• on a comment on Do You Have An Activist Endgame? over 7 years ago
    Well, judging by the responses here,...we don't count here at all.
    Somehow, I'm not surprised.
    Just remember, we vote in greater numbers than you do.  We contribute to political candidates more than you do.  We work for our candidates more than you do.
    Guess who will have the last laugh.
  • comment on a post Do You Have An Activist Endgame? over 7 years ago

    We were born under the McCarthy Fascist regime.  Then we had to deal with The President from Valium.

    Our activism was social/cultural, not political, because of those circumstances.  The Beat Movement (include Kerouac, Cassidy, Ginsberg, Corso, McClure) focused on freeing ourselves individually, not as a political movement.

    We produced the critiques of The Status Seekers, The Organization Man, and a healthy labor union movement.

    In short, we laid the groundwork for the Children of 62 to go political when the wedge of the 1960 election came along.

    So, are we even on the radar screen of the current generation? Serious question--do we even count?

  • comment on a post Ok, Let's Really Play Brinkmanship over 7 years ago

    why would Bush not just write a signing statement saying he would personally determine that the goals had been met, and go ahead and certify compliance and spend the money as each goal came up?

  • on a comment on AIPAC Started Lobbying Today over 7 years ago

    to records of political contributions to Washington politicians.  Has anyone done an audit of Lieberman's haul from AIPAC relative to other politicians, and his subsequent voting record?  That would be some hard evidence either way.

  • comment on a post AIPAC Started Lobbying Today over 7 years ago

    I get flamed hard for suggesting that Lieberman, an orthodox jew, may support the Iraq war because it takes pressure off of Israel at a time when it's military is weak and in need of overhaul.

    Now I read here how powerful the AIPAC is, and how it can so dictate US policy.  Sounds like confirmation of my speculation, to me.  If it's not, what am I missing?  Seriously, I'd like to know.

  • I've asked some young men who support the Iraq war, why?  The responses almost always includes one of those words.  When I ask them to explain, they say that we have a duty to support our troops because they're over there, and therefore we must support them so (or until) they will win.  They seem to be speaking straightforwardly, and I can't tell if its out of unquestioning patriotism, or a fear that they're wrong, that we really are losing.

    Their answer is only biased or uninformed if I project my opinion onto it. They see it as honest and upright. That's as far as I can go.

  • comment on a post The Senate's Iraq Problem: Lieberman over 7 years ago

    This question started a firestorm in another context, and I hope it can be addressed rationally here.

    In discussions, people have suggested L. is promoting the Iraq war because, in part, it takes pressure off Israel.  Before it degenerated into yells of "racism," it went like this:

          1. L. is a Jew who supports the Jewish homeland.

    1. Right now the Israeli military is in bad shape, admitted by the Israeli military and government.
    2. Israel needs some time to get its military back together.
    3. If Israel were attacked right now, it could be in big trouble.
    4. As long as the US is in Iraq, the focus of Islamic extremists will be on Iraq.
    5. Thus, Israel has time to reconstitute its military while the US is in Iraq.
    6. L. has an interest in seeing that Israel is secure and has time to pull its military together.
    7. Thus, L. might (might) support US involvement in Iraq in part (in part) to give Israel that breathing room.

    No, I am not a racist, a troll, or a Zionist plant. I just heard the argument, looked at a map and the news for a while, and saw some possible (possible) merit in the argument.  You all know more about who finances L.'s campaigns, which organizations he belongs to, etc. What does your knowledge of such things say to that argument?

    I'm just asking.

  • comment on a post C-Span Backs Off Copyright Claims over 7 years ago

    For me this is a tougher and deeper question than copyright vs. contract law.

    Out here in FlyoverLand, C-Span is the only television source of unbiased, uncensored, un-spun, un-commented-on-by-voiceover news that we have.  If I want to know what that congresshominid said, C-S is the only place I can go.  Same for committee hearings.  On weekends, C-S2 does those great presentations by authors that no one else will ever air, certainly not PBS.

    So, I want C-S to live long and prosper.  We need them.  Now, if all their content goes public domain, they lose a source of revenue they need to stay in business.  Last time I checked, they aren't just rollin' in the coin.  If anyone can use anything C-S, I worry that C-S will go in the financial toilet, and we'll lose everything they do.

    On the other hand, out here in FlyoverLand, local kkkable companies can cut off C-S anytime they want to.  There's no contract with the kkkable companies that requires them to carry C-S.  So, about a year ago, Fuck-Time-Warner cut C-S2 off their cable feed here in Houston/southeast Texas!
    No more Senate hearings for us, no more Book TV (which I really, really miss).  Despite everything they tried to do, C-S could not get back on our feed (I kept in touch with both sides, and it was all on the C-S main page for weeks). The only way I can get C-S2 is by computer feed.  Talk about censorship!

    Well, I can't be at my 'puter 24/7, and can't download large quantities of video feed, so I'd like to have another venue out there that would provide free, archived C-S2 content I can't get on Fuck-Time-Warner kkkable.  But there ain't none.  Video clips on something like YouTube, only longer, would be great.

    So there's my dilemma in all this.  C-Span is terrific, and I want them to be able to continue to offer what they do and more.  But if local kkkable censors them off tv, and no one else can offer their content, what can I do?  

    As an old Texas teacher used to say, Keep 'em ignant and keep 'em on the fahm.

  • comment on a post Turning The Tide For The Progressive Movement over 7 years ago

    I can't read BOR, since I'm a maroon-blood Aggie.  Any alternatives?

  • Ok, maybe a dead person would be better than a Repuglikkklan, but really, you-all have got to do better than what you've come up with so far: one corpse and several no-names.
    I think that's a pretty good indication of the state of the Democratic party in Texas today.  Really.
    And Barbara Ann ran as good a race as a Democrat could today.  There just isn't the money out there, or the media opportunities (notice how her campaign was blacklisted out of most television coverage? Who owns the media? Repuglikkklans!!!!)).
    And someone has to get a grip on one other reality: Texas is and Old South Slave State.  That's the hard red core of the repuglikklan party.  
    We'll win statewide after we build locally.  The ChristoFascists are too deeply entrenched. The Big Money will flow to the repuglikkklan.
    I remember being denigrated around here by some all-knowing Grand Poobahs for my pessimistic take on the Galveston County vote.  Well, guess what:

    I TOLD YOU SO!!!

    The racist Ron Paul ran away with his election.   Nick Lampson pulled one out, but take another look at the substantial votes for a write-in candidate impeded by an incredibly awkward write-in mechanism.
    We are in deep sh*t in this state, and the only solution is a year-round, every day campaign of education, expose, and demands for accountability. To paraphrase one of the enemy: it will be a long hard slog.  But that's what it will take. Buckle down and get to work.  
    Every day.  
    Build locally.  

  • comment on a post Dems Look to Extend Gains in the Senate in 2008 over 7 years ago
    Hey, I'd like to see it happen, but I live down here, not in clueless Washedup DC, and there just ain't no Dem chance right now.
    Look, this state just reelected Kay Bailey Cheerleader against a very good democratic challenger.  You think two years will turn that around against a certified Good Old Boy who's made all the Right connections.
    Someone's been smokin' some of that funny weed from out the back 40.
  • on a comment on Harold Ford's Unremarkable Loss over 7 years ago
    Have a historian friend who's an expert in this area. The WORD is that WV was admitted to the Union on condition that the abolition of slavery be placed in their constitution.  They put it in, and only then, after the change, were they admitted to the Union. So, WV has not been a slave state at any time that it's been in the Union.
    We're back to 3 out of 4, a "C."
    This is turning into "work."  Ugh.
  • on a comment on Harold Ford's Unremarkable Loss over 7 years ago

    True today, showing that places and people can change. The toughness of the fight for Democrats in Missouri may show, to some degree, the residual effects of deep racism in the rural population, even today.  But we can take hope.  People can grow and change, especially with urbanization. Perhaps that's the key everywhere: the more the population concentrates in cities, the better the chances for Democrats.  Someone will have to crunch the numbers on that one: I plead statistical incapacity.

  • on a comment on Harold Ford's Unremarkable Loss over 7 years ago
    WV usually isn't counted because it wasn't a state until 1863, and its creation was largely the work of WVirginians who defected to the North to fight the South.
    But, heck, I'll concede 4 out of 5.  That earns a "B."
  • on a comment on Harold Ford's Unremarkable Loss over 7 years ago
    but 75% is still a "C". (You can look it up now.)
    As for the comment--well of course! Where is that not true?
    But when considering the chances for a black candidate in a statewide contest, the history of a state, v. a. v. slavery, is a pretty important factor.


Advertise Blogads