Author: epppie

I’ve been accused of being a troll for not bowing down to the overrriding principle of electing Democrats, no matter what.

Ok, I’ve checked out the FAQ, and while I am no troll and I resent that vile and vicious insult, I can see that I do not fit in at Booman Tribune, because it, like Daily Kos, chooses to fetishize electing Democrats above all other moral and poltical concerns.

So be it.  Such a site is not only a site where I do not want to post, but I consider it a treasonous site, and enemy to the people and the constitution.   John Adams pointed out, I believe, that partisan politics would destroy this country and so it is doing, in front of our very eyes.

You, Booman, like Daily Kos, are, in my opinion, wittingly or unwittingly traitors.  I ask you both to rewrite your Faqs, to make it clear that while your emphasis is exclusively on electing Democrats, above all other concerns.

But do as you will.  It’s your site.  I have my own site.  I’ll do my own thing there.

I won’t pretend that I don’t hope to see a Dem in the presidency in 2008. But that’s not why I think we need to impeach Bush and Cheney (et al). After all, I don’t think there’s much difference between Dems and Pubs. When you come right down to it, both parties are in the pocket of the corporatocracy, or – more specifically – in the pocket of the military/industrial/complex. Right now, the Democrats are just as busy as the GOP at greasing the wheels for war with Iran. On both sides of the aisle, the money comes from those who benefit from Empire and from War. Barring a massive rise up by the citizenry (not a moment too soon), that won’t change in 2008.

But what we CAN change in 2007 is this: we can roll back the precedents for tyranical presidential power established by W, with considerable help from his recent predecessors. By impeaching the Bush administration, we can establish new precedent. We can affirm that

lying the Nation into war is intolerable;

war of aggression is intolerable;

shoving aside Genava is intolerable;

sanctioning torture is intolerable;

shoving aside UN agreements is intolerable;

imprisonment without due process is intolerable;

warrantless domestic spying is intolerable;

politicization of the justice department is intolerable;

politicization of other federal departments is intolerable;

defying Congress through signing statements is intolerable;

defying Congressional subpeonas is intolerable;

lying to Congress is intolerable;

denying the explicit powers given to Congress by the Constitution is intolerable;

outing a CIA agent for political purposes is intolerable;

covering up such an outrage is intolerable;

I believe that if Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison and Lincoln could come to us today and speak to us, they would tell us that repudiating the lawless regime that currently claims power over us is more important today than it was in their time. They would, I think, tell us that we have, in the Constitution, the means we need to restore the Republic/Democracy they gave us.

As Franklin said, ‘you have a Republic, if you can keep it’.

I would rather have a failure like Giuliani, or an egomaniac like McCain, or a Machiavelli like Romney, or even an second rate gipper like Thompson in the Oval Office in 2008, if the authority of the President were reined in through impeachment, as it should be, than Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich, if it weren’t.

And is there anyone in the country, on either side of the aisle, who doesn’t tremble at the thought of Hillary Clinton as President, given the near dictatorial powers Bush has taken on? Imagine someone with the same general outlook as W about the imperial uses of the US military and with the same commitment to aggressively pro-business and anti-human globalization processes, and with the same love for the potential for social control that could be weilded by the state, and with the same commitment to privatization of public functions and spaces – all that with Bush’s dictatorial powers and more smarts.

The issue has never been who actually sits in the oval office, though of course the better the President the better off the country will be. The real issue has ALWAYS been that whoever sits in the oval office must respect the fetters, the checks and balances of our system. The worst president is preferable to the best dictator.

copyright paul kane 2007 all rights reserved

and maaany more…

copyright paul kane 2007 all rights reserved

copyright paul kane 2007 all rights reserved

copyright paul kane 2007 all rights reserved

Thom Hartmann talks a lot about corporations, about the way devious means were used to give them full citizenship rights in this country, even though they are obviously NOT human beings, a fact which is crucial, because they have none of the limitations that human beings have.

From Screwed:

But Nike isn’t a person – it’s a corporation.  Corporations are nonliving, nonbreathing, legal fictions.  They feel no pain.  They don’t need clean water to drink, fresh air to breathe, or healthy food to consume.  They can’t be put in prison.  They can change their identity or appearance in a day, change their citizenship in an hour, and sever parts of themselves ot create entirely new entities.  They can live forever.  Some have compared corporations to robots in that they are human creations that can outlive individual humans, performing their assigned tasks forever.

Nike was asking the courts to declare that this artificial construct – the corporation – had the rights of a person like you or me.  Why would it want such rights?  Not to be a better citizen of the USA!

Hoffman could have added that Corporations often have unlimited resources and influence by comparison with even the richest individuals and certainly in comparison with most individuals.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/screwed/author.htm

Tricky Dubya

copyright paul kane 2007 all rights reserved

I only get PBS television, so the forum hosted by Tavis Smiley last night was the first one I’ve been able to see.   It was held at Howard University and it focused on issues of Black America, which I was glad of, because I think those are issues crucial to All America.  Although we Americans pride ourselves on our history of tolerance and diversity – and there are some good reasons for that – I think it would be truer to say that we have been a nation of racism, intolerance and attempted monoculture.  
 

I think that the legacy of our dark past still afflicts our society today, in racism and in various forms of fascistic thinking that have become enshrined in our culture, that unfold in the widening gap between rich and poor; in imperialism and military recklessness globally (usually directed at brown people);  in a prison system that is the largest in the world and that disproportionally targets people of color; in the dominance of the State and the Corporatocracy over the personal lives of Americans; etc..

All this is highlighted, of course, by the Supreme Court decision which came out just yesterday, which overturns decades of affirmative action in schools (as I understand the decision).   When I was in school, I understood affirmative action as a critical part of the educational process, because education inherently benefits from diversity.  It seems to me that yesterday’s decision was a milestone victory for monoculture, and I think monoculture is a core principle of fascism (eg, think of the Nazi crusade to purify Germanic culture), so I feel that our Supreme Court took us all a giant step towards fascism yesterday.

Here’s a good diary on the SCOTUS decison:
http://www.neverinournames.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=4224E571A390DEA59BE863F812B42143?diaryId=1693

The timing of last night’s Presidential debate, or forum,  was thus sparkling.  The debate itself, unfortunately, was not.

Overall, I was very disappointed.   I think part of the problem was the format.  Tavis said that the goal was to get in as many questions as possible.  Because of this, they limited responses from candidates to one minute – and then, halfway through, they cut from one minute to thirty seconds!  It seemed really obvious to me that the Candidates had  difficulty responding to the very challenging questions in a minute or less.   I would argue that the overall affect of the chosen format was to ensure that NO questions got answered.  They would have done much better with fewer questions and more time allotted per response.

Or, perhaps, they should have tailored the questions that were being asked, so that the questions would lend themselves to quick answers.  I think both the candidates and the issues were drastically shortchanged by the Chosen format.  Considering the timing, this was cruelly ironic.  These issues have long been shortchanged far too much.

I cannot honestly remember very well what the candidates said.  They just seemed unfocused.  And it was late at night when I saw the rebroadcast, to be fair, so maybe I too was unfocused.  Hillary, true to Clinton tradition, seemed both assertive and vague, citing detail effectively from a rhetorical point of view, but not in a way that clarifed her basic positions.  Biden was very angry about Darfur, as we all should be.  Richardson was hapless, unable to articulate clearly.  Edwards seemed uncomfortable and insincere.  Obama was torn between his progressive image and his addiction to right wing talking points.  Kucinich was the most clear and the most solid on the issues, but seemed somehow like a guy hanging in there mainly to stretch the discussion (not a bad thing in itself, of course).  Gravel was very annoying.  Yes, he is willing to go after Sacred Cows that the others won’t touch, which is a good thing, but he seemed obsessed with the sales tax, which is an inherently regressive tax, and he was often inappropriately aggressive.  Dodd was solid, but seemed caught up in Senate Battles of Old.

If I had to pick a highlight, I couldn’t.  The low point was probably Edwards, loudly proclaiming his passion about poverty, rather than simply showing it via how he talked ABOUT poverty.  Don’t tell us, John.  Show us.  

I’ve been strongly in Edwards’ corner up till now, because he has seemed to me to be the only candidate who really ‘gets’ poverty, despite his personal wealth.  I’m STILL in his corner, but I wasn’t encouraged by what I saw last night.

Perhaps ironically, I’ve been strongly opposed to Hillary, because I think her track record is one of talking the progressive talk, yet walking the corporatist walk when the chips are down (same as Bill).  And when it comes to Iraq and Iran and Palestine/Israel, she seems to be a straight on Hawk.  I’m not entirely sure she’d be any slower to hit the “war” button than W.

But I have to admit that last night she seemed the sole professional amongst amateurs.  Is that good or bad?  I’m not sure.  But I have to admit that she handled the difficult format with (relatively) amazing aplomb.  I appreciated that.

Kucinich seemed the best candidate, in terms of his solid grasp of the issues and of the way they interconnect.  He moved easily back and forth amongst problems created by free trade that isn’t fair trade; by the cost of the Iraq war (in terms of morality and in terms of money);  by the justice system that isn’t just;  by the educational system that isn’t equal but is separate; and so on.  But I can’t seem to throw off the impression that he is not quite fully committed to the idea of actually being President.  It’s like he knows he is the underdog and he’s TOO comfortable with that status.

So, overall, I was  disappointed with the Dem candidates.  I hope the format was at fault.  

copyright paul kane 2007 all rights reserved

copyright paul kane 2007 all rights reserved