 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
ellisonz's Journal
Not to start a mad dash to discredit who I am and what I stand for (please don't):
But I thought it was pretty cool (bragging rights): http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/p... I found out yesterday morning the second time they called (computer glitch).   to People Power!We got there around 930 AM and wait.
 Strange Signs  The Hope fumes got to me quickly and I accidentally erased the close-up picture of tent sign: HOT OBAMAsadas  Pastries! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malasada  Cultists Waiting for Hope flavored OBAMAsadas  Congresscritter Neil Abercrombie begins the brainwashing  Biased Media Fawns  American Samoa Delegate Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin Faleomavaega, Jr. in strange (Indonesian) garb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eni_Fa%27aua%... .  Maya Soetoro-Ng (Barack's half-sister) speaks in "deep, hearty voice" to the Obamabots.  The Obamaniacs swoon  No Hope For You?  Mt. Changehope  Kapio'lani Park - Est. Crowd Size - 200-250 Organized by "Obama 'Ohana" (community-family) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohana  Posted on: Friday, February 15, 2008
COMMENTARY Obama will break through gridlock By U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie I first met Sen. Barack Obama's father at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa campus soon after my arrival there following statehood in 1959. Barack Sr. had just arrived from a newly independent nation — Kenya. Everyone was drawn to his dynamic, energetic manner. His intellect was as brilliant as his smile; his personality was every bit as magnetic and charismatic as is his son's. Shortly thereafter, Sen. Obama's mother appeared, scarcely 18, quiet yet intense in her demeanor, outwardly calm but possessed of an adventurous spirit and openness of heart toward everyone. They met and married, and in time, little Barry, as we knew him then, was born, perhaps destined to become president of the United States. Barack Obama's story could not have started anywhere else in the world but Hawai'i. The values of the Sen. Obama we consider for the presidency this coming Tuesday are grounded in the aloha spirit. The foundation of his character was shaped by Hawai'i's multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society informed by the meaning of aloha. Above all, Sen. Obama embodies the message of Hawai'i to the world: Our diversity defines us rather than divides us. That message is electrifying voters all across the nation. It is a message of unity, hope, optimism and promise. It accounts for the tidal wave of support Sen. Obama is building, which I trust will crest in Hawai'i. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbc... CLINTON: Well, you know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern.
Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote 'How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath?' Wednesday, April 21, 2004 Posted: 10:10 AM EDT (1410 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority." "How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?" the New York Democrat asked Tuesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live." "I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen." ---- "Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/... / But clearly it was a vote for if not war, the immenent threat of war... SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east... But I guess it is too tough to own up to the fact that your vote was tragically flawed and that is your responsibility alone given that 23 Senators disagreed with your vote (this was no Patriot Act): MR. RUSSERT: Let me bring you back to October 10 of 2002, when the Senate had to vote on the authorization to go to war. This was Senator Clinton on the floor of the Senate. (Videotape, October 10, 2002): SEN. CLINTON: So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein, this is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed. (End videotape) MR. RUSSERT: Casting your vote for conviction for the authorization for use of military force against Iraq resolution. That same week Senator Obama gave a speech, and this is what he said: "I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors. ... I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that" "invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale" "without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." Who had the better judgment at that time? SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, let's put this in context. You didn't show my entire speech--of course, you don't have time to do that--because I made it very clear that my vote was not a vote for preemptive war. I said that on the floor, I said it consistently after that. It was a vote to put inspectors back in to determine what threat Saddam Hussein did in fact pose. And in Senator Obama's recent book, he clearly says he thought that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and that he still coveted nuclear weapons. His judgment was that, at the time in 2002, we didn't need to make any efforts. My belief was we did need to pin Saddam down, put inspectors in. But I said I was against preemptive war, I spoke out against it. ----- MR. RUSSERT: Viewers can read the transcript from November 11 when I did talk to Senator Obama about this. He also added that from his vantage point, the administration had not made the case, but let people read it and make up their own minds. I want to stay with your vote because that same day, Senator Levin offered an amendment, the Levin amendment, and this is how the New York Times reported it. "The SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, if I had a lot of paper in front of me, I could quote people who say something very differently, so I know you're very good at this and I respect it, but let's look at the context here. Number one, the Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don't believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president. ----- MR. RUSSERT: Did he have better judgment in October of 2002? SEN. CLINTON: You know, look, judgment is not a single snapshot. Judgment is what you do across the course of your life and your career. MR. RUSSERT: A vote for war is a very important vote. SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, we can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. You know, when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war, when I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, "if you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job," I was told that's exactly what we intended to do. Now, I think it's important to take a look at the entire context here. If Senator Obama's going to get credit for his speech and his position against the war, then he deserves to be asked what happened in '03, '04, '05, '06 and '07. I voted for the authorization... MR. RUSSERT: I asked him those very questions... SEN. CLINTON: And his answer was very political. MR. RUSSERT: ...in November. SEN. CLINTON: I mean, his whole point is that he doesn't make political decisions. MR. RUSSERT: Let me, let me ask you this way. Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian, I talked to her and she's been on MEET THE PRESS, talked about the qualities in a president. And she said one of the most important is that you learn from mistakes. Looking back on your vote in October of 2002, what can you learn from that mistake, the way you'll make decisions in the future? SEN. CLINTON: Well, I have said that obviously, I would never do again what George Bush did with that vote. He misused and abused the authority that was given to him, in my opinion. And we can't turn the clock back. I've taken responsibility for it. It was a sincere vote at the time, based on my assessment of, number one, what the potential, you know, risks might be if left unchecked, given the problems that we were facing in the world with global terrorism, and the hope that we would get inspectors back in to figure out what had been going on since '98. We hadn't had inspectors since '98. I, I would not have given President Bush the authority if I knew he would deliberately misuse and abuse it. And as I said, I was told by the White House personally that the point of the authority was to send a very clear message to Saddam Hussein that he was going to have to be held accountable finally, that we would know once and for all what he had there that could be used as he had used it in the past. But you know, Tim, I think that it's only fair to look at the entire context, because, you know,I was against a preemptive war. I said at the time that would be a mistake. Obviously, President Bush doesn't listen to me or a lot of other people,and unfortunately, we're in the situation we are now, and we're going to have to have very careful and steady leadership to get us out with the least amount of damage. Dear Hillary, It is not a Jesuitical argument to debate the merits of the ability to make the correct decision on whether or not to support unlimited military intervention in a hostile foreign nation. Why can't you own up to the fact that it was a vote for war and that even Chuck Hagel, who you try to hide behind, realized it was a vote for war. In his floor speech of October 9th, 2002 he states very clearly that this was most likely not a vote for diplomacy but a vote for war: However, Iraq, because of its resources, geography, capabilities, history, and people, offers even more complications and greater peril and, yes, greater opportunities and greater promise. This is the vast unknown, the heavy burden that lies ahead. The Senate should not cast a vote in the hopes of putting Iraq behind us so we can get back to our campaigns or move on to other issues next year. The decision to possibly commit a nation to war cannot and should not ever be considered in the context of either party loyalty or campaign politics. I regret that this vote will take place under the cloud and pressure of elections next month. Some are already using the Iraq issue to gain advantage in political campaigns. It might have been better for our vote to have been delayed until after the elections, as it was in 1990. Authorizing the use of force against Iraq or any country for any purpose should always be weighed on its own merits, not with an eye on the politics of the vote or campaign TV spots. War is too serious, the human price too high, and the implications unforeseen. While I cannot predict the future, I believe that what we decide in this Chamber this week will influence America's security and role in the world for the coming decades. It will serve as the framework, both intentionally and unintentionally, for the future. It will set in motion a series of actions and events that we cannot now understand or control. In authorizing the use of force against Iraq, we are at the beginning of a road that has no clear end. The votes in Congress this week are votes for an intensification of engagement with Iraq and the Middle East, a world of which we know very little and whose destiny will now be directly tied to ours. http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021009/... The Iraq War Resolution was not a vote for war? Give me a break! It might be politically easier for you then to actually accept responsibility for your vote and not just habitually lie about what most of us know to be truly false. John Edwards has apologized. John Kerry has apologized. Chuck Hagel has said that Iraq is "an absolute replay of Vietnam" and that "we have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion." I presume that includes the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. MAYBE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF YOU HAD VOTED PRESENT!   Steve Lopez:
He won't say 'I told you so . . .' October 24, 2007 Former San Diego fire Chief Jeff Bowman, who repeatedly warned that his city wasn't prepared to handle major fires, is out back of his house near Escondido at 7 a.m., watching the smoke come over a ridge and wondering if he'll lose everything he's got. ---- There's no way to adequately staff for fires of this magnitude, Bowman says, and he doesn't want to turn so much scorched earth and misery into an I-told-you-so speech. But as we drive to get his mother, he can't help but go over some of the facts. Although the city of San Diego has a fire department, the county doesn't, leaving many suburban and rural areas to rely on volunteer departments. The city has but one firefighting helicopter and just 975 firefighters for 330 square miles and 1.3 million residents. Compare that, he says, with San Francisco, which has 1,600 firefighters for 60 square miles and 850,000 people. ---- http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lo...  The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. in St. Louis on April 10, 1957:
There are three basic attitudes that one can take toward the question of progress in the area of race relations. And the first attitude that can be taken is that of extreme optimism. Now the extreme optimist would argue that we have come a long, long way in the area of race relations. He would point proudly to the marvelous strides that have been made in the area of civil rights over the last few decades. From this he would conclude that the problem is just about solved, and that we can sit comfortably by the wayside and wait on the coming of the inevitable. The second attitude that one can take toward the question of progress in the area of race relations is that of extreme pessimism. The extreme pessimist would argue that we have made only minor strides in the area of race relations. He would argue that the rhythmic beat of the deep rumblings of discontent that we hear from the Southland today is indicative of the fact that we have created more problems than we have solved. He would say that we are retrogressing instead of progressing. He might even turn to the realms of an orthodox theology and argue that hovering over every man is the tragic taint of original sin and that at bottom human nature can not be changed. He might even turn to the realms of modern psychology and seek to show the determinative effects of habit structures and the inflexibility of certain attitudes that once become molded in one's being. (Yes) From all of this he would conclude that there can be no progress in the area of race relations. (Alright, Alright) Now you will notice that the extreme optimist and the extreme pessimist have at least one thing in common: they both agree that we must sit down and do nothing in the area of race relations. (Yes) The extreme optimist says do nothing because integration is inevitable. The extreme pessimist says do nothing because integration is impossible. But there is a third position that is another attitude that can be taken, and it is what I would like to call the realistic position. The realist in the area of race relations seeks to reconcile the truths of two opposites while avoiding the extremes of both. (Yeah) So the realist would agree with the optimist that we have come a long, long way. But, he would go on to balance that by agreeing with the pessimist that we have a long, long way to go. (Amen) Now let us notice first that we've come a long, long way. You will remember that it is was in the year of 1619 that the Negro slaves first landed on the shores of this nation. They were brought here from the shores of Africa. Unlike the Pilgrim fathers who landed at Plymouth a year later, they were brought here against their wills. Throughout slavery the Negro was treated in a very inhuman fashion. He was a thing to be used, not a person to be respected. (Yeah, That's Right) He was merely, But it was an uneasy peace. (Yeah) It was a negative peace in which the Negro was forced patiently to accept injustice and exploitation. For you see, true peace is not merely the absence of some negative force, but it is a presence of some positive force. (Amen) I think that is what Jesus meant when one day his disciples stood before him with their glittering eyes, wanting to hear something good, and Jesus looked at them and said, in no uncertain terms, "Brethren, I come not to bring peace, but a sword." He didn't mean, "I come to bring a physical sword. He didn't mean, "I come not to bring positive peace." What Jesus is saying, "I come not to bring this old negative peace which makes for deadening passivity and stagnant complacently. And whenever I come a conflict is precipitated between the old and the new. (Yes) Whenever I come, (Yes) there is a lashing out between justice and injustice. (Yes) Whenever I come, (Yes) there is a division between the forces of light and the forces of darkness." (Yes) Peace is not merely the absence of tension, but it is the presence of justice. (Yes) http://www.mlkonline.net/progress.html  "America" itself is an imperialist crusade and from there on it's been straight down hill in terms of humanism.
 D.W. Griffith - The Clansman - "Birth of a Nation" - 1915.  William Howard Taft on a Water Buffalo - Philippines - 1904. Basically: Conquest > Colonialism > "Manifest Destiny" > Consumption > Imperialism > Fascism Bury My Heart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanahani    By Tom Oliphant "Richard Nixon is a no good , lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in." -Harry S Truman "Richard Nixon has never been one of my favorite people anyway. For years I've regarded his existence as a monument to all the rancid genes and broken chromosomes that corrupt the possibilities of the American Dream; he was a foul caricature of himself, a man with no soul, no inner convictions, with the integrity of a hyena and the style of a poison toad. The Nixon I remembered was absolutely humorless; I couldn't imagine him laughing at anything except maybe a paraplegic who wanted to vote Democratic but couldn't quite reach the lever on the voting machine." -Hunter S. Thompson, Pageant (July 1968) But I will say, like Bernie Sander's I've simply stopped identifying as a liberal because of so much of this and self-identify as a Socialist in Democratic Party clothing. I don't think there's that much per say wrong with a well-of liberal party. The problem becomes when that perception of "elitism" forces us away from our core principles, for example the recent immigration debate i.e. the New Southern Strategy. What exactly is Tabbibi's solution? A label change to progressive?
 I will say though that Tabbibi clearly does not know his history and is making a largely rhetorical argument. The claim: "They haven’t yet come up with something to replace the synergy of patrician and middle-class interests that the New Deal represented," completely misrepresents the genesis of the New Deal in the face of the "the business of America is business" crowd of the GOP. The Roosevelt's although the Right-wing has always tried to portray them as hypocrites, did an enormous amount that truly did benefit all Americans. So although I advocate revolutionary tactics in some instances, I believe that this country can change, because it has changed both in favor of racial pluralism on some level and in favor of social mobility on some level. Ultimately, this disconnect between the understanding of the history of this country and the conditions of the present public discursive corrupts the basic premise of the article i.e. that something is wrong with the label of "liberalism." Consider the following passage: "That, in sum, is why I don’t call myself a liberal. To me the word “liberalism” describes an era whose time is past, a time when a liberal was defined more by who he was fighting against – the Man – than what he was fighting for. A liberal wielding power is always going to seem a bit strange because a liberal always imagines himself in an intrepid fight against power, not holding it. I therefore prefer the word “progressive,” which describes in a neutral way a set of political values without having these class or aesthetic connotations. To me a progressive is not fighting Mom and Dad, Nixon, Bush or really any people at all, but things – political corruption, commercialism, pollution, etc. It doesn’t have that same Marxian us-versus-them connotation that liberalism still has, sometimes ridiculously. It’s about goals, not people." Matt Tabbibi this is not about goals or perceptions, this is about people, and liberalism throughout it's history has always been about people. Matt Tabbibi exemplifies exactly what he is railing against, and that is just sad. Cho Seung-Hui and Matt Tabbibi have one key thing in common. As much as they rail against their own "victim-complex" (shades of Larry Elder), they are perfectly willing to play it out as they have concieved it; everyone is a victim. I frankly believe this book should be the "official" book of DU: http://www.amazon.com/Nickel-Dimed-Not-Get... If you're still reading this,  Among the characteristics of late capitalism (or the 'third age' of capitalism after freely-competitive capitalism and monopoly capitalism) are said to be:
* the hypertrophy of the state, and systematic attempts by the state to moderate economic fluctuations as well as exerting more and more social controls; * intensified monopolistic and oligopolistic competition for superprofit in world markets; * the co-optation and integration of trade union and oppositional political movements into the state apparatuses; * the globalisation of financial capital, commercial capital and production capital; * a third technological revolution (electronics, synthetics, computerisation, biotechnology) and accelerated technological innovation; * accelerated turnover of capital and the pressure to engage in comprehensive economic planning of investments; * An increase in the rate of surplus value attributable mainly to increased productivity of labour; * a permanent arms economy in which the military industry becomes a significant factor in economic growth; * permanent currency inflation and growing debt levels; * the hyper-concentration and centralisation of capital ownership and management on a world scale, in giant industrial and banking corporations; * neo-colonialism involving unequal exchange and humanitarian imperialism where armed intervention in foreign countries is morally justified by reference to humane concerns; * the corrosion and breakdown of all traditional social institutions by market forces, leading globally to a succession of continual wars, armed conflicts and unarmed social conflicts; * (according to Leo Kofler) an optimistic belief in the power of technology to solve all problems, or, alternatively, a cultural pessimism. Some writers like Andre Glucksmann extrapolate this pessimism as a nihilist ideology; others like Elmar Altvater and Tariq Ali have interpreted it as a retreat to fundamentalism; and yet others like Frank Furedi see the pessimism as a cult of human vulnerabilities diminishing human potential and sowing unwarranted anxieties; * an ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor, within and between countries, as strong market actors defeat the weaker ones; * the growth of "excess capital" (overcapitalisation) and "excess capacity", meaning that much additional capital is no longer invested in expanding production, but diverted to trade and capital accumulation based on already existing physical and financial assets - with obvious effects on employment opportunities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitali...   All societies have a basic structure of social, economic, and political institutions, both formal and informal. In testing how well these elements fit and work together, Rawls based a key test of legitimacy on the theories of social contract. To determine whether any particular system of collectively enforced social arrangements is legitimate, he argued that one must look for agreement by the people who are subject to it. Obviously, not every citizen can be asked to participate in a poll to determine his or her consent to every proposal in which some degree of coercion is involved, so we have to assume that all citizens are reasonable. Rawls constructed an argument for a two-stage process to determine a citizen's hypothetical agreement: * the citizen agrees to be represented by X for certain purposes; to that extent, X holds these powers as a trustee for the citizen; * X agrees that a use of enforcement in a particular social context is legitimate; the citizen, therefore, is bound by this decision because it is the function of the trustee to represent the citizen in this way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justic... THIS IS OUR AMERICA - ALL OTHER ARGUMENTS ARE SOPHISTRY |
Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. Ayn Rand was a Communist Sympathizer (essay) By ignatzmouse Obama Nominates Catherine Eagles, Kimberly Mueller & John McConnell to the US District Court By usregimechange Countering an anti-Obama FB group... By Drunken Irishman Carrying where alcohol is served By MichaelHarris Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours.  In one day, Grayson piles up another 40 (Total = 50) co-sponsors for Medicare buy-in bill 154 recs : By kpete Shove It! 127 recs : By NanceGreggs Bill Maher: Obama’s ‘mistake’ was not telling Republicans to ’suck on it’ 104 recs : By Amerigo Vespucci Grovelbot's Moderating Tips 71 recs : By EarlG French bread spiked with LSD in CIA experiment 54 recs : By Judi Lynn Best Wishes to Sen. Reid's wife and daughter thread 50 recs : By Botany Wanna live like a European? 50 recs : By Kalyke Email from Grayson -- His Medicare For All has FIFTY (50!) Sponsors!!! 46 recs : By gateley Reid to McConnell: Reconcile this. 45 recs : By ProSense YES!!!!! SUCK IT, STUPAK!!! 44 recs : By backscatter712 Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
 |
