NationStates Jolt Archive

This is about as honest and forthright as it can get. This was originally printed in the Atlanta Journal and Constipation on November 4.

I tried to tell you . . .
Democrats repel voters, who put faith in freedom

Published on: 11/04/04
America's faith in freedom has been reaffirmed. With the re-election of President Bush, America recommitted itself once again to expanding freedom and promoting liberty. Only the 1864 re-election of Abraham Lincoln, the 1944 re-election of Franklin Roosevelt and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan rival this victory as milestones in the preservation of our security by the advancement of freedom.


This election validated not just freedom, but also the faith our Founding Fathers placed in average folks to navigate the course of this great nation. By weighing the greatest issues at the gravest times and choosing our path, ordinary people have again accomplished extraordinary things. With courage and caution, rather than fear and timidity, the voters chose a path to ensure others would enjoy the same freedom to set their own path.

This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints — bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices — amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.

But the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. As difficult as the challenges are — both real and fabricated — Democrats offered no solution that was either believable or acceptable to vast regions of America. Tax increases to grow the economy are not a solution that is believable or acceptable. Democratic promises of fiscal responsibility are unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of "allies" such as France is unacceptable. A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator.

Democratic Party policies haven't sold in large sections of America in decades, and the only success of Democrats in presidential elections for 40 years was when they pitched themselves as pro-growth, low-tax, strong-defense, fiscally responsible, values-oriented candidates. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton hummed the tune but never really sang the song, and that's why Democrat prospects have gone south in the South. In 1980, the South had 20 Democrats and just six Republicans in the Senate. As recently as 1994, the Senate had 17 Democrats and nine Republicans from the South.

A decade later, the number had reversed to 17 Republicans and nine Democrats. With this election, it is 22 Republicans and just four Democrats from the South. When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation — that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years. The most recent failed nominee for president stands as proof that the national Democratic Party will continue to dwindle. The South has gone from just one-fourth of the Electoral College in 1960 to almost a third today. To put this in perspective, that gain is equal to all the electoral votes in Ohio. Yet there was not a single Southern state where John Kerry had any real chance. Would anyone like to place bets on the electoral strength of the South by 2012? Maybe they should tax stupidity. When you write off centrist and conservative policies that reflect the will of people in the South and Midwest, you write off the South and Midwest. Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party.

And so we have a realignment election. For the first time, in an "us vs. them" election and in the toughest of situations, Republicans have been re-elected to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Confronting an opposition that can win a divided electorate in the worst of times and that has a growing electoral base, the national Democratic Party has a choice: continue down this path toward irrelevance or reverse course. As the last Truman Democrat, I hope my party makes the right choice but know I will not be allowed to be part of it. Such is the price you pay when you love your nation more than your party.

And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I've spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.

And the credit for that goes to one man. Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.

Abraham Lincoln, in his second annual message to Congress, stated: "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom for the free — honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth."

George Bush has injected into a region of enslavement an incurable dose of freedom, and thus nobly saved that "last, best hope of earth" — free men.

zell miller is an ignorant ass, nuff said

bush appeals to the bible thumpers that like to go vote, thats why he gets the south and midwest

how many urban states did he win? not new york, ground fucknig zero

In case you hadn't figured it out, people who believe in a firm moral right and wrong are the majority in the USA. It was the moral issues that won this election for Bush. In every state gay marriage was on the ballot it lost. Even in Oregon! A rather liberal state by most standards. Those amendments passed with 60-80% of the vote in all states. Now I know that each state doesn't have 60-80% of Republicans or even Christians. What does that tell you? That the Democratic party is out of touch with the majority of Americans on the social issues.

This is about as honest and forthright as it can get. This was originally printed in the Atlanta Journal and Constipation on November 4.
Wow there is a paper called the Atlanta Journal and Constipation? Do they have a lot of Bran adverts?

Just a little play on words. :) In conservative circles it goes by that name, its real name is Atlanta Journal and Constitution.

zell miller is an ignorant ass, nuff said



Apparently not as much of one as you (I hate personal attacks but really this is becoming ridiculous) do you have any logical arguments to propose?

Just a little play on words. :) In conservative circles it goes by that name, its real name is Atlanta Journal and Constitution.
Hehe isnt its friendly nickname the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation?

zell miller is an ignorant ass, nuff said

bush appeals to the bible thumpers that like to go vote, thats why he gets the south and midwest

how many urban states did he win? not new york, ground fucknig zero
Florida, Georgia, Colorado, Texas, Ohio, Missouri, etc. Are you saying that people who live in big cities are somehow better than people who don't? Bush also won the suburbs, not just the rural vote. I live in Tampa and the county that Tampa is located in went to Bush. No wonder the Dmeocratic Party is a dying party.

Bush also closed the gap from the 2000 election in New Jersey, California, New York, and inceased his margin of victory in almost every state he won.

zell miller is an ignorant ass, nuff said

bush appeals to the bible thumpers that like to go vote, thats why he gets the south and midwest

how many urban states did he win? not new york, ground fucknig zero

Two reasons why you are wrong:

1. Zell Miller puts voting before lunch.

2. NYC went for kerry, because they put voting before lunch.

You have at least four years on this before anyone is going to take your opinion on the presidency seriously.

You have at least four years on this before anyone is going to take your opinion on the presidency seriously.
I cant wait until 2008 and the Inevitable "I woulda voted but I was thirsty" thread from our old buddy Chess Squares
We shall overcome, we shall overcome, we shall overcome- fuck it man Im hungry lets overcome some other day

zell miller is an ignorant ass, nuff said

bush appeals to the bible thumpers that like to go vote, thats why he gets the south and midwest

how many urban states did he win? not new york, ground fucknig zero


Becareful Zell will challenge you to a duel. :rolleyes:

In case you hadn't figured it out, people who believe in a firm moral right and wrong are the majority in the USA. It was the moral issues that won this election for Bush. In every state gay marriage was on the ballot it lost. Even in Oregon! A rather liberal state by most standards. Those amendments passed with 60-80% of the vote in all states. Now I know that each state doesn't have 60-80% of Republicans or even Christians. What does that tell you? That the Democratic party is out of touch with the majority of Americans on the social issues.

No it basically shows that people are rather ignorant.

The gay marriage issue was nothing more then a red herring to get the evangalistas out to vote.

And Oregon tends to be conservative. Portland is somewhat liberal.

Florida, Georgia, Colorado, Texas, Ohio, Missouri, etc. Are you saying that people who live in big cities are somehow better than people who don't? Bush also won the suburbs, not just the rural vote. I live in Tampa and the county that Tampa is located in went to Bush. No wonder the Dmeocratic Party is a dying party.

Bush also closed the gap from the 2000 election in New Jersey, California, New York, and inceased his margin of victory in almost every state he won.

California? Sorry but the kerry stuff far outnumbered the shrub stuff.

I cant wait until 2008 and the Inevitable "I woulda voted but I was thirsty" thread from our old buddy Chess Squares

OMG that's priceless.

San Francisco Indymedia

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

Original article is at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/1705230.php Print comments.

An Interview with Stephen Gowans, Canadian Writer and Political Activist
by Angie, SF-IMC Poster Wednesday, Nov. 03, 2004 at 12:14 AM


Stephen Gowans, Canadian writer and political activist based in Ottawa, whose articles can be found anywhere on the Internet; for instance, Counterpunch, Media Monitors, etc., and his own web site, "What's Left?" possesses the heart and soul of the traditional political Left. SF-IMC poster, Angie, in a wide ranging interview with Stephen recently, found him to be intelligent, analytical, and, yes, funny.

Angie: Hello, Stephen. I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me.

Stephen: My pleasure.


Angie: Before we begin chatting about your political activism, your writing, and all else besides, perhaps you could tell us about yourself, what it was like growing up in Canada, that sort of thing.

Stephen: Well, I was born and raised in Canada, and that's where I live today, and continue to live, and will continue to live, if for no other reason than if anyone noticed me I'd be persona non grata anywhere else. But what does my citizenship tell you, other than, compared to people reared in other countries, I'm more likely to have played hockey, consumed gallons of Tim Horton's coffee, and wrecked my back shoveling snow?

Growing up in Canada? I came from a family that worshipped sports the way other families worship religious icons, which means we worshipped hockey most of all. Some families have pictures of a beatific, blond hair, blue-eyed, Jesus hanging on their walls. We had pictures of a beatific, blond hair, blue-eyed Wayne Gretzky on our walls


Angie: Oh, I am familiar with the icon on the wall bit. I gave Neil Young an entire wall for himself once! Mother was horrified!

Stephen: My own personal hero was a little known Canadian singer-songwriter named Murray McLauchlan. But I think what you're asking me is how I came to be politically Left.


Angie: That is, indeed, what I'm asking you. How did it all begin?

Stephen: Did I spend my summers in socialist summer camps? Were my parents union organizers? Is Joseph Stalin a distant relative?


Angie: Quick! The suspense is killing us!

Stephen: No, none of these things. And my distant relatives, if you're wondering, were, on one side, Scots peasants with a taste for larceny and fermented beverages, and on the other, the people the Scots displaced when enclosure laws forced some of them to migrate to the New World. But that's just a long winded way of saying I have high cheekbones and have always wanted to play the bagpipes.


Angie: (grinning) Have you made any progress playing this most easily recognizable instrument being ye Scots and all that? Led any protest marches down a Canadian street with your trusty bagpipe breaking the heart of the listener because, of course, be it a happy tune or a tragic air, the music always reminds one of highlands, and glens, and mist, and burns, and, well, calling us back even if we have never been.

Stephen: No, no progress at all.


Angie: Pity, that! So tell us, then, how the descendant of a Scots peasant who had "a taste for larceny and fermented beverages", finds himself a part of the political Left or, as your brief bio states, a "political activist"?

Stephen: Why am I politically Left? I was born Left, the way some people are born gay, and I have remained that way, despite the concerted efforts of people to beat it out of me, in the same way, no matter how much you tried to beat up Cole Porter for his homosexuality, he'd still have written songs like Experiment.

And there's another reason. I would be a hell of a lot better off -- and almost everyone else I know and hundreds of millions I don't know would be too -- in a world in which traditional Left values of egalitarianism and economic security have room to prevail.


Angie: In today's world, however, the egalitarianism ideology is in danger of being taken over by neo-liberals whilst abject poverty, not economic security, has found plenty of room to prevail and grow. How can we change this?

Stephen: I guess that's like asking how to lose weight. The answer's obvious, but no one likes it, and people are always on the lookout for a quick fix, something that doesn't take much effort and involves no pain and no disruption. Quick fixes invariably turn out to be sold by hucksters.

I'll start with an axiom: You can't make any change without a fair degree of popular support.

Education is important, because you can't enlist popular support unless people know what's going on. And most don't. So that's job one -- getting the basic facts known.


Angie: Who do you propose ought to educate the masses? Mainstream media bias is rampant. Are you suggesting world citizens begin at a grass roots level and move on from there?

Stephen: Sure. There is an alternative media. It would be wrong to say it's large, because it's certainly not large by the standards of the mainstream media, but it's there and it's a start.


Angie: Yes, it is indeed encouraging to see alternate media moving out of its infancy and beginning to make an impact.

Stephen: Related to job one is explaining why things are the way they are. Is the US occupying Iraq because George Bush is a bad guy, or is dominating and exploiting weak countries by unprovoked military aggression a recurrent theme of the foreign policy of advanced countries? Is unceasing economic security inescapable, or has it been abolished elsewhere at other times, and if so, why does it persist here, and whose interests does it serve?


Angie: Certainly the attack on Iraq has made the deep pockets of Bechtel, Halliburton et al much deeper.

Stephen: Yes, absolutely. But it goes deeper than that. Bechtel and Halliburton have certainly profited from the attack on Iraq, but the attack on Iraq is only a single instance of a larger pattern of the US expanding its sphere of influence by force of arms, which has immense defense expenditures as a necessary condition Lockheed-Martin, which just announced soaring profits, makes a killing on US aggression, as a major supplier to the Pentagon. And there's Boeing and Raytheon and a whole host of other companies that have a material interest in a colossal Pentagon and an aggressive foreign policy.

That's not limited to Iraq. If you're in the business of supplying equipment to wage war, war is good for business. If you're in the construction business, as Reagan's Secretary of State, George Shultz, is, through his connections to Bechtel, war is good for business, because it means reconstruction contracts. Shultz headed a lobby group that made the case for invading Iraq.


Angie: In other words, the more opportunities for "reconstruction" by the United States, for instance, the happier and wealthier weapons manufacturers are, the happier and wealthier construction companies are, and so on.

Stephen: And there are scores of giant US firms that have an interest in an aggressive foreign policy, to do all these things, and to open up markets abroad and to keep them open, and to ensure there's plenty of space overseas for the profitable investment of capital. And they're rich enough to buy lobbyists, to buy PR, to buy politicians, to put their own people in decisive positions of State, to see to it that foreign policy is shaped in their interests. So perhaps Bechtel and Halliburton are direct and conspicuous beneficiaries of the take-over of Iraq, and perhaps US oil majors will also find themselves in the same boat, but if you look at US foreign policy generally, you'll see that the protagonists are the people who own the economy and run it for profit.

So job two is showing what needs to be changed. There's a great misapprehension that meaningful change can be made by pressuring CEOs and other representatives and beneficiaries of the corporate class to get a heart, or become more patriotic and stop exporting jobs, or show more corporate responsibility, or show more concern for the environment or the unemployed.


Angie: Exporting jobs, if we are to accept the facts reported recently on CBC's, The National, is big business in the United States right now, and it's creating great hardship for many people there.

Stephen: Absolutely. And one of the reasons it's big business now is that a large part of the world's working population -- indeed, maybe most of it -- used to be sheltered from the global capitalist market by central planning and tariff barriers and performance requirements. The overthrow of communism not only weakened poor countries that were trying to develop outside the straight jacket of capitalism, but opened the floodgates, spilling hundreds of millions of people onto the global labor market.


Angie: I remember in your latest article, "Hail the Reds" you examined this very issue in a somewhat general sense, but with specific attention to the Soviet Union.

Stephen: Yes, the Soviet Union and the formerly socialist countries of Eastern Europe, where the obscenities of joblessness, economic insecurity and huge disparities in income, wealth, opportunity and education -- once abolished -- have come roaring back. The result is that today, huge corporations can range over the face of the globe, playing one low-wage country off against another. In Western Europe, for example, some workers are working longer hours without increases in pay or benefits to prevent their jobs being exported to former communist countries, like Slovakia and Poland, where full employment used to be guaranteed but where unemployment is now rampant.


Angie: Poorly paid employees are afraid to protest their working conditions because by doing so they are putting their jobs in jeopardy. Isn't this a devious form of blackmail?

Stephen: It keeps people in line, sure. That works out well for people who own the economy and run it for profit. It doesn't work for the rest of us, but, then, whoever said the capitalist economy is supposed to work for the rest of us? Losing your job because it has been exported, doesn't work either. But why are jobs exported? Because that's what you do when the motive force of the economy is profit-making. There was a CEO of a large company who met every decision that had enormously troubling implications for the people affected by saying: "Well, I'm not going to pretend that what's happening to you is nice, but that's capitalism." In effect, what he was saying was: "Don't blame me. If I had my druthers, I wouldn't be closing this plant, and shipping jobs overseas, but capitalism made me do it."

And he was right. If he did what he wanted to do, which was keep jobs here, he'd soon be replaced by someone who did what was right for the company. And if the whole company refused to act in the interests of the shareholders, which means driving labor costs down as far as they can go, for example, its competitors would soon gobble it up. So he was right. Capitalism is to blame. My reply is, well, if capitalism is to blame, let's get rid of it.


Angie: Realistically can capitalism be eradicated from today's world? And if so, how do we go about it, and what do we replace it with?

Stephen: Capitalism has proved to be far more durable than the original Marxists supposed it would ever be, but why should we suppose it's here to stay and that we can't do better? Indeed, we have done better. Look at Cuba. Look at the former Soviet Union. Look at China before 1979. These countries weren't as rich as the Western world, but they started out as backward places, and grew to achieve a comfortable frugality and delivered a materially secure existence to all.


Angie: And in view of the uncertainties in today's employment on a global basis, I daresay that a lot of employees would appreciate a "comfortable frugality" right now.

Stephen: Yes. Look at Cuba. Although harassed by the US, although embargoed, it has a lower infant mortality rate than parts of the US, a better health care system, offers more educational opportunities, and contrary to the mythology, offers far more space for democratic involvement than the US does. So, what do we replace capitalism with? The opposite: socialism, by which I mean economic activity that's guided by a rational plan aimed at satisfying human needs, not the profits of a minority.


Angie: The ratio between the poor and the rich elite is staggering. How did it ever get this great? Surely there is enough wealth in today's world to satisfy the needs of all?

Stephen: Yes, there is. I mean, look! What is economic activity supposed to be? It's supposed to be the way in which a population satisfies its material requirements. But that's not what capitalist economic activity is. In capitalist countries economic activity is directed toward enlarging the profits of the people who own the economy, which is why the economy doesn't give a damn whether you have a job or get paid an adequate wage, or can afford health care, or education for your children, or whether you live on the street, or have to live your whole life with the threat of job loss hanging over your head; it only gives a damn about whether the conditions are right for profit-making and the right conditions for profit-making are conditions in which there is always an army of people clamoring for work, where wages are as low as they possibly can be, where benefits are a picayune as they can possibly be, where desperation is as high as it possibly can be, and where exploitation is as intense as it possibly can be.

So why is there a Himalayan disparity in wealth and income? A big reason is because the former socialist world has been integrated into the global capitalist economy, opening space for the dominant class to press its interests far more vigorously than it was able to when it had to deal with the socialist bloc and with national liberation movements. Labor costs are forced down as low as possible so profits can be driven up as high as possible. The result is that the incomes of those who own the economy and run it for profit soar while the incomes of the rest of us fall. That's the nature of capitalism.


Angie: Which takes us back to the beginning of this interview where you were talking about how important it is for the people of today's world to become educated with respect to what is actually going on around them.

Stephen: The question we all need to ask is does the economy exist to serve our interests or do we exist to serve the interests of the people who own the economy and run it for profit? I think the answer is pretty clear. The next question is how long are we going to put up with it?

Unfortunately, there's a lot of confusion about what the root causes of homelessness, massive unemployment, economic insecurity, underdevelopment, and wars of conquest are. Many people think these horrors are simply the correctable deficiencies of an otherwise praiseworthy and admirable system. You know, if there are problems, it's because leaders are greedy, they're grasping, they're bellicose, they're besotted with power, or they're plain stupid and can't see where the best interests of everyone lay. So what you get is political action that appeals to the liberal conscience of people in power in the hope there will be some change in policy. This is the "we have to pressure the elites" school of thought, but never take power ourselves, much beloved by people associated with Z Magazine. If you're keeping score, you'll know Team Z's approach has proved to be a miserable failure.


Angie: What do you see the problem as being, then?

Stephen: The problem isn't how to pressure people in power to think in the right way or get a heart -- the problem is the way economic activity is organized, what its motive force is, what its ends are. It doesn't matter how humane a CEO is. Corporations act in ways to maximize their profits, and if they don't, they're eliminated. If maximizing profits means exporting jobs to sweatshops overseas, that's what happens. It doesn't matter how enlightened a head of State is. If dominating weaker countries means bigger profits for the country's corporate class (which the head of State is very likely to be a charter member of, in good standing) that's what happens. If they don't act in this way, they're eliminated. William Blum wrote a wonderful piece about what he would do were he president of the United States. In the first three days he'd apologize to all the people wronged by US foreign policy, and sharply reduce the military budget to pay reparations. On the fourth day he'd be assassinated.


Angie: I somehow doubt, however, that the extent of corporate greed and its attendant evil is as well known to the peoples of the world as it should be and ought to be.

Stephen: Yes, I think that's true, to a point. But I also think there's a mistaken belief that if people do know, they'll act accordingly, and while knowledge is unquestionably necessary, it's hardly sufficient. Recognizing that something's wrong doesn't mean you're going to fix it, especially if you don't know how to fix it, or if the job seems to too large and too daunting to tackle. What often occurs as a solution to people who are energetic enough, motivated enough, and mad enough is to appeal to the liberal conscience of people in power -- what I call the Grinch view. The Grinch's heart grew three sizes and all was well. Now if only we can get Bush's heart to grow three sizes, or better still, get Kerry elected, whose heart is said to be a little bigger than Bush's, well, maybe we'll get somewhere. This overlooks the recurrent patterns of behavior that are independent of individuals and the wills of people in decisive positions.


Angie: The risk of offending corporations is a prevalent fear, it seems, by leaders of powerful nations. One wonders, especially in the United States, who is running the country. Is it the government or is it the corporations?

Stephen: They're inseparable. Where do the people in decisive positions come from? Large corporations. Where do they go to when their political careers are over? Back to large corporations.


Angie: That is downright scary. Is there not room in Government for non-corporate leaders or have we arrived at a point where only the rich are deemed ideally suited to run for Presidency, Prime Minister, etc?

Stephen: I don't think it's a matter of suddenly arriving at this point. It's been that way forever. It's just that it's a hell of a lot clearer now, because the need to make concessions to the rest of us has all but disappeared, and that's because the counterrevolutions that swept Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and China have changed the material conditions under which the dominant class operates. It no longer has to compete against a counter-model of robust social security and guaranteed employment. It no longer is limited in the market of cheap labor it can draw on. It has a free hand to engage in imperialist conquest. So it no longer needs to provide room for working class interests. People look at this change and say, Wow, the rich have suddenly won exclusive sway over the State. But that's not it. They've always had exclusive sway. They're just now in a better position to press their interests.

There's also a great man theory that guides a lot of people's political thinking -- the theory that people in decisive positions make history just as they like. So, for example, you can put a labor leader in high political office, or someone committed to socialism, and all will change for the better. But this ignores the reality that
the State is much larger than the PM or the President. It's the police, the army, the bureaucracy, the judiciary, even the church and the schools and the media. You can install a socialist at the head of the capitalist State and very little, if anything, is going to change. What has changed in Brazil under Lula?

Or let's take the case of the new Socialist government in Spain. The government wanted to honor the Spanish Republican troops who fought in the liberation on Paris in WWII. The army demanded that Spanish fascist troops who fought alongside Nazi troops in Russia be honored, too. The government capitulated, and honored both. This is just a small example of the constraints the State imposes on the elected leader. The economic system imposes its own, very powerful, constraints, as well.

So if you want to make any meaningful change, you have to do more than elect the right leader. You have to change the State first. And you have to change the motive force and regulating principle of the economy, and you have to change who owns it.


Angie: But is anyone going to do that? Is there anyone out there right now in the global community who will, as an elected leader, change the State, and, in turn, the economy of that State?

Stephen: No, because fundamental change isn't going to be made by elected leaders, and never has been. Fundamental change is made by people who came to power in revolutionary upheavals with popular backing. Consider the difference between movements prepared to pursue an insurrectionary route to power, and those that follow a parliamentary one. The first sets out to dismantle the State because that's the seat of the dominant class's power.

I mean, what's the State? It's a body of laws respecting property. It's a bureaucracy comprised almost entirely of people who accept the goals and values of the dominant class implicitly. Same for the judiciary. Same, in many cases, for the military. Same for the media.

Left in place, the State, which has been built up around the interests of the dominant class, will smother any attempts at making fundamental changes that threaten the dominant class's privileges and property. That's the whole point of the State. So if you're going to displace the dominant class to make fundamental changes, you first have to displace the State and replace it with your own apparatus.


Angie: So even voting for the individual who best exemplifies reform won't go anywhere near solving the problem?

Stephen: Right. What happens when a reformist party comes to power through a parliamentary route? Reformist parties opt to live with, and work within, the State, which means they opt to live with, and to work within the bounds of the dominant class's interests. You don't delude yourself about being able to achieve any kind of fundamental change. You don't pretend you're going to "expropriate the expropriators" to use Lenin's phrase, although you may at times engage in this kind of rhetoric to keep militants on board. You might, to get elected, lead people to believe you're going to make far-reaching changes. But it's all electioneering. The history of reformist parties in the West is a history of bitter disappointment on the part of people who thought they had elected a government that was going to produce substantial change and did little, or nothing, but uphold the dominant class's interests.


Angie: Can we not expect any improvement, then, towards eliminating joblessness, poverty, narrowing the margin between rich and poor?

Stephen: It's silly to prejudge the future, but based on the past, the best you can expect from these kinds of movements is that they'll work around the edges. That's what NDP governments in Canada have done at the best of times. And that's what the new left coalition that was just elected in Uruguay will do -- if it even goes that far. Indeed, the New York Times ran an article that said, "Don't worry, these guys aren't going to do much. They'll behave themselves -- like Lula." Even Chavez, for all he's seen to be dangerously Left, works within a very narrow space that doesn't stray far beyond the bounds of the dominant class's interests. That's not to say that Chavez isn't a committed Leftist -- only that, with the State of the dominant classes still largely intact, and I include the media, he's not left with much room to manoeuvre. Unemployment remains massive. Poverty is widespread. And the chances of any of this changing is slim at best.


Angie: That is not a very hopeful future to march into, is it?

Stephen: It's not very hopeful if the attempted solution lays in a pressure the elites, reformist, great man theory path. One of the silliest things I've seen is an appeal from a group of Left luminaries in the US to organize to defeat "Bush's" drive to war. This is another example of the great man theory, except in this case we might rechristen it the evil man theory. This view is oblivious to the obvious reality that the drive to war can't be something that lives in the head of George W. Bush because it has been a consistent theme of US foreign policy since the country's inception. President after president has gone to war over and over and over again.

So, what's going on? Does the outgoing president meet the incoming president to transfer the drive to war through a mind meld? Or should we be looking for the roots of war in the State and indeed in the capitalist system itself? We should ask why the US can't help but meddle in the affairs of weaker countries, conquer their markets, siphon off their wealth, take their resources, no matter who the president is and what party is in power -- and more often than not by going to war to accomplish these ends.


Angie: And the US is always going to war because?

Stephen: I've already touched on some of the reasons. War is how you conquer the markets and labor and resources of people who don't want to give them up, just because you demand them. So, war is good for business. If you're in the arms industry, war is good for business. War is good for business, if the arms industry is a principal customer. War is good for business if it allows you to come out on top in a contest to dominate overseas fields of investment. Who had the oil field development contracts in Iraq? Chinese, French and Russian companies. Who didn't? American and British companies. Who was opposed to a US-UK take-over of Iraq? China, France and Russia. Who were the protagonists? The US and UK.


Angie: And, of course, there is the bombing of Afghanistan whereby the US has achieved enough control to keep a eye on goings-on with the oil rich Caspian Sea region. It explains more than anything the US warmongering rhetoric towards Iran who, in the late nineties and as late as 2002 has waged an aggressive campaign for more control of the Caspian resources.

Stephen: Well, yes, the occupation of Afghanistan, and the US military presence in a number of Central Asian republics allows the US to dominate an important oil producing region, and there are all kinds of reasons why the US would want to do that. It also allows the US to extend its military encirclement of Russia, which is one of the few countries capable of challenging US hegemony over the rest of the world. That too is driven by the systemic imperatives of US imperialism. Who's going to sell oil to Europe -- the Russians or the US oil majors? Well, if you're the US government, the answer is pretty clear.


Angie: As an aside here I would suggest that Putin not be so eager to trust the US. The last time the two countries became bosom buddies the roar of breakaway republics from the original Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was heard around the world and still echoes today.

Stephen: Yes, that's true, but I think Putin has taken your suggestion. The CIA says Russia is spending more on its military and is engaging in more military activity in an effort to recover its great power status, adding that Russia is likely to hang tough on Chechnya and the Ukraine, opposing Washington's efforts to press US corporate interests in these areas. There a few flashpoints where the interests of the two countries collide.

But returning to challenging imperialism, I think the third step is showing a practical way forward. Large numbers of people grasping what's going on and apprehending their situation doesn't mean they're going to act accordingly. In fact, there are a hell of lot of people who have a very good understanding of what's going on, but see no clear way forward -- so they give up. They go to demonstrations and write letters and agitate but come to see that nothing of moment changes, or they apprehend from the start that writing letters and marching isn't going to change much, if anything, so they don't bother.

The state of the "movement" -- to use a term that sometimes seems better suited to a proctologist's office -- reminds me of how Lenin described the state of the labor movement in Russia prior to the Bolshevik revolution. He said it was engaged in sporadic activity without a leading idea. That's how I'd describe the "movement" today. Engaged it sporadic activity with no leading idea. It's like a ship at sea, without a navigator or radar or sextant.


Angie: Which obviously explains why there has been very little, if any, real change.

Stephen: Right. Job four is recognizing a reality. People have to be so disgusted with the current system that they're willing, indeed, eager, to accept the upheavals of changing it. And yes, change means upheaval. It can't be done by writing letters or by holding orderly marches through the street once a year to pressure elites, while
allowing them to remain in place. It has to be done by seizing power to make desired changes. The more that people find themselves in a position where they say "disruption and struggle has to be better than this," the greater the potential for change, the more likely they are to seize power to make desired changes. At the moment, the bulk of people in the West, aren't in that position. They may be, in time, but they aren't now. Who is in that position now? Among others, people in Iraq. Palestinians.


Angie: Oh, you mean the "terrorists" of the Occupied Territories, and the "insurgents/foreign fighters" in Iraq? Forgive me whilst I quote (gasp) media terminology, but let's talk about Iraq and the Occupied Territories briefly. Give us your prospectus on both, bearing in mind, of course, that both are occupied illegally.

Stephen: Yes, both occupations are illegal, but I've got to the point where I don't pay much attention to whether the actions of the US and Israel are legal or not -- and usually they're not. There is a line from a Phil Ochs' song, "Cops of the World," written four decades ago. "We've done it before, so why all the shock?"

Transgressing international law is so accustomed where the US and Israel are concerned, it's standard operating procedure -- hardly the kind of thing anyone should raise their eyebrows over. And there's the matter that international law has no meaning when there's no overarching power to enforce it, so I think it's a pointless exercise to expect much from it or even to talk of international law as if it is, or ever could be, a restraining force on the US and its allies.


Angie: And yet the International Criminal Court of Justice promised so much. Today, a few years later, the only alleged war criminal leader that's been brought before its Justices is Milosevic. What does that tell us, if anything?

Stephen: I think the ICC was sold naively as promising so much, but it didn't take long for the US to completely undermine it, as was inevitable. The World Court could be said to promise so much, too, but Israel and the US simply ignore it. It's a farce. So, you're right, the US is only interested in international law and war crimes tribunals
so long as they serve their own interests and so long as they're running the show. The ICTY, the tribunal trying Milosevic, is simply an extension of NATO's war of conquest on Yugoslavia. The charges are contrived. The prosecution, after two years, failed to produce a single witness to testify that Milosevic ordered or committed any war crimes, let alone a genocide. It's pure theatre.


Angie: And what theatre!

Stephen: I don't pay much attention either to what insurgents are called. You can call them terrorists, and some are, if you define a terrorist as someone who provokes terror in a civilian population for political ends, but by that definition the US and Israel are clearly terrorists too. NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia was clearly terrorist. Dropping bombs on downtown Baghdad is clearly terrorist. Dropping a one-ton bomb on an apartment building in Gaza City is clearly terrorist. The only difference between the terrorism of people called terrorists, and the terrorism of the US and Israel and NATO is that in the case of the latter, more people get killed.

There's another difference, too. Their terror, which is the larger terror, is what provokes the terror of the resistance, the smaller terror, the briefer terror. Take Israel, for example. Would Palestinians be blowing themselves up at bus stops, if Israel hadn't driven Arabs from their homes, hadn't barred them from returning, hadn't condemned them to leading hopeless lives in cramped refugee camps, hadn't occupied the West Bank and Gaza, hadn't settled on Palestinian land, hadn't built a barrier wall the World Court ordered dismantled? Would there have been a 9/11 had Osama bin Laden not watched Israeli fighter planes bomb office towers in downtown Beirut in 1982?


Angie: No, I would strongly suspect there would not be. Curious, however, that Israeli fighter planes bombing office buildings in Beirut didn't rate much news coverage; there were no memorials erected for the dead, etc. Or are we to presume, perhaps, that office towers in Beirut were without people? When we consider the thousands of Lebanese that died, in a direct breach of international law, much like the illegal, immoral, and unjustified attack on Iraq, we have to ask who really are the "terrorists". Will the world ever pause and take note of that? Or will the mindset that's ingrained in the west today ever cease its focus on the Arab and Muslim people as being "terrorists"?

Stephen. No. Who's called a terrorist and who's called a freedom fighter is always going to reflect the interests of one or the other party in a conflict, unless you want to reduce language to a set of mathematical equations, where you say something like, let x represent a person who uses arms in such and such a way to accomplish such and such an end. So I think what one needs to do is recognize that the people in government and the people who own the mainstream media and run it for profit have certain interests, that their interests are inimical to those of the rest of us, and that the things politicians say and the coverage of the news, including what labels get attached to people fighting for their lives, homes and land, are going to reflect those interests. It's in their interests to invoke the hateful term terrorist to denote people who refuse to go lightly into the night.


Angie: Or in the case of Iraq wouldn't the US and the UK have been relieved had the Iraqi population allowed itself to be "shocked and awed" into oblivion?

Stephen: Resistance isn't a Sunday school picnic, but many progressives take a very moralistic view of the world, and want to believe it can be. They're very disappointed when exploited and subjugated and terrorized people behave like humans, not angels, and so they shy away from descriptions of resistance fighters as people fighting for their lives, their homes and their land. They'd rather denounce them as vile terrorists for fear other people will have a lesser opinion of them, if they don't. These are the same people who'd never say a kind word for the socialism of the Soviet Union or Cuba for fear someone would call them evil Stalinists. They're pusillanimous, easily intimidated, easily cowed.


Angie: And that's the pity of it! Just one last question. When did you become interested in writing? Something you've always had a yen to do? I note you've been published in numerous publications such as Counterpunch, Media Monitors, Worldnewsstand, etc., etc., and, of course, your own web site "What's Left"?

Stephen: No it's not something I've always had a yen to do, but after I started I discovered it's not something that's easy to give up. I started out keeping a journal on current affairs. After a while I noticed my basement was filled with volume after volume and I thought maybe others might be interested. A kind of vanity I suppose

This is about as honest and forthright as it can get. This was originally printed in the Atlanta Journal and Constipation on November 4.


*Partisan crowing follows*




In his humble opinion of courze.

bush appeals to the bible thumpers that like to go vote, thats why he gets the south and midwest

how many urban states did he win? not new york, ground fucknig zero

Uh, so what you're saying is, since the bible thumpers choose voting over lunch, their votes don't count?

Look, any smart politician is going to try to appeal to the people that actually vote, and then try to appeal to the subset of that group which will allow a victory.

So, if it is possible to win by conceding the vote in some places (like urban centers, which are traditionally full of poor, poorly educated individuals) and focusing on appealing to places like the southern states (which are admittedly traditionally full of poor, poorly educated individuals) and the midwest (traditionally full of reasonably educated individuals, and farmers) then that is what is going to be done by a successful politician.

So.. stop whining so much just because you'd rather have everyone's taxes increased to pay for the handouts you want... a free lunch, if you will.

Two reasons why you are wrong:

1. Zell Miller puts voting before lunch.

2. NYC went for kerry, because they put voting before lunch.

You have at least four years on this before anyone is going to take your opinion on the presidency seriously.
ok after this post im going to start reporting people for flaming/trolling

stop whining so much just because you'd rather have everyone's taxes increased to pay for the handouts you want... a free lunch, if you will.

You Americans and your phobia regarding taxes - man, it never ceases to amaze. Taxes are, believe it or not, supposed to be a good thing, something you should take immense pride paying into. Guess you're too caught up in counting beans to notice.

Another thing,

Literal interpretations of the Bible, or at least what Christian conservatives interpret would say that Homosexuality is evil, is a disease, and all should be killed.
Where the hell is the tolerance of this land now? It's really a sad state of affairs when you step back and look at it objectively.

A group of people in the US, the land of tolerance and of the free (free to be whatever religion, to speak whatever, to vote however, to BE whoever) have been labelled, based on their lifestyle (which has strong evidence of genetic influence) as sinners and god-defying. Being born different or thinking/acting differently can result in a deniable of supposed Guaranteed citizen rights. WoW! a loop hole in democracy in which we can justify segregating folks from the populous.

You Americans and your phobia regarding taxes - man, it never ceases to amaze. Taxes are, believe it or not, supposed to be a good thing, something you should take immense pride paying into. Guess you're too caught up in counting beans to notice.

Well you probably should look a little into our history and you might understand the reason.

ok after this post im going to start reporting people for flaming/trolling
But let me get this straight, its ok to flame a decent man who happens to stand on what he belives, sounds a little hypocritical to me.

ok after this post im going to start reporting people for flaming/trolling

Ah Chessie old buddy, you are such a crowd pleaser *falls off chair laughing*

You Americans and your phobia regarding taxes - man, it never ceases to amaze. Taxes are, believe it or not, supposed to be a good thing, something you should take immense pride paying into. Guess you're too caught up in counting beans to notice.
The most basic of economics courses will tell you that increasing taxes will reduce GDP. Taxes come out of income, income is used for consumption, consumption turns into revenues for companies, companies reinvest that money in capital expenditures and hiring new people. It is viscious cycle. Taxes overall are bad for the economy. Besides, why do I want to pay money into a government that is terribly inefficient in everything it does. The only thing government is efficient in is wasting time and money.

*edit* Its a fundamental rule that if you tax something you will get less of it. Tax working wages and people will work less. Tax investment income and you will get less investment activity. Tax consumption and you get less consumption. *end of edit*

Another thing,

Literal interpretations of the Bible, or at least what Christian conservatives interpret would say that Homosexuality is evil, is a disease, and all should be killed.
Where the hell is the tolerance of this land now? It's really a sad state of affairs when you step back and look at it objectively.

A group of people in the US, the land of tolerance and of the free (free to be whatever religion, to speak whatever, to vote however, to BE whoever) have been labelled, based on their lifestyle (which has strong evidence of genetic influence) as sinners and god-defying. Being born different or thinking/acting differently can result in a deniable of supposed Guaranteed citizen rights. WoW! a loop hole in democracy in which we can justify segregating folks from the populous.


Well the phrase is the land of the free. Tolerance was never a bragging point.

Examples of Prejudice:
Irish
Italians
Polish
Germans
Women
Gays
Liberals
Conservatives
Jews
Muslims
Catholics
...

So we are basically the same as everybody else.

But let me get this straight, its ok to flame a decent man who happens to stand on what he belives, sounds a little hypocritical to me.
hes ignorant

the american people could give a fuck less about freedom, they care about morality, and thats that

not to mentino miller has no moral highground here, just like his sopeech at the rnc, its just an attack on democrats

Zell Miller is a closet Republican; has been for at leat the duration of his last term. The only difference between him and Senator Shelby is that Shelby had the common courtesy to come out of the closet and change his party affiliation.

Such is the nature of politics.

Miller is correct about one thing, though; the Democrats are out of touch with the mindset of the majority of Americans----who take the time to vote.

Those who are politically-motivated and interested enough to cast a ballot tend to migrate around emotional and, frankly, irrelevant issues. For example, what EXACTLY does same-sex marriage have to do with whether a person can put food on their table and provide for their family? What does a woman's right to choose have to do with tax incentives for large corporations? There are issues which have a general impact on the public (political issues), and there are issues which do nothing except jolt the public conscience and breed opinions (firecrackers.) For most thinking voters, it is not hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The simple fact is that most voting Americans---and I am one of them---think less about the consequences of their vote than we do about what fruit to put on our breakfast cereal. If we did, then Miller's prediction about which candidate SHOULD have won the election would have come to pass. Senator Miller is so busy thrashing the national Democratic party that he misses the irony of his own statements. You cannot blame the Democratic party for "failing" to play to the very worst, divisive and incendiary issues (firecrackers) in order to win an election. The Republicans have adopted a "win at all costs" model for electioneering. This model has produced:

1. Willie Horton
2. Tom Delay and illegal redistricting (the Democrats did it first, so they are no better.)
3. The Patriot Act
4. Iraq
5. No-bid contracts
6. Same-sex marriage legislation (i.e., constitutional amendments)
7. John Ashcroft
8. The rise of sectarian government, and
9. The 2000 Florida election.

For those who continue to support the "Rove model," and tout the "virtues" of Republicanism, I offer a simple warning and a prayer:

The fact of your vote is less important than the vote you cast.

Well you probably should look a little into our history and you might understand the reason.

Black Forrest, I know enough about your history to catch your reference. You honestly mean to tell me your nation is still keyed up over having to pay taxes to King George III? That's why America rewards the wealthy and leaves the needy to their own devices? That's not just cold, but irrational.

not to mentino miller has no moral highground here, just like his sopeech at the rnc, its just an attack on democrats

If you paid attention to that speech you would realize that Miller was using Kerry's record against him. Thats perfectly reasonable. Theres a reason that Kerry never brought up his Senate record, its because its a tad too liberal to run on.

You Americans and your phobia regarding taxes - man, it never ceases to amaze. Taxes are, believe it or not, supposed to be a good thing, something you should take immense pride paying into. Guess you're too caught up in counting beans to notice.
Well, if I were a Yank, I'd be right insulted by that statement.
Hell, I am insulted by that statement, for the following reasons:
i: only Americans hate being robbed from so others can get something?
ii: only Americans understand economics enough to know taxes are detrimental to an economy?
iii: only Americans haven't been indoctrinated as you have, to be willing sheep?
iv: I'm an actuary? wtf?
v: since you don't say where you're from, I'm worried you might live in my country...
vi: disliking governmentally approved theft (taxes) is a psychological disorder? how'd I not notice it in the DSM IV?

I could go on, but...
:headbang:

Guess you're too caught up in counting beans to notice.

When that means the difference between me getting my next meal or not YES (guess what don’t qualify for welfare but am a student who is dead broke

Black Forrest, I know enough about your history to catch your reference. You honestly mean to tell me your nation is still keyed up over having to pay taxes to King George III? That's why America rewards the wealthy and leaves the needy to their own devices? That's not just cold, but irrational.

There you go! Hate to tell you that's a reason to the fighting. Think about it. Kids are tought about KGIII and taxes. Kind of builds a mindset.

BTW: I am not defending the thought process. I don't mind paying for some social assistence as my mom used it when my old man ran out.

What you might find interesting is that the heartland people(well can't say all) complain about communism and welfare and yet seem to have no qualms about farm subsidies. That's different afterall. :rolleyes:

Finally, hey as the shrub and his daddy belive. Give all the money to the wealthy and it will trickle down to us poor dumb slobs.

No it basically shows that people are rather ignorant.

The gay marriage issue was nothing more then a red herring to get the evangalistas out to vote.

And Oregon tends to be conservative. Portland is somewhat liberal.
As the great Ronald Reagan once said, "There you go again." This is what liberals think of all you Americans who voted for Bush: you are nothing but an ignorant hick. How do Democrats expect to win voters to their cause when they treat them this way?

I have family in Oregon, and have spent much time there over the last 25 years. The whole state is liberal.

Tell me, Forrest, why do you hate Christians? What have they ever done to you?

If you paid attention to that speech you would realize that Miller was using Kerry's record against him. Thats perfectly reasonable. Theres a reason that Kerry never brought up his Senate record, its because its a tad too liberal to run on.
compared to bush im sure it is

Ah Chessie old buddy, you are such a crowd pleaser *falls off chair laughing*
He HAS to be a Republican, no one could be so damning to his side unless he was intentionally doing it.

As the great Ronald Reagan once said, "There you go again." This is what liberals think of all you Americans who voted for Bush: you are nothing but an ignorant hick. How do Democrats expect to win voters to their cause when they treat them this way?

I have family in Oregon, and have spent much time there over the last 25 years. The whole state is liberal.

Tell me, Forrest, why do you hate Christians? What have they ever done to you?
this looks ignorant hickish to me

as adlai stevenson said to the woman who said all thinking people will for for adlai, "Ma'am, I need a majority"

this looks ignorant hickish to me

as adlai stevenson said to the woman who said all thinking people will for for adlai, "Ma'am, I need a majority"
If you say this, you're referring to your own statement. If you say that, you're referring to what you quoted. Now who's the ignorant hick?

What you might find interesting is that the heartland people(well can't say all) complain about communism and welfare and yet seem to have no qualms about farm subsidies. That's different afterall. :rolleyes:



Nice way to generalize

I live in the “heart land” and my family owns a farm … never took a dime for their farm. No payoffs just hard work and market prices

I'm not a huge fan of liberals, especially celebrities that are outspoken democrats. But I feel that this statement is only half right.

The Democratic Party focuses on the minority vote first and I say that most of the liberal swaying towards such things as "Affirmative Action" have become unrealistic, and several African Americans leaders see it as such.

The Democratic Party cater to minorities just to gain their vote, and many of us feel it is an indignity. There are Christians that do not vote Republican, just as there are minorities who do not vote Democratic.

We do not all believe in Affirmative Action. We see our teenagers receiving 20% of their grades simply because they are black, and we view it as a clear insult to our intelligence.

Many of us own large & small business, so we understand it isn't the government's place to tell anyone who they must hire. It does not benefit everyone involved so it reaffirms seperatism. I see it as no different than seperate drinking fountains.

as adlai stevenson said to the woman who said all thinking people will for for adlai, "Ma'am, I need a majority"

Then Adlai skipped lunch to vote. Isn't that something.

1. Willie Horton
2. Tom Delay and illegal redistricting (the Democrats did it first, so they are no better.)
4. Iraq
8. The rise of sectarian government, and
9. The 2000 Florida election.

I left in point 2 because it's the only time you were honest.
I actually remember the fact that the Willie Horton ads were started by democrats during the primaries... that Iraq was allowed to fester by Clinton's unwillingness to take any kind of a stand on anything after the public rejected his hijacking of the health care system, the fact that Democrats were the ones who've been trying to institute an almost officially atheistic government system (only in the post-McCarthy era, though), and as to the 2000 Florida election, Bush won. I don't see any reason for it even being mentioned anymore.

Even in Oregon! A rather liberal state by most standards. Those amendments passed with 60-80% of the vote in all states.

Oregon passed it, yes. But the percentage was under 60%. That was what I heard, if you have anything saying otherwise, I will retract my statement.

Yes, this is minor, but I felt like saying something about the state I was born in.

And personally I think of Zell Miller as a Dixiecrat. The more conservative wing of the Democratic party. So does it say much that he supports a conservative republican?

Well, if I were a Yank, I'd be right insulted by that statement.
Hell, I am insulted by that statement, for the following reasons:
i: only Americans hate being robbed from so others can get something?
ii: only Americans understand economics enough to know taxes are detrimental to an economy?
iii: only Americans haven't been indoctrinated as you have, to be willing sheep?
iv: I'm an actuary? wtf?
v: since you don't say where you're from, I'm worried you might live in my country...
vi: disliking governmentally approved theft (taxes) is a psychological disorder? how'd I not notice it in the DSM IV?

I could go on, but...
:headbang:

Oh come on. You're blowing this out of proportion. I'm personally quite proud knowing that my tax dollars go toward helping my fellow man. Makes me feel good about living in a social democracy.

We're here to serve, not to be served. Anything else is self-interest.

Then Adlai skipped lunch to vote. Isn't that something.


Ok now this is starting to get tiring :P

Umm . . . I dont trust Dixiecrats

We're here to serve, not to be served.
We're here to do neither. We can serve others if we wish, but we should not be forced to. Serving against your will isn't serving, is slavery.

I'm not a huge fan of liberals, especially celebrities that are outspoken democrats. But I feel that this statement is only half right.

The Democratic Party focuses on the minority vote first and I say that most of the liberal swaying towards such things as "Affirmative Action" have become unrealistic, and several African Americans leaders see it as such.

The Democratic Party cater to minorities just to gain their vote, and many of us feel it is an indignity. There are Christians that do not vote Republican, just as there are minorities who do not vote Democratic.

We do not all believe in Affirmative Action. We see our teenagers receiving 20% of their grades simply because they are black, and we view it as a clear insult to our intelligence.

Many of us own large & small business, so we understand it isn't the government's place to tell anyone who they must hire. It does not benefit everyone involved so it reaffirms seperatism. I see it as no different than seperate drinking fountains.
a bit black and white arnt you?

the republicans pander to minorities, why the hell do you think we are still sanctioning saddam? pander to the cubans


affirmative action in and of itself istn a bad idea, HOWEVER, it hsa been extremely overblown and is stupid, BUT, the reoublican "fix" is less of a fix and shittier band aid than AA is

its the governments business to not tell business what to do, but it is their business to tell individuals what they can and cant do?

As the great Ronald Reagan once said, "There you go again." This is what liberals think of all you Americans who voted for Bush: you are nothing but an ignorant hick. How do Democrats expect to win voters to their cause when they treat them this way?

I have family in Oregon, and have spent much time there over the last 25 years. The whole state is liberal.

Tell me, Forrest, why do you hate Christians? What have they ever done to you?

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that you could be swayed by a Democratic candidate when you preface your statement with a quote from, as you like to call him, the 'great' Ronald Reagan? You're setting an extremely high conservative bar, there. If a Democrat hoped to be able to pass your judgement, they'd have to be, what - ? More conservative than dear old Ronnie? Guess that doesn't leave much hope for anyone else to have their point of view represented. Three cheers.

As the great Ronald Reagan once said, "There you go again." This is what liberals think of all you Americans who voted for Bush: you are nothing but an ignorant hick. How do Democrats expect to win voters to their cause when they treat them this way?

I have family in Oregon, and have spent much time there over the last 25 years. The whole state is liberal.

Tell me, Forrest, why do you hate Christians? What have they ever done to you?

So the gay marriage amendments had no barring on the elections?

I have done business in Oregon for many years and have found some rather conservative viewpoints up there.

Nice way to generalize

I live in the “heart land” and my family owns a farm … never took a dime for their farm. No payoffs just hard work and market prices


Ahm didn't this exclude you and the others that don't?

"the heartland people(well can't say all) "

We're here to do neither. We can serve others if we wish, but we should not be forced to. Serving against your will isn't serving, is slavery.

You don't get it at all. You serve not because it's your wish, not because someone is forcing you to, but because...you know inherently that it's the right thing to do, for others, and for yourself. It's called generosity, and no, it's not mandatory, but then neither is having a cold heart.

There is more to life than control issues and self-indulgence.

You don't get it at all. You serve not because it's your wish, not because someone is forcing you to, but because...you know inherently that it's the right thing to do, for others, and for yourself. It's called generosity, and no, it's not mandatory, but then neither is having a cold heart.

There is more to life than control issues and self-indulgence.
Welfare is mandatory. There's no opt out of it on your taxes. I give 10% of my money to my church, and they help the homeless. That should be the extent of my charity if I wish it to be. Anything else is stealing.

Oh come on. You're blowing this out of proportion. I'm personally quite proud knowing that my tax dollars go toward helping my fellow man. Makes me feel good about living in a social democracy.

We're here to serve, not to be served. Anything else is self-interest.
Tax-payers should not be forced to serve the interests of others. After all, they aren't there to be served, by your logic...

And what, exactly, is wrong with self-interest? Ever study economics? Self-interest, being the only kind of interest that everyone should be expected to have, has to be central to the working of an economy. That is why communism has failed every time it's been tried, including by the original colonies which later became the US. Without appealing to self-interest, there is no motivation for the public to expend as much effort into building an economy.

I despise paying taxes, but since the government has so many more guns than I, I have no choice... So every year, (every paycheck, actually) I am stolen from, and yet cannot report that crime because the people who are supposed to ensure that I am not stolen from are the ones doing it.

(Actually, I understand that, to have a government, there must be some form of taxes, but income tax is wrong. Especially when it is on top of consumption taxes (VATs and such) and tariffs, and every other source of income governments have, which are all payed by the public, at some point. Even government monetary policy can be a form of tax, after all...)

We're here to do neither. We can serve others if we wish, but we should not be forced to. Serving against your will isn't serving, is slavery.
A much more succinct and eloquent response than what I was able to come up with, but exactly one of the points I was trying to make. Thanks.

a bit black and white arnt you?

the republicans pander to minorities, why the hell do you think we are still sanctioning saddam? pander to the cubans

Don't you mean Castro?
And besides, it's more of a issue of trying to ensure communism doesn't succeed due to being helped in any way by the US. (At least, that should be why. Probably is to appeal to the Cubans, though.)

Welfare is mandatory. There's no opt out of it on your taxes. I give 10% of my money to my church, and they help the homeless. That should be the extent of my charity if I wish it to be. Anything else is stealing.

I'm not taking charity into account. I'm talking about taxes. Kindness is not just the purview of organised religion, it's our duty to ourselves and each other, plain and simple.

I don't regard my duty as theft against my person, otherwise you could say that working for a living, using up one-third of my 24 hour day, constitutes a theft of personal time being perpetrated against me by my employer.

You don't get it at all. You serve not because it's your wish, not because someone is forcing you to, but because...you know inherently that it's the right thing to do, for others, and for yourself. It's called generosity, and no, it's not mandatory, but then neither is having a cold heart.

So no-one is forcing me to pay taxes? Why didn't anyone ever tell me that before?
Moron. :mp5: :headbang:

I don't regard my duty as theft against my person, otherwise you could say that working for a living, using up one-third of my 24 hour day, constitutes a theft of personal time being perpetrated against me by my employer.
No, because if you don't like it, you can quit your job. You can't quit your federal government. And I'll be kind when it suits me, not because some politician in Washington says I have to.

I'm not taking charity into account. I'm talking about taxes. Kindness is not just the purview of organised religion, it's our duty to ourselves and each other, plain and simple.

I don't regard my duty as theft against my person, otherwise you could say that working for a living, using up one-third of my 24 hour day, constitutes a theft of personal time being perpetrated against me by my employer.
Uh, no.
Your employer, unless he doesn't pay you, reimburses you for your time, so that isn't theft.
When your employer takes from he money he is supposed to pay you, and instead gives it to someone else (like the govenment) that is theft. Why can't you understand this?
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Don't you mean Castro?
And besides, it's more of a issue of trying to ensure communism doesn't succeed due to being helped in any way by the US. (At least, that should be why. Probably is to appeal to the Cubans, though.)
yes castro

the cuban votes are worth more than the big usiness lobbyists who want cuba

Nice way to generalize

I live in the “heart land” and my family owns a farm … never took a dime for their farm. No payoffs just hard work and market prices

Just to add. I didn't mean to sound insulting. I respect farmers as my other grandfather was one.

Freedom and liberty? By what definitions? The only thing Bush has done that could be considered pro-liberty would be the tax cuts which do not go deep enough and which he will have to raise back anyway, unless he is willing to make some major program cuts (to which I would not be opposed). Our civil liberties are disappearing, we are alienating our allies which will hurt business(I could care less about France and Germany, it's the Poles, Australians and English, our real allies that I am concerned with), he is continuing the occupation of a country that never did anything to us, while ignoring the real threats to our contry (Bin Laden, North Korea, Iran) and in spite of his lip service to a voluntary military, the occupation will sooner or later require a draft. That's freedom?

Tax-payers should not be forced to serve the interests of others. After all, they aren't there to be served, by your logic...

And what, exactly, is wrong with self-interest? Ever study economics? Self-interest, being the only kind of interest that everyone should be expected to have, has to be central to the working of an economy. That is why communism has failed every time it's been tried, including by the original colonies which later became the US. Without appealing to self-interest, there is no motivation for the public to expend as much effort into building an economy.

I despise paying taxes, but since the government has so many more guns than I, I have no choice... So every year, (every paycheck, actually) I am stolen from, and yet cannot report that crime because the people who are supposed to ensure that I am not stolen from are the ones doing it.

(Actually, I understand that, to have a government, there must be some form of taxes, but income tax is wrong. Especially when it is on top of consumption taxes (VATs and such) and tariffs, and every other source of income governments have, which are all payed by the public, at some point. Even government monetary policy can be a form of tax, after all...)

Nope. We're not on the same page, not even close. Try again.

If you can't see the destructiveness of self-interest, I see no point in continuing this sham of an exchange. And you say this is what is being taught in economics classes? Frankly, I'm shocked. I never suspected that the schools were so warping the collective consciousness.

Well, you go your way and I'll go mine. If ever you are in need of someone's help and generosity, remember that some of us out here do care. I can only hope that there will continue to be others like me, and that the cult of self-interest doesn't eventually preclude my way of thinking. If that were to happen...I tremble at the implications.

So no-one is forcing me to pay taxes? Why didn't anyone ever tell me that before?
Moron. :mp5: :headbang:

HEY MOTHERF***ER I PLAYED NICE WATCH THE INSULTS THERE BUD.

HEY MOTHERF***ER I PLAYED NICE WATCH THE INSULTS THERE BUD.

Rise above it Dobbs. You are smarter then that. ;)

No, because if you don't like it, you can quit your job. You can't quit your federal government. And I'll be kind when it suits me, not because some politician in Washington says I have to.

You'll be kind when it suits you? When will it suit you, then arammanar? Why not be kind always instead? Then you won't feel like someone in Washington is telling you to be so. You'll already be there.

You'll be kind when it suits you? When will it suit you, then arammanar? Why not be kind always instead? Then you won't feel like someone in Washington is telling you to be so. You'll already be there.
It will suit me when I can afford it. Right now I've paid 10% off every pay check because I could. One day I might not be able to. Maybe I have cancer, and am trying to pay for my medicine so you don't have to. Besides, your logic is faulty, it ignores the point that no one should be forced to pay to a charity, how would you like it if the government told you you had to give $5000 a year to my church?
EDIT: And another point, when I donate to charity, I choose what the money goes to. The government decides where taxes go to.

Oh come on. You're blowing this out of proportion. I'm personally quite proud knowing that my tax dollars go toward helping my fellow man. Makes me feel good about living in a social democracy.

We're here to serve, not to be served. Anything else is self-interest.
Good for you. In America, no one would stop you from giving money to aid organizations. But what gives anyone the right, through the government, to FORCE me to do the same?

Altruism is self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice is suicide. I will not commit suicide for you or anyone else. Self-interest is a good thing. It enables survival.

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that you could be swayed by a Democratic candidate when you preface your statement with a quote from, as you like to call him, the 'great' Ronald Reagan? You're setting an extremely high conservative bar, there. If a Democrat hoped to be able to pass your judgement, they'd have to be, what - ? More conservative than dear old Ronnie? Guess that doesn't leave much hope for anyone else to have their point of view represented. Three cheers.
You make many arrogant assumptions in this post.

Want to hear some Democrats that, as you put it, "pass my judgement"?

JFK, Harry Truman, Joseph Lieberman, Sam Nunn.

You missed the point COMPLETELY. Those men pass my judgement because they never "appealed" to voters by saying that anyone who doesn't vote for them is ignorant.

Rise above it Dobbs. You are smarter then that. ;)

Yeah, well ever since the election I feel like I've been walking on glass around these neocons , what with everyone running off to the Mods over the slightest possible insult or intimation. I shouldn't have to be insulted. I played nice. I just don't have a cold shard of ice where my heart id supposed to be, and tried stating the unridiculous idea that a spirit of generosity is good for the whole world, onlty to be labelled a moron!

You're right, though. I AM smarter than that. So I'm going to button down and - guess what? APOLOGIZE to the person who called me a moron.

I am honestly SO sorry to have a different point of view in front of you. I am SO sorry to have called you a motherf***er, even though you provoked me. I am incredibly unenthusiastically sorry about the whole thing.

I'll just leave now, and leave you like-minded people to stand around and nod, knowingly. You've got the world by the tail, people. I just hope you never find yourselves realizing you've raised up a nation of people who won't help you in YOUR time of need.

I'm out of here. Start your happy bleating...

So the gay marriage amendments had no barring on the elections?

I have done business in Oregon for many years and have found some rather conservative viewpoints up there.

Of course the gay marriage ballot propositions had a bearing on the elections. But where did I say they didn't?

Oregon's electoral votes haven't gone to a Republican since 1984, and that's probably only because the Democrats put up that dog of candidate, Mondale.

Our civil liberties are disappearing
Which ones? Please be specific.
he is continuing the occupation of a country that never did anything to us
Wrong. Saddam supported international terrorist groups, specifically Hamas, Ansar-al-Islam, and Hizbollah. It's fact, look it up. And before you parrot "Those groups never attacked America", keep in mind that they have the same intentions, methods, and goals as al-Qaeda. Saying they're not just as much of a threat as AQ is like saying African-Americans are safer in the hands of the KKK rather than the Aryan Nations.
while ignoring the real threats to our contry (Bin Laden, North Korea, Iran)
How are they being "ignored"? Are you saying engagement in Iraq and actions to deal with the others are mutually exclusive? That we cannot do both at the same time? That we must apply the same techniques and solutions to both?
and in spite of his lip service to a voluntary military, the occupation will sooner or later require a draftPure speculation.

You'll be kind when it suits you? When will it suit you, then arammanar? Why not be kind always instead? Then you won't feel like someone in Washington is telling you to be so. You'll already be there.
Your position is based on the premise that people will not assist their fellows unless they are FORCED to by others, like you, who "know better." That's about as self-interested as it can get. YOUR judgement is BETTER than mine, and is not to be questioned. Nice.

Zell actually makes some decent points, but he is fooling himself if he thinks that Bush is more fiscally responsible than Democrats. He has amassed the biggest deficit ever, in contrast to the last Democrat president, who created a surplus.

Miller claims to be a "Truman Democrat", yet he thinks that the current Democrats are too socialist! Truman was to the left of most current Democrats.

Let's face it, Bush won this election on "social conservatism" (read: bigotry). Among voters who considered the economy as the most important issue, they voted for Kerry 79%/19%. Among voters who considered the Iraq war as the most important issue, a majority also voted for Kerry. Among those who considered "moral issues" their top priority, they voted for Bush 78%/19%. Those voters who chose to face reality by voting on the most important issues mostly chose Kerry.

That the Democratic party is out of touch with the majority of Americans on the social issues.
It's better to stand up for what is right than to pander to voters. Right? That's what Republicans have been saying for the whole election.

Democrats were the ones who've been trying to institute an almost officially atheistic government system
Official atheism and secularism aren't the same thing. Presidents Carter and Clinton were pretty open about their Christianity anyway, weren't they?

Today, 8:10 PM #68
Even Newer Talgania

Self-interest means survival?

Maybe that was the literal case as recent as 100 years ago, but now-a-days doing things for the good Of ALL of us Carbon-based life forms DOES NOT equate to suicide.

That type of mind set perpetuates isolation and disconnection of humans - something that has proven in the past to be suicidal. Learning from history so as not to repeat it isn't an error in logic, it's called adaptation - a natural process in nature.

Flaming, no matter what the reason or cause is UNACCEPTABLE. i'm surprised that there's not stiifer rules hee about it - especially profanity. We're not uneducated folk ( i hope) thsu we shouldn't be acting like it.
Jerry Springer has his own show and archives, we don't need anything like it here. Leave it to Trash that doesn't give a damn about anyone other than themselves and their jacked up '88 ford.

Today, 8:10 PM #68
Flaming, no matter what the reason or cause is UNACCEPTABLE. i'm surprised that there's not stiifer rules hee about it - especially profanity. We're not uneducated folk ( i hope) thsu we shouldn't be acting like it.
Jerry Springer has his own show and archives, we don't need anything like it here. Leave it to Trash that doesn't give a damn about anyone other than themselves and their jacked up '88 ford.

Well lad that's the interesting thing for we americans. Even though this a foreign board, Freedom of Speech also means to be able to say stupid hateful things.

Capitalism is the problem hee folks. We've been disillusioned into thinking that Democracy and Capitalism go hand and hand. It doesn't have to be so.
MONEY drives evrything in this country. Money dictates to Big Business when and who they lay-off. When and where they invest. I'd posted an article 2-3 pages back (sorry so long but all of it was important for these dicussions).

Profits and how to make them larger is what drives corporations. Corporations, spurred by that, implant their politicians into the system and in return the system creates situations for Corporations to make money (war, conflict, new partisan agendas, etc). It's really not Bush's or the republicans fault as their being 'used' just like Dems are and what's worst is that both parties are either totally oblivious to who ACTUALLY in controlling who (campaign financing) OR they're so hopelssy inerd, that they choose on a subconscious level to ignor eit for the ackowledgement of it would drive them and their egos crazy.

Well the phrase is the land of the free. Tolerance was never a bragging point.

Examples of Prejudice:
Irish
Italians
Polish
Germans
Women
Gays
Liberals
Conservatives
Jews
Muslims
Catholics
...

So we are basically the same as everybody else.

I fall into 4 categories on that list....*sigh*

(Polish, Women, Catholic, Liberal)

actually, tolerance was.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

though it wasn't conceived in the original signing, it made it in there almost 20 years later.

now, if we're talking about prejudice to the system that has failed so many and thus created their ..... animosity towards it - then indeed you're correct

Freedom of speech allows us to say what we like, but private sites retain the right, even in the U.S. to place restrictions on that right. If you don't like it, they feel as though you need not come to their site.

I fall into 4 categories on that list....*sigh*

(Polish, Women, Catholic, Liberal)

Ahh but it has gotten better on many fronts.

Before the election I read about a woman who was 103. She has been voting since women won the right. She even talked about going to voting booths in a horse and carriage.

There is a large Polish community. Granddad was from Krakow. :) Fought the Germans in Poland and then for England.

Catholic, well that probably depends on the state. JFK actually scared people because he was Catholic. People thought he would take orders from the Pope.

Liberal? Well depending on the part of the country, it's a dirty word and or a classification. The Coastal regions are safe spots! ;)

Women? They have differnt issues now such as pay scales.

My comments were about past examples as we have a checkered history just as much as anybody else.

actually, tolerance was.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

though it wasn't conceived in the original signing, it made it in there almost 20 years later.


First off see my thread about tolerance and diversity, I just started it. Second, the first amendment and the rest of the bill of rights was passed in 1791 like you said but that was only two years since the Constitution was ratified by the states. Ratified by the states in 1789.

there's been an ongoing and apparently successful campaign, that has painted the meaning for conservative as one who upholds tradition & family values. Sounds good right?

that same campaign has painted Liberals as those who 'seek to change the staus quo or change those traditions that have lasted so long. Sounds bad right?

Let's look at real meanings. Conservative: sticking with what has worked in the past, not wanting to stray from it. And treasurers of traditional values.

Liberal: those who acknowledge that change is a constant whether we like it or not and seek to make the best for all out of it.

Truthfully, with all that's happening around the world (mostly due to our {USA} interfernce or rather 'influence') can we avoid change? And would that we beneficial to all?

the only constant in reality is linear change (though overall, from a historical viewpoint, history repeats itself). If we ignore that, we're in for trouble.

That's not to say conservatives need to change their mindsets. It is to say we need assimilation of both ideals. We need to embrace change while working from our traditional values the best we can.

seahawk,

Thanks for the correction - i think iwas thinking Declaration of Independence dates.

Ahh but it has gotten better on many fronts.

Before the election I read about a woman who was 103. She has been voting since women won the right. She even talked about going to voting booths in a horse and carriage.

There is a large Polish community. Granddad was from Krakow. :) Fought the Germans in Poland and then for England.

Catholic, well that probably depends on the state. JFK actually scared people because he was Catholic. People thought he would take orders from the Pope.

Liberal? Well depending on the part of the country, it's a dirty word and or a classification. The Coastal regions are safe spots! ;)

Women? They have differnt issues now such as pay scales.

My comments were about past examples as we have a checkered history just as much as anybody else.

I'm originally from Lodz, but Krakow is an amazing city. It is true about the Polish community, the immigrants from Poland in the US have a great sense of pride in their country :) They're quite proud of being Polish.

I always tease that I have 3 strikes against me (at least when it comes to stereotypes) because I'm a blonde Polish female. But I understand what you were getting at, just found it funny that I fell into three of the categories you listed. :)