I think we're all agreed that, come November 5, 2014 and elections thereafter, we need to be firing as many 'Republicans' on ALL levels as might be humanly possible. Then they need to sit powerless (assuming they needn't be tried and jailed) for forty years at least.
But if we are to build a progressive network which becomes an all-levels campaign, we need to do some serious thinking as to which Blue Dogs we let be and which do we primary from the left. My own hunch is that a good many Blue Dogs deserve to be primaried, depending on whether or not they listen more to their actual constituents as opposed to their most generous contributors.
And this is where I reluctantly put myself forward as a candidate for POTUS. This much I can say on my own behalf which I haven't posted before: if I reach the White House, one factor I will COMPLETELY EXCLUDE in making decisions is any effect on my chances of re-election. With God's help I will act as if I may well have but one term. That is, act with dispatch and decision on behalf of all the people--especially on behalf of our middle class. No democracy can function well without a strong and expanding middle class and ours urgently needs strengthening after having been bled from above for thirty years! And we need to include the poor in this as being able to join the middle class is what nearly all of them want!
And we must restore, expand and replenish the commons--the infrastructure upon which we all depend and the biosphere without which we ourselves (not to mention almost all other species) cannot live. We must end the wanton despoiling of these commons, heal them and keep them healthy for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. And to those who say that maintenance of our standard of living is impossible without despoilation, I reply: this is America. We are a land of dreams, realized and unrealized. If anyone can do what others believed impossible, who else (except Israel, maybe) but ourselves can step up to the plate and do what the naysayers proclaim impossible? How many times in our national history have we already done such things? No one believes this won't be done without hard work, but I believe we're not yet such couch potatoes as not to be wonderfully energized by such dreams of hope and renewal for all of us! Yes, it may be hard, but we're the men and women who can and will do it!
I'd like to conclude with two things: anyone curious about what I mean to do can find out either on my blog at http://nopartyline.blogspot.com or on my FB page titled 'Progressive Platform & Politics 2014+' in the post labelled 'The Central Article.' And if there's anyone who thinks they can do a better job than I would, let's talk. You've nothing to lose and, when push comes to shove, I've NO desire to live in a goldfish bowl for at least four years! I'd rather be a king/queenmaker (and maintainer) than the king himself! But while I don't know who'd get more done, I feel I've no choice but to stand up and be counted. God bless you all and God save the United States!
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Thursday, May 16, 2013
RETURN TO OSAWATOMIE
This is it--my 'Osawatomie' post. I call it that after the place where Teddy Roosevelt made the speech in which he broke with the Taft Republicans and with which he invoked the blessed memory of John Brown.
I was born and grew up in a Democratic family. In 1980, that attachment was tenuous. Then came twelve years of Reagan-Bush smoke and mirrors and I thought that sealed my place in the Democratic party beyond undoing. That's what I thought. However, the degree to which this current administration has proven itself to be just another tool of the military-industrial-security state, the banksters and of Wall Street generally has finally become insupportable to me and I must now leave the old Democratic tent and pitch a new one, with the help of, I hope, as many others as possible. I call for a revival of Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Progressives!
For what that means so far, let me invite all to visit my FB page 'Progressive Platform & Politics 2014+' for both platform points and a blueprint for action. Both can be found on the post labelled 'The Central Article'. There are other posts either there or on my blog at http://nopartyline.blogspot.com/. as to how to proceed. On the website, 'Campaign Advice for all Progressives' sums up info following the platform.
As to rejoining the Democrats if Hillary's nominated: a definite 'maybe'. What bothers me about Hillary more than her vote for the unrighteous Iraq war is her husband's attempt to sneak an American version of Britain's Official Secrets Act through Congress in the last year of his administration. Let them both come forth with a smudge or two of ash on their heads and maybe a sackcloth scarf and/or tie and we might well rejoin the Democrats. Absent that and other serious signs of bringing our old party a nudge or two leftward, I think a word from New York's language says most of it: FUGGEDABOUDIT!
Congressman Trey Gowdy's words (R-SC) about the Department of Justice only doing what the gerrymandered House majority asked it to do (in regard to riffling through the phone records of the AP reporters) in the end only reinforces my feeling about how sickeningly much my party now has in common with the Tinfoil Hat Brigade now in full control of the 'Republican' party!
We need a party of, by and for the PEOPLE and we need such a party NOW. I ask the Greens, Working Families Party and others to come and see if we can all come together under the old and untainted banner of Teddy Roosevelt, Bob La Follette and of many other men and women.
The success or failure of this venture will depend as much on each one of you as it does on me: it's up to us all to spread the word among our fellow citizens even as we try to do so OUT of the MSM's neon floodlights for as long as is workable AND to either find and support Progressive candidates for all elective offices from local to federal or to run for those offices ourselves!
Let's do it, fellow citizens: make a Progressive party for all of us, starting right now! God bless you all and God save these United States!!
I was born and grew up in a Democratic family. In 1980, that attachment was tenuous. Then came twelve years of Reagan-Bush smoke and mirrors and I thought that sealed my place in the Democratic party beyond undoing. That's what I thought. However, the degree to which this current administration has proven itself to be just another tool of the military-industrial-security state, the banksters and of Wall Street generally has finally become insupportable to me and I must now leave the old Democratic tent and pitch a new one, with the help of, I hope, as many others as possible. I call for a revival of Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Progressives!
For what that means so far, let me invite all to visit my FB page 'Progressive Platform & Politics 2014+' for both platform points and a blueprint for action. Both can be found on the post labelled 'The Central Article'. There are other posts either there or on my blog at http://nopartyline.blogspot.com/. as to how to proceed. On the website, 'Campaign Advice for all Progressives' sums up info following the platform.
As to rejoining the Democrats if Hillary's nominated: a definite 'maybe'. What bothers me about Hillary more than her vote for the unrighteous Iraq war is her husband's attempt to sneak an American version of Britain's Official Secrets Act through Congress in the last year of his administration. Let them both come forth with a smudge or two of ash on their heads and maybe a sackcloth scarf and/or tie and we might well rejoin the Democrats. Absent that and other serious signs of bringing our old party a nudge or two leftward, I think a word from New York's language says most of it: FUGGEDABOUDIT!
Congressman Trey Gowdy's words (R-SC) about the Department of Justice only doing what the gerrymandered House majority asked it to do (in regard to riffling through the phone records of the AP reporters) in the end only reinforces my feeling about how sickeningly much my party now has in common with the Tinfoil Hat Brigade now in full control of the 'Republican' party!
We need a party of, by and for the PEOPLE and we need such a party NOW. I ask the Greens, Working Families Party and others to come and see if we can all come together under the old and untainted banner of Teddy Roosevelt, Bob La Follette and of many other men and women.
The success or failure of this venture will depend as much on each one of you as it does on me: it's up to us all to spread the word among our fellow citizens even as we try to do so OUT of the MSM's neon floodlights for as long as is workable AND to either find and support Progressive candidates for all elective offices from local to federal or to run for those offices ourselves!
Let's do it, fellow citizens: make a Progressive party for all of us, starting right now! God bless you all and God save these United States!!
Friday, April 26, 2013
A VERY MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION
Something
I've been pondering lately: not only the loony right but, it might be, a
preponderance of most Americans, proceed and have been proceeding on
the assumption that every penny of the money we earn belongs to us and
ONLY to us, and, hence, that taxes are burdensome impositions if not, as
the Randians at least prate (although when THEY need help it's quite a
different story!), outright theft.
I challenge that assumption and throw down the gauntlet to the REALLY aspiring thieves, nearly all of whom do their dirty work under the Private Enterprise colors even while they seek to loot us every which way they can, including buying up OUR government. Not even the Founders believed that ALL anyone's property was theirs alone. In proof of which, read these two quotes from two Founders:
All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a [person], for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is [their] natural Right, which none can justly deprive [them] of:(Nowadays, that would be whatever's necessary for a modest but decent living and to bring up--and educate--one's children in modest comfort and security) But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages.
The protection of a [person] is more sacred than the protection of property; and besides this, the faculty of performing any kind of work or services by which [s/he] acquires a livelihood, or maintaining [their] family, is of the nature of property. It is property to [them], [s/he] has acquired it; and it is as much the object of [their] protection as exterior property, possessed without that faculty, can be the object of protection in another person.
The first was written by Ben Franklin in a letter to Robert Morris on Dec. 25, 1783. The second is from Tom Paine's 'Dissertation on First Principles of Government'.
I don't know about you but I can already hear the whines, "Don't WE know how to spend our own money better than any government revenue hound (modern variation)?"
The answer is, not necessarily. Especially not if you ain't been paying attention, clown! If you barely know what needs doing in your own town, city or region, can we believe you if and when you say YOU know how to spend all your money? I really do wonder.
Mind you, I have my own ideas where our tax dollars should be put to work, but that's another matter. You want roads and bridges safe to drive on? Clean air to breathe and water to drink? Uncontaminated and reasonably fresh food? Not to mention police and fire who serve EVERYONE fairly? The market will do whatever it thinks it can get away with; it's long past time to discipline it and none too gently neither at that!! We can (so far) only monitor the market through the agency of OUR government. You want to know who government is? The same folks as create jobs. THAT means the person you see in the mirror in the morning as you either shave or apply war paint--and his/her neighbors as well, all acting together and deputizing people (representatives; who in turn hire and deputize 'bureaucrats', many of whom actually work not at a desk but either on the road or in physically strenuous jobs) to carry out the things we the people want done!!
Remember: WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. WE ARE ALSO JOB-CREATORS. If anyone tells you the government is your enemy, they say that YOU are your enemy and they seek to sell you for parts!
And I can't repeat often enough that OUR desires and demands create the jobs!!
So--what we need to maintain ourselves, bring up and educate a family in modest comfort is indeed ours, but anything above and beyond that can and should be put to work in ways which benefit ALL of us, benefit the society as a whole. At least, that's what Dr. Franklin said. And he wasn't the only Founder who believed that either.
I challenge that assumption and throw down the gauntlet to the REALLY aspiring thieves, nearly all of whom do their dirty work under the Private Enterprise colors even while they seek to loot us every which way they can, including buying up OUR government. Not even the Founders believed that ALL anyone's property was theirs alone. In proof of which, read these two quotes from two Founders:
All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a [person], for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is [their] natural Right, which none can justly deprive [them] of:(Nowadays, that would be whatever's necessary for a modest but decent living and to bring up--and educate--one's children in modest comfort and security) But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages.
The protection of a [person] is more sacred than the protection of property; and besides this, the faculty of performing any kind of work or services by which [s/he] acquires a livelihood, or maintaining [their] family, is of the nature of property. It is property to [them], [s/he] has acquired it; and it is as much the object of [their] protection as exterior property, possessed without that faculty, can be the object of protection in another person.
The first was written by Ben Franklin in a letter to Robert Morris on Dec. 25, 1783. The second is from Tom Paine's 'Dissertation on First Principles of Government'.
I don't know about you but I can already hear the whines, "Don't WE know how to spend our own money better than any government revenue hound (modern variation)?"
The answer is, not necessarily. Especially not if you ain't been paying attention, clown! If you barely know what needs doing in your own town, city or region, can we believe you if and when you say YOU know how to spend all your money? I really do wonder.
Mind you, I have my own ideas where our tax dollars should be put to work, but that's another matter. You want roads and bridges safe to drive on? Clean air to breathe and water to drink? Uncontaminated and reasonably fresh food? Not to mention police and fire who serve EVERYONE fairly? The market will do whatever it thinks it can get away with; it's long past time to discipline it and none too gently neither at that!! We can (so far) only monitor the market through the agency of OUR government. You want to know who government is? The same folks as create jobs. THAT means the person you see in the mirror in the morning as you either shave or apply war paint--and his/her neighbors as well, all acting together and deputizing people (representatives; who in turn hire and deputize 'bureaucrats', many of whom actually work not at a desk but either on the road or in physically strenuous jobs) to carry out the things we the people want done!!
Remember: WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. WE ARE ALSO JOB-CREATORS. If anyone tells you the government is your enemy, they say that YOU are your enemy and they seek to sell you for parts!
And I can't repeat often enough that OUR desires and demands create the jobs!!
So--what we need to maintain ourselves, bring up and educate a family in modest comfort is indeed ours, but anything above and beyond that can and should be put to work in ways which benefit ALL of us, benefit the society as a whole. At least, that's what Dr. Franklin said. And he wasn't the only Founder who believed that either.
IN PURSUIT OF BEING INCONSPICUOUS
I've
been mulling something over lately: the initial purpose of hijab, niqab,
yea even burqa, was to render women INCONSPICUOUS. How well they work,
given the stats on abuse of women in Muslim societies, is open to a good
deal of questioning.
More than that, though, is the fact that women wearing such clothing in Western or indeed in any non-Muslim societies are ANYTHING BUT inconspicuous; they stick out like sore thumbs! If Muslim men in non-Muslim societies want women to blend in to the scenery, a better costume might be: a cap (in North America, probably a baseball cap) with maybe a pony tail hanging out the back, either t-shirt or sweatshirt depending on the weather, capris or sweatpants ditto, sneakers and a pair of shades if it's a bright day.
And as a Westerner, I can only conclude two things about women who insist (or their menfolk who insist) on wearing niqab or burqa in a non-Muslim society: either they're shutting their eyes to certain things about their 'host' society or they are deliberately raising a battle standard and flaunting it in the faces of the rest of us!
I don't even want to write what I think of males (they don't even deserve to be called 'men' in my opinion) who compel their women to wear clothing which, given the time and place, amounts to a battle flag saying "We-you-coming-to-get, infidel!" except for that where I come from, most men who deserve to be so called would consider such a gesture unconscionably COWARDLY!
Is a combination of both possible? I don't know.
But, as the hijab has a close resemblance to the headscarves which most women still wear at some points or other, it's decidedly different from the other two. Indeed, it can even be a sign of respect for the 'host' society inasmuch as while it says something distinct about the wearer, neither does it hide her face (anyone's most unique feature) and thus enables her to blend into the societal stream as it were.
Besides, I know someone who honors me with the title 'brother' (and I'm delighted to reciprocate) who wears hijabs with more style, class and downright sparkle than I'd have thought possible before! You know who you are, sister! Mwah!
Anyhow, to conclude: if women want to blend in and not stand out, that needs to be sartorial as well. So, ladies, take my 'sister's' advice on how to wear hijabs if that's what you want. Otherwise, go and get the sweatsuits, t-shirts, capris, caps and sneakers. Dressed like that, most males, men and others, will pass you by without a second thought.
More than that, though, is the fact that women wearing such clothing in Western or indeed in any non-Muslim societies are ANYTHING BUT inconspicuous; they stick out like sore thumbs! If Muslim men in non-Muslim societies want women to blend in to the scenery, a better costume might be: a cap (in North America, probably a baseball cap) with maybe a pony tail hanging out the back, either t-shirt or sweatshirt depending on the weather, capris or sweatpants ditto, sneakers and a pair of shades if it's a bright day.
And as a Westerner, I can only conclude two things about women who insist (or their menfolk who insist) on wearing niqab or burqa in a non-Muslim society: either they're shutting their eyes to certain things about their 'host' society or they are deliberately raising a battle standard and flaunting it in the faces of the rest of us!
I don't even want to write what I think of males (they don't even deserve to be called 'men' in my opinion) who compel their women to wear clothing which, given the time and place, amounts to a battle flag saying "We-you-coming-to-get, infidel!" except for that where I come from, most men who deserve to be so called would consider such a gesture unconscionably COWARDLY!
Is a combination of both possible? I don't know.
But, as the hijab has a close resemblance to the headscarves which most women still wear at some points or other, it's decidedly different from the other two. Indeed, it can even be a sign of respect for the 'host' society inasmuch as while it says something distinct about the wearer, neither does it hide her face (anyone's most unique feature) and thus enables her to blend into the societal stream as it were.
Besides, I know someone who honors me with the title 'brother' (and I'm delighted to reciprocate) who wears hijabs with more style, class and downright sparkle than I'd have thought possible before! You know who you are, sister! Mwah!
Anyhow, to conclude: if women want to blend in and not stand out, that needs to be sartorial as well. So, ladies, take my 'sister's' advice on how to wear hijabs if that's what you want. Otherwise, go and get the sweatsuits, t-shirts, capris, caps and sneakers. Dressed like that, most males, men and others, will pass you by without a second thought.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
SAME FIGHT, DIFFERENT 'FAITHS'
For some reason Asra Nomani's piece today in the Washington Post brought this idea back to my mind: on the one hand liberal, progressive and 'secularized' Muslims, and on the other liberal, progressive and 'secularized' Christians (myself among the progressives)--and nearly all Jews with brains befitting them--are fighting the same battle, although not at the same stage.
The progressive, etc. Muslims are now fighting to separate mosque from state, both here in the West and in their native countries. We now fight to maintain and strengthen the separation we have between church and state. I at least like to think that those of us who are God-, or religiously, oriented understand that separation to be absolutely vital, not only for human freedom of mind (also necessary for technological progress) but also to allow real religion to flourish as it does here where no religious body has been (since 1833) nor will ever be again part of the state establishment. Upwards of four centuries before our First Amendment stated, "Congress shall make no law..." a poet who was himself a friar wrote these words:
When the kindness of Constantine gave Holy Church endowments
In lands and leases, lordships and servants,
The Romans heard an angel cry on high above them
"This day has[the church] drunk venom
And all who have Peter's power are poisoned forever."
If Will Langland could see the corrupting nature of religion and state in the same bed in a time when a different arrangement could hardly be imagined, what excuse do any of us have, with most of the European churches now being near-empty shells as a consequence of that very connection?!
No, those who fear such separation are not afraid on God's account nor for fear of not saving we innocent sheeple but for fear that they won't be able to terrify and enrage their 'flocks' into giving them hefty incomes for doing nothing but terrifying and/or enraging them--that is, with no more reason to 'fleece' the sheeple they actually may have to go and figure out how to earn more honest livings! I say this is so for both Islamist rulers and imams on the one hand and for the far-right Christendomist (new word) preachers, publicists and noisemakers on the other!!
One distinguishing characteristic for them all seems to be a reluctance to 1) use their imagination, especially on behalf of anyone without bursting purses and/or pockets and 2) to use, still less encourage others to use, the rest of their minds except what's necessary to pull the plows so that the massas can keep making money!. Minds awake tend to ask so many seditious and blasphemous (really meaning 'inconvenient' and/or 'difficult for me') questions, don't you know? So they fight tooth and nail against having to actually engage new information and ideas and lie to their flocks that they must consider even such thoughts as blasphemous and possibly damning!
Maybe, Asra, you remind me of these things because self-criticism is also a necessity for engaging the new information, which in turn gives rise to growth and progress for both individuals and societies as a whole.
As for all the should-be hedgerow (or sand-dune?) hollerers, listen up: the hands of many of you are stained, yea, caked (for some) with the blood of others you have either urged to bloodshed or whose blood you have goaded others to shed and that blood will, without your repentances, drag you down to the lake of fire!
And when you stand before the Throne, what will you say to the God Whom we have all been commanded to love with all our hearts, souls, strengths and minds?! Think about it and I hope you charlatans lose plenty of sleep over it!!
The progressive, etc. Muslims are now fighting to separate mosque from state, both here in the West and in their native countries. We now fight to maintain and strengthen the separation we have between church and state. I at least like to think that those of us who are God-, or religiously, oriented understand that separation to be absolutely vital, not only for human freedom of mind (also necessary for technological progress) but also to allow real religion to flourish as it does here where no religious body has been (since 1833) nor will ever be again part of the state establishment. Upwards of four centuries before our First Amendment stated, "Congress shall make no law..." a poet who was himself a friar wrote these words:
When the kindness of Constantine gave Holy Church endowments
In lands and leases, lordships and servants,
The Romans heard an angel cry on high above them
"This day has[the church] drunk venom
And all who have Peter's power are poisoned forever."
If Will Langland could see the corrupting nature of religion and state in the same bed in a time when a different arrangement could hardly be imagined, what excuse do any of us have, with most of the European churches now being near-empty shells as a consequence of that very connection?!
No, those who fear such separation are not afraid on God's account nor for fear of not saving we innocent sheeple but for fear that they won't be able to terrify and enrage their 'flocks' into giving them hefty incomes for doing nothing but terrifying and/or enraging them--that is, with no more reason to 'fleece' the sheeple they actually may have to go and figure out how to earn more honest livings! I say this is so for both Islamist rulers and imams on the one hand and for the far-right Christendomist (new word) preachers, publicists and noisemakers on the other!!
One distinguishing characteristic for them all seems to be a reluctance to 1) use their imagination, especially on behalf of anyone without bursting purses and/or pockets and 2) to use, still less encourage others to use, the rest of their minds except what's necessary to pull the plows so that the massas can keep making money!. Minds awake tend to ask so many seditious and blasphemous (really meaning 'inconvenient' and/or 'difficult for me') questions, don't you know? So they fight tooth and nail against having to actually engage new information and ideas and lie to their flocks that they must consider even such thoughts as blasphemous and possibly damning!
Maybe, Asra, you remind me of these things because self-criticism is also a necessity for engaging the new information, which in turn gives rise to growth and progress for both individuals and societies as a whole.
As for all the should-be hedgerow (or sand-dune?) hollerers, listen up: the hands of many of you are stained, yea, caked (for some) with the blood of others you have either urged to bloodshed or whose blood you have goaded others to shed and that blood will, without your repentances, drag you down to the lake of fire!
And when you stand before the Throne, what will you say to the God Whom we have all been commanded to love with all our hearts, souls, strengths and minds?! Think about it and I hope you charlatans lose plenty of sleep over it!!
Thursday, April 11, 2013
CAMPAIGN ADVICE FOR ALL PROGRESSIVES
This is actually a series of posts put together on this post for (I
hope) the benefit of all progressives campaigning for any office on any
level from local on up to federal for this year, next year (2014) and
beyond! And as I am a 'channeler' of Harry among others, I'm putting myself more firmly at the head of a hopeful progressive Democratic ticket for 2016--unless another 'conviction' pol like, say, Alan Grayson is interested in the top spot!
Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many, or more important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other 42 Presidents preceding him. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.
The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence Missouri . His wife had inherited the house from her mother and father and other than their years in the White House, they lived their entire lives there.
When he retired from office in 1952 his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.
After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.
When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale."
Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."
As president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.
Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale.
Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, "My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!"
I say dig him up and clone him!
I think the more Harrys and Harriets we can find to run for offices at all levels, the better. Weigh in, all!
Something to say about campaigning: if I'm right, most legislative districts, both for Congress and both houses of state legislatures, are compact enough to be well-covered by candidates going around those districts--WITHOUT KOWTOWING TO LOCAL BIG MONEY INTERESTS.
This is important, so I need feedback from this.
For those on the other side, we already know that kowtowing to big money and petty tyrants of nearly all kinds (except experts who really do know their stuff) is what they're about anyway. But we are different. Let me then ask a question: I'm pretty sure none of US like the idea of grovelling before possible campaign contributors because we're under the illusion that it's an 'easier' thing to do than, say, to cover the whole district ourselves even if we do it in church/synagogue basements and local diners.
Think about it: it may take more time (but probably not much more) and more gas, but which is more encouraging and indeed more nourishing to the soul of anyone who really wants to serve the people?
And isn't the purported need for moremoremore moneymoneymoney allallall the g.d. time incredibly corrosive to those same souls? So, really, what is better, at least on the levels up to congressional--collecting money for media spots or going out among the people with a series of 'townhalls' throughout the districts?! Not to mention how, once one is elected, that same need eats up time far better spent on the people's business? Am I not onto something here? If not, let's hear it now!
But on the offchance I am, well, maybe it's time for progressive candidates and incumbents (again, at least up to congressional level) to forgo the pricey crapola and git down with the real people! I suggest that both people and representatives will be happier when THEIR representatives have more time to listen to them and attend to THEIR business! Doesn't this make sense? I think it does. Let's do it!
If
a progressive wins the presidency in 2016, it may well be for nought
UNLESS we organize to also elect progressives to as many seats in
Congress as might be humanly possible. If we can elect more progressives
in 2014, so much the better. But that victory, too, can be rendered
relatively trifling UNLESS we also find, and elect, progressives to the
state legislatures in both upcoming election years
and thereafter. Those so elected must know that they owe their places
to a progressive majority in their states or districts--and ONLY to that
progressive majority, not to any big-money contributor or
contributors!! Better still if our candidates and officeholders have a
strong sense of themselves apart from holding office, but as Mick would
sing, we can't always get what we want and that last might be asking a
bit much as we are just beginning to organize.
But let's begin looking for people whose progressive politics we can trust and who we think would be good legislators, representatives, or senators--and let's start telling our friends and neighbors about them!! Let's organize in such a way that billionaire would-be contributors become irrelevant!
For those who have doubts about the possibility of such a thing, I ask this: how much more time does it really take to cover either a state legislative or senatorial district, or a congressional district--and to speak with as many real people as possible--than it would to beg fat cats for contributions? And which is more satisfying to the soul of any conviction progressive politician?
So, folks, let's keep rolling as we look for and find good people to run for office or to keep in office! And remember--we need progressives at EVERY level of government!!
Beginning NOW, we need to do a both-sides strategy around at least two issues: 1) we ask ourselves whether we should support already-extant officeholders and openly aspiring candidates OR find our own candidates and stay independent of the two-party system. We need to do BOTH--fight the progressive battle within the Democratic party AND build a literally INDEPENDENT network of progressives which may ally itself with, but without being swallowed by, that same Democratic party! 2) We know that GOP will double and triple efforts to suppress voters. This too needs to be fought two ways: frontally through the courts, legislatures and direct protest action--but we also need to look at the 47% of Americans who voted for Mitt and figure out how, and how many, can be turned away from the GOP to the Democrats or other progressives. If we can erode that number by at least 20 percent, that 20 percent can encourage others until the GOP is left with only the billionaires and their sectarian stooges. And at that point our renewal of America may be unstoppable!!
Anyone with any ideas about the vulnerable points of the 47 percent, please share them now! 2014 and 2016 start NOW, brothers and sisters!!!
Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many, or more important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other 42 Presidents preceding him. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.
The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence Missouri . His wife had inherited the house from her mother and father and other than their years in the White House, they lived their entire lives there.
When he retired from office in 1952 his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.
After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.
When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale."
Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."
As president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.
Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale.
Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, "My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!"
I say dig him up and clone him!
I think the more Harrys and Harriets we can find to run for offices at all levels, the better. Weigh in, all!
I
cannot concur heartily enough with this article. To those listening, I
also say that NO ONE who calls him/herself a progressive of any kind
should support anyone, for any office on any level from local on up to
federal, who does NOT agree to throw private money OUT of ALL elections!
If we can't find such candidates, then let's either find them or run
for those offices ourselves! Let's get moving on this NOW!!!
http://truth-out.org/news/
truth-out.org
One
thing which we ABSOLUTELY MUST DO in ALL ELECTIONS this year, next
year, to 2016 and probably beyond that is PIN every person running for
office at ANY level with 'Republican' after his/her name about their
party's 1) professional-style gerrymandering at ALL governmental levels
and 2) scheme to RIG the Electoral College in their favor.
'Everybody does it' is a LIE and any candidate who uses that as an excuse deserves spit in their eye!
This can hardly be more serious, ladies and gentlemen! We are talking about schemes to vitiate our democracy and also the very republican form of government most of us cherish!!
For anyone running for office, NOTHING LESS THAN AN EXPRESS ATTACK AND/OR DISAVOWAL OF SUCH ANTI-DEMOCRACY MEASURES SHOULD SUFFICE!! If anyone tries to shuffle or fudge this question, or worse, that should earn them a sentence of PERMANENT ELECTORAL DEATH!!!
Let NO ONE forget this and let's keep on throwing it at every single 'Republican' candidate for ANY federal, state or local office!!
Don't be dissuaded by anything, including phony pleas to 'let's move on from this' or 'why dwell on this?' Well, there's an A1 reason for 'dwelling' on it: it endangers our democracy at its very foundation, that's why!!
Again, let none forget this and let's all POUND the GOP with it!!
'Everybody does it' is a LIE and any candidate who uses that as an excuse deserves spit in their eye!
This can hardly be more serious, ladies and gentlemen! We are talking about schemes to vitiate our democracy and also the very republican form of government most of us cherish!!
For anyone running for office, NOTHING LESS THAN AN EXPRESS ATTACK AND/OR DISAVOWAL OF SUCH ANTI-DEMOCRACY MEASURES SHOULD SUFFICE!! If anyone tries to shuffle or fudge this question, or worse, that should earn them a sentence of PERMANENT ELECTORAL DEATH!!!
Let NO ONE forget this and let's keep on throwing it at every single 'Republican' candidate for ANY federal, state or local office!!
Don't be dissuaded by anything, including phony pleas to 'let's move on from this' or 'why dwell on this?' Well, there's an A1 reason for 'dwelling' on it: it endangers our democracy at its very foundation, that's why!!
Again, let none forget this and let's all POUND the GOP with it!!
Something to say about campaigning: if I'm right, most legislative districts, both for Congress and both houses of state legislatures, are compact enough to be well-covered by candidates going around those districts--WITHOUT KOWTOWING TO LOCAL BIG MONEY INTERESTS.
This is important, so I need feedback from this.
For those on the other side, we already know that kowtowing to big money and petty tyrants of nearly all kinds (except experts who really do know their stuff) is what they're about anyway. But we are different. Let me then ask a question: I'm pretty sure none of US like the idea of grovelling before possible campaign contributors because we're under the illusion that it's an 'easier' thing to do than, say, to cover the whole district ourselves even if we do it in church/synagogue basements and local diners.
Think about it: it may take more time (but probably not much more) and more gas, but which is more encouraging and indeed more nourishing to the soul of anyone who really wants to serve the people?
And isn't the purported need for moremoremore moneymoneymoney allallall the g.d. time incredibly corrosive to those same souls? So, really, what is better, at least on the levels up to congressional--collecting money for media spots or going out among the people with a series of 'townhalls' throughout the districts?! Not to mention how, once one is elected, that same need eats up time far better spent on the people's business? Am I not onto something here? If not, let's hear it now!
But on the offchance I am, well, maybe it's time for progressive candidates and incumbents (again, at least up to congressional level) to forgo the pricey crapola and git down with the real people! I suggest that both people and representatives will be happier when THEIR representatives have more time to listen to them and attend to THEIR business! Doesn't this make sense? I think it does. Let's do it!
Some facts of political life necessary to take into account.
But let's begin looking for people whose progressive politics we can trust and who we think would be good legislators, representatives, or senators--and let's start telling our friends and neighbors about them!! Let's organize in such a way that billionaire would-be contributors become irrelevant!
For those who have doubts about the possibility of such a thing, I ask this: how much more time does it really take to cover either a state legislative or senatorial district, or a congressional district--and to speak with as many real people as possible--than it would to beg fat cats for contributions? And which is more satisfying to the soul of any conviction progressive politician?
So, folks, let's keep rolling as we look for and find good people to run for office or to keep in office! And remember--we need progressives at EVERY level of government!!
Beginning NOW, we need to do a both-sides strategy around at least two issues: 1) we ask ourselves whether we should support already-extant officeholders and openly aspiring candidates OR find our own candidates and stay independent of the two-party system. We need to do BOTH--fight the progressive battle within the Democratic party AND build a literally INDEPENDENT network of progressives which may ally itself with, but without being swallowed by, that same Democratic party! 2) We know that GOP will double and triple efforts to suppress voters. This too needs to be fought two ways: frontally through the courts, legislatures and direct protest action--but we also need to look at the 47% of Americans who voted for Mitt and figure out how, and how many, can be turned away from the GOP to the Democrats or other progressives. If we can erode that number by at least 20 percent, that 20 percent can encourage others until the GOP is left with only the billionaires and their sectarian stooges. And at that point our renewal of America may be unstoppable!!
Anyone with any ideas about the vulnerable points of the 47 percent, please share them now! 2014 and 2016 start NOW, brothers and sisters!!!
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
'ME NO ALAMO!!'
"Me no Alamo! Me no Alamo!!"
So Santa Anna's troops pled at the battle of San Jacinto where Texan independence from Mexico was won and where the Texans remembered the Alamo. Hence the plea from the Mexicans to save themselves from the same fate as the Alamo's defenders.
I defy anyone and everyone to explain to me how what certain whites say (and with which I am thoroughly fed up), "What's race got to do with me? My folks didn't get here till after 1900 and it's not MY fault!" is any different in kind from 'me no Alamo'?
My initial response to this particular whine is "Ptu!" through two fingers of my right hand, but that requires elaboration.
I'll start by agreeing: no, it's NOT your fault and no doubt your grandparents (or further back for the younger set) heard their share of ethnic epithets. And, yes, more than likely you don't use them either.
However, somewhere along the line you benefited by not being held back and having a real chance to prove yourselves when others, because of their color, did not. You, or your parents, weren't held back because of your familial lack of pigmentation.
So, like it or not, you have benefited from racism. No, you didn't ask for it but I'm sorry; that doesn't really matter. What DOES matter is, what are you doing to erase the extremely stubborn remnants of that structure? Except in the criminal justice system, that structure's gotten quite a bit subtler than it used to be. Jim Crow has been succeeded by James Crow, Esq.
My mother's people were among those immigrants of a century ago too, so I'm one of this crowd as well. But it is from my dad's side (Southern free farmers, aka 'scalawags' courtesy of the ex-planters) that I get my nose and my near-violent antipathy for even whiffs of racism.
Here's the deal: what they used to say in the 1960s is really true, still, today. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
If we're not already there, how do we become part of the solution? First, TUNE OUT Rush, Glenn, Rupert, Breitbart, Drudge and other liars and go to Truthout, Alternet, The Daily Beast, Haaretz and the (Jerusalem) Post for news. Read the Times with a few grains of salt. And read what African-American scholars really have had to say about this matter. Do NOT accept anything cribbed together by Glenn et al.
So, first thing is get and keep yourself correctly informed and form a reasonably accurate idea of the background of the current state of affairs.
Second, don't talk out of both sides of your mouth. If we want the Shoah to be remembered, don't slavery and Jim Crow deserve as much? Promote knowledge of such shameful incidents as the destruction of the thriving and prosperous black section of Tulsa in 1920 (including, by the way, aerial bombing--no joke!!) and the destruction of another prosperous black town in the 1920s in Florida (Rosewood) by the KKK and find out what we can of other incidents. If we want wrongs done to us remembered, what business have we of mouthing 'move on!' to others?! I say to do that is nothing but SHANDA on us and surely race-based slavery and its aftermaths cast shadows comparable to Cossacks, pogroms and attempted annihilation!
Third, develop your own senses for this sort of thing. Teach yourself more analogies; that'll probably help a lot as this is how one learns to see parallels. Do all you can to develop a true sense of who really has the power in each case. While it's true that Proverbs advises us not to 'favor a poor man in his quarrels', this is advice to treat the poor equally, not preferentially. But if the poor today are treated anywhere near equally to others, I've a bridge I'd like to sell you!
So, brethren, no more excuses for not doing our parts. No more whines like the one with which I began this post and no more anythings which have the ring of 'me no Alamo'--or explain to me, in proper detail and without befogging the issue, where, how and why I am mistaken. I have time to wait, so take all the time you need.
So Santa Anna's troops pled at the battle of San Jacinto where Texan independence from Mexico was won and where the Texans remembered the Alamo. Hence the plea from the Mexicans to save themselves from the same fate as the Alamo's defenders.
I defy anyone and everyone to explain to me how what certain whites say (and with which I am thoroughly fed up), "What's race got to do with me? My folks didn't get here till after 1900 and it's not MY fault!" is any different in kind from 'me no Alamo'?
My initial response to this particular whine is "Ptu!" through two fingers of my right hand, but that requires elaboration.
I'll start by agreeing: no, it's NOT your fault and no doubt your grandparents (or further back for the younger set) heard their share of ethnic epithets. And, yes, more than likely you don't use them either.
However, somewhere along the line you benefited by not being held back and having a real chance to prove yourselves when others, because of their color, did not. You, or your parents, weren't held back because of your familial lack of pigmentation.
So, like it or not, you have benefited from racism. No, you didn't ask for it but I'm sorry; that doesn't really matter. What DOES matter is, what are you doing to erase the extremely stubborn remnants of that structure? Except in the criminal justice system, that structure's gotten quite a bit subtler than it used to be. Jim Crow has been succeeded by James Crow, Esq.
My mother's people were among those immigrants of a century ago too, so I'm one of this crowd as well. But it is from my dad's side (Southern free farmers, aka 'scalawags' courtesy of the ex-planters) that I get my nose and my near-violent antipathy for even whiffs of racism.
Here's the deal: what they used to say in the 1960s is really true, still, today. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
If we're not already there, how do we become part of the solution? First, TUNE OUT Rush, Glenn, Rupert, Breitbart, Drudge and other liars and go to Truthout, Alternet, The Daily Beast, Haaretz and the (Jerusalem) Post for news. Read the Times with a few grains of salt. And read what African-American scholars really have had to say about this matter. Do NOT accept anything cribbed together by Glenn et al.
So, first thing is get and keep yourself correctly informed and form a reasonably accurate idea of the background of the current state of affairs.
Second, don't talk out of both sides of your mouth. If we want the Shoah to be remembered, don't slavery and Jim Crow deserve as much? Promote knowledge of such shameful incidents as the destruction of the thriving and prosperous black section of Tulsa in 1920 (including, by the way, aerial bombing--no joke!!) and the destruction of another prosperous black town in the 1920s in Florida (Rosewood) by the KKK and find out what we can of other incidents. If we want wrongs done to us remembered, what business have we of mouthing 'move on!' to others?! I say to do that is nothing but SHANDA on us and surely race-based slavery and its aftermaths cast shadows comparable to Cossacks, pogroms and attempted annihilation!
Third, develop your own senses for this sort of thing. Teach yourself more analogies; that'll probably help a lot as this is how one learns to see parallels. Do all you can to develop a true sense of who really has the power in each case. While it's true that Proverbs advises us not to 'favor a poor man in his quarrels', this is advice to treat the poor equally, not preferentially. But if the poor today are treated anywhere near equally to others, I've a bridge I'd like to sell you!
So, brethren, no more excuses for not doing our parts. No more whines like the one with which I began this post and no more anythings which have the ring of 'me no Alamo'--or explain to me, in proper detail and without befogging the issue, where, how and why I am mistaken. I have time to wait, so take all the time you need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
