. They are waiting for the world to change, they do not want to be directly involved, but want someone else to do all the work. Laziness and stupidity rules the election decisions. The voter will allow the media and such to dictate the leaders of both parties.
Recently in an article by U of Penn professor, Adolph Reed, had some excellent insights. He said that the Dems were like a car that needs a wheel alignment; it is constantly pulling to the right. Basically, if you vote a Dem into office you will be getting hawk and a Repub in different costume.
The US truly gets the elected official it deserves. It deserve a bullsh*t president, because they will not take in upon themselves to find a good candidate. They are all waiting for the world to change. They will allow bullsh*t entertainers like O'Reilly or Stweart or Colbert to find their candidates for them. Thought is out! Complacency is the norm! Laziness the road to ruin!
I will e around to tell you, "I told you so"!
CHUQ
Recently in an article by U of Penn professor, Adolph Reed, had some excellent insights. He said that the Dems were like a car that needs a wheel alignment; it is constantly pulling to the right. Basically, if you vote a Dem into office you will be getting hawk and a Repub in different costume.
The US truly gets the elected official it deserves. It deserve a bullsh*t president, because they will not take in upon themselves to find a good candidate. They are all waiting for the world to change. They will allow bullsh*t entertainers like O'Reilly or Stweart or Colbert to find their candidates for them. Thought is out! Complacency is the norm! Laziness the road to ruin!
I will e around to tell you, "I told you so"!
CHUQ
03 November 2007
Collectivism Or Individualism
I was on a discussion forum recently and one of the posters claimed that collectivism was a crime against humanity. Well, I just had to write a reply, but before I could finish it, the poster was outed as a racist, white supremist with the IQ of a rock. The thread degraded into talking about people who disagreed with them as having a small penis. I was so looking forward to having a rational exchange, but I was mistaken.
I decided not to waste my effort and I will post it here.
I decided not to waste my effort and I will post it here.
COLLECTIVISM
First of all, may I suggest to the Admin that this be moved to the Poli Sci section, I think it is more appropriate there.
Secondly, this could be a helluva thread and a purely theoretical discussion.
I have read the posts several times just to be sure that I understand where all are coming from, before I posted a reply. This here is my take on the whole thing and I hope it added something to the discussion.
So if people come together as a society, it is somehow a crime against humanity, is that about it?
First of all, democracy as mob rule. I cannot dispute that. I will add what Plato had to say about democracy, "democracy is by the stupid, who make unrealizable promises to the ignorant, and it almost always leads to disaster". For the most part, I tend to agree with Plato.
Now on to collectivism and it has a definition thusly, "relations between people based on the community of their vital interests and a corresponding social consciousness expressed in people's devotion to a common cause, in a lofty sense of responsibility before a collective."
But, the thing about individual rights, I can see where the point is going but then no one is an individual in a society. Yes, I know, but society is basically an agreement between people who give up certain rights to be guaranteed others. As a theory it is lofty, but as a reality I do not think it is all that. If individuals work at agreements with other individuals as a form of society, then I could foresee some form of collective egoism taking place. That is, they would have a tendency to view themselves as not different from other groups but somehow better. The problem is, IMO, the group would then identify itself with others included and against those that were excluded. With that would come the inevitability of social conflict. That would then bring us back to the pack mentality. Yes, I see the problems with collectivism, but I can also see why its necessary.
You are correct, IMO, that there is no justification for democracy, but humans are pack animals and as such have a need for a societal entity. Humans are inherently fearful, as such they will always seek the protection of a pack (society). Individualism is a perception not a reality. People like to think of themselves as individuals, but in reality they will always be part of a pack. Fear of the unknown prevents the individual from acting as a solitary being, the pack offers some security.
I guess I need to ask, what form of society would be out there without the collective? (gee this sounds like something the Borg would say) I can see chaos, not harmony. But I realize that few will concur with my assessment.
CHUQ
01 Nov 07
01 November 2007
Professor's Congressional Scorecard
It is the first of the month and the Inkwell 3 has met and put together its monthly scorecard for Congress. We started this in Aug and the Congress had taken one step backwards, then in Sept. it was another step backwards. So far the Congress is accomplishing nothing, but how will they fair in Oct?
The scoring system is a step forward for a good action, step backwards for a poor action and then there is the no step.
The month of Oct played out thusly:
1--New citizenship test--no step
2--Iranian revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization--backwards
3--Senate Oks war funds--backwards
4--War surtax proposal--forwards
5--Passes bill where pres must make regular reports to Congress on war--no step
6--Condemns Limbaugh for his remarks--backwards
7--Fingerprint mortgage brokers--forward
8--Bill to control private contractors--forwards
9--Propose bill on torture--backward
10-Armenian genocide--backward
11-More oversight on wiretaps--forward
12-Reporter protection--forward
13-Immunity for telecom companies that cooperate with surveillance--backward
14-Vet budget not passed--backward
15-No veto override of SCHIP--backward
16-Back down on genocide resolution--forward
17-Extension of internet tax ban--forward.
SCORE: 1 step backwards
That is the major legislation that I watched and use for comment. If you are counting then you will see that the Congress, yet again, has taken a step backwards. For the year, Congress is going in reverse. They were elected to accomplish something and so far that has been very little.
If I were a voter I would be concerned and be evaluating all candidates for the next election.
CHUQ
01 Nov 07
The scoring system is a step forward for a good action, step backwards for a poor action and then there is the no step.
The month of Oct played out thusly:
1--New citizenship test--no step
2--Iranian revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization--backwards
3--Senate Oks war funds--backwards
4--War surtax proposal--forwards
5--Passes bill where pres must make regular reports to Congress on war--no step
6--Condemns Limbaugh for his remarks--backwards
7--Fingerprint mortgage brokers--forward
8--Bill to control private contractors--forwards
9--Propose bill on torture--backward
10-Armenian genocide--backward
11-More oversight on wiretaps--forward
12-Reporter protection--forward
13-Immunity for telecom companies that cooperate with surveillance--backward
14-Vet budget not passed--backward
15-No veto override of SCHIP--backward
16-Back down on genocide resolution--forward
17-Extension of internet tax ban--forward.
SCORE: 1 step backwards
That is the major legislation that I watched and use for comment. If you are counting then you will see that the Congress, yet again, has taken a step backwards. For the year, Congress is going in reverse. They were elected to accomplish something and so far that has been very little.
If I were a voter I would be concerned and be evaluating all candidates for the next election.
CHUQ
01 Nov 07
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
