illumined horizon

I'm sorry to sound kurt, but this is what I don't get about conservatives. We know social democracies have better education, less poverty/homelessness, a higher standard of living, longer lifespans, more vacation time, and citizens have more unfettered access to the necessities of life than any other form of government (watch Sicko if you don't agree). So I say why the private sector? Not, why government (which is something of a mantra for conservatives). The private sector should do what it can offer at a high standard, and government should step in to fill the holes left by it.

It's close but I'll have to go with Hillary by a nose... I do think Rudy would be worse on civil liberties, and war/peace issues... The thing about a Republican president is always the threat of any liberal/progressive legislation that manages to get through congress getting a veto. I would probably have to say Hillary is slightly the lesser evil of the two for this reason... I'm not going to vote for either one, under any circumstances, so I guess this riff is just for hypothetical consideration.

Apparently, it's being speculated about that a lot of these Republican resignations are about the information that Larry Flynt has... Whoever would have thought he'd be the most important Democrat of this congressional year. But how could we have known in advance that the Democrats would replace the Republican do nothing congress with one of their own.

Flynt is also backing Dennis Kucinich for president.

I don't think the Democratic Party cares about progressives... Maybe a lot of people think you get more with a carrot than a stick, but I think the way the Democratic Party has not been listening to progressives that it's time to bring out the stick (I wish I knew what the precise strategy should be, lol). Just Look at how the Democrats have treated Code Pink. They should be in league with Code Pink, not fighting them...

The funny thing about the fervor for Paul (I may be biased from a progressive perspective), is that he probably does more good in congress then he would do if he won the Presidency (whereas the opposite is true for Dennis Kucinich)... Paul just introduced a bill to repeal the military commissions act, and he votes against all wars. He votes against wars, because he believes the last constitutionally declared one, was WWII, and his self-interested view of the U.S. doesn't allow him to support many/if any American interventions in the world.

I'm not a Democrat, but I am an independent, and I do identify as a progressive. I would say in theory the Democrats stand for economic fairness, efforts to bring about equality for women, people of color, the disabled and homosexuals, protecting the environment, working with the international community and for humanitarian programs in foreign policy, and probably a whole bunch more that's not popping into my head (at the moment)... Do they follow up on these beliefs? Probably not... The Democrats are more of a social club than a cult (which the Republicans are), I think... While the Republicans are a cult with strong 'daddy figure' leaders, and a rigid configuration of sometimes seemingly divergent beliefs (such as market fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism), the Democrats are more of a social circle or knitting club. The Democrats can talk until they're blue in the face, but rarely do they act on their ostensible deeply held beliefs.

Is it me, or is there a progressive liberal/momentum in America? I feel like the right lost their chance from the days when they controlled congress, the supreme court, and the presidency. It's too early to tell, but we may be heading into a new progressive era in American history. Yay!!!

I'm so sick of hearing the argument that if Venezuela is such a great country, why don't more Americans move there. The U.S. is a developed country, while Venezuela was a third world country prior to the Chavez reign. Blame the previous leadership, on the condition of the country and not Hugo. Do we expect our next President to be able to turn around all the damage Bush has done?

Trickle-down doesn't work, it is a lie to justify tax cuts (cycling wealth upward). Capitalism naturally has booms and busts. There are countries with heavily regulated and taxed economies that thrive.

As for the deficit, the borrow and spend Republicans is an accurate characterization.

Bush's recent interview with Charlie Gibson, makes me think of how Republicans oft times accuse Hillary of being a lesbian. It's getting to the point of obsession, though, where they have to face that they're madly in love with her! I've never seen stalking/fixation like this... As bad as Hillary's politics are, I almost feel sorry for her the way these present day neanderthals slobber over her.

In light of the Scott McClellan revelations I've put on my tinfoil hat. I've turned into such a conspiracist with this crowd, that I've been thinking why would the Republicans want Bush impeached? I'm thinking McClellan is doing this, while still working for the crime syndicate known as the Bush administration.

I don't know if this is funny, or way too sad/depressing. Randi (Rhodes) said in the last half hour of her show today, that a major difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats won't take a situation or action beyond all known morals and ethics (a Democrat believes some things are beyond the pale/unreasonable). Republicans, antithetically will take situations or actions as far as they can go. Republicans have no pangs of conscience, or feelings of doing an unforgivable action. Disturbingly, the ends often justifies the means for the right-wing and their operatives.

Just for kicks I emailed this letter to Democratic Underground. They threw me off of their website with no explanation, advanced warning, or any courtesy. Just abruptly voila, I was sent packing. I can't figure out why DU kicked me out. I thought I was serious the vast majority of the time. I did make a lot of jokes, and use a lot of sarcasm over there, but this was a strong minority of my posts. Also, I advocated voting third party quite a bit, so I guess that could be what did it. I doubt I'll get back on their site, but I'm interested to see a response (if there is one, I'm not waiting by the phone). I did send them a previous email where I didn't really get mad, but I did call them 'suckas'; so I don't know if that already has ruined my chances. But anyway, nothing more to say, here's the letter:

Dear Sirs,
Just wondering why you so discourteously kicked me off of your forum? Apparently you don't believe in the first amendment, or the golden rule (as I was not given a warning or even advanced notice, just abruptly thrown off). Can you please give me a thorough explanation of why you tossed me off your site. I liked the site, and just wanted to help improve the discussion. If you tell me what it was that irked you I can desist from doing it.
all the best,
-Sean

We progressives need to take back the media. I'm not sure how they do it, but the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and others seem more proficient at getting their memes/research into the hands of the MSM (as opposed to progressive think-tanks). Taking back the media is of course an ongoing project of progressives, and while I think there's been a lot of advance in this regard on the internet; and a little bit in talk radio, television is probably where we're furthest behind the eight ball (I've thought for a long time there should be a liberal version of Fox Noise). It's not clear to me how to stop the MSM media machine. But what the right calls the liberal media, I personally think is conservative.

I think Dennis is the best progressive in the field. His 'rhetoric' seems more authentic than any them, not like he's going off a script or a set of talking points. He seems in touch with the American people, and not the beltway crowd; more so than any other candidate. Having said that it looks like Edwards is the only populist with a chance to win. So if I was a betting man my money would be on him.

More on the definition of progressive:
In my opinion, progressive is more where the Green Party stands than where the Democrats stand. There are good progressive Democrats, however. Just take a look at liberal rankings of the House and Senate. Most of the 'most liberal' I would say are also progressive. For example, a Sherrod Brown in the Senate, or a Barbara Lee in the House.

I don't like the misanthropic stuff, when it comes to the environment. You know the save the planet kill yourself type stuff. Some conspiracy theorists even think the global elite actually wants to reduce the population by billions. Having said that, it's entirely possible our 'leaders' will kill us one day with nukes.

Thom Hartmann mentioned the other day that Obama and Hillary have both coasted to victory in all of their Senatorial elections. While Edwards had to beat the Jesse Helms machine to win in his state (and Thom believes Bush stole Ohio, Kerry and Edwards won there). Also Thom cited some polling, that showed Edwards beating all potential Republican challengers, by more than Hillary would. Although Edwards on paper appears to have only six years of experience, he has earned some admirable stripes in political campaigning.

I tried to watch, and wasn't able to. I hated how no one could answer any question. The worst was the driver license issue. Where they all said they had to have comprehensive immigration reform in order to be for licenses for undocumented workers. Even after Wolf put his foot down, and said this is a yes or no question.

These candidates have to address every item they can in their responses, instead of actually answering the questions. There's no flow to the debate. The questioner and the candidate are talking at each other, not with each other. Something has to be done about these caricatures of real debates.

I loved the part in Sicko where the Americans in France were crying, because they were receiving benefits gratis, that their parents have worked their whole lives for (and in some cases were never able to get, which they had to pay for in the U.S. of course).

I think there's a sentiment out there, that's starting to say not only is the term progressive overused, but it's hard to know what one is talking about when s/he use's it (because of the voluminous number of meanings for different people). I don't agree with this, however, I find progressive to be a useful word; although I don't think it should be used interchangeably with liberal.

I've been searching around the net for my idea of what progressive is, but I've come up empty on an exact definition (or my opinion of one). Therefore, I'll just use individuals to give a sense, of what I think the term progressive really means. I personally think progressive refers to an individual or group being left of liberal in ideology. For example, I would label Ted Kennedy as a liberal, while I would consider Ralph Nader to be a progressive. In my opinion, socialists and anarchists are also included in progressivism, but they are not also liberal(s) (unless social democrats and not 'pure' socialists, for workers control of the means of production); whereas Ralph Nader could also be considered very liberal.

I favor social democratic policies myself, which I believe is synonymous with favoring progressive policies. Perhaps this is where progressive can be confusing, and it can undermine its meaning for a lot of folks. I consider the Sandinistas to be progressive as I do the CNT anarchists in Spain, old Labour in Britain, and FDR Democrats in the U.S. This might sound strange, if not nonsensical, but I find two common threads in all of these disparate groups. I think that progressive really has to do with creating policies that regulate/reform business for the benefit of the vast majority of working people. Moreover, it has to do with increasing the level of democracy in a given society or nation; it is these dual commonalities that make an individual or group progressive. In my opinion, it is also these criteria that can be used to determine which elected officials are there for the majority of us, and which are there to work for the powerful and the elite.

I was reading this article, and I think I've got my own take on what would be a good strategy for progressives to follow:

As I have written before, we have seen more than 50 years of betrayal of liberal and left voters and their issues by the Democratic Party, and despite the efforts of would-be reformers, the situation has been getting worse, not better.

The answer, I submit, is to tell Democratic incumbents and party officials that we've finally had it. We are not going to be ignored or walked over or taken for granted any longer.

How to do this? By mass resignations from the Democratic Party, at which it is made crystal clear that there are two reasons for the actions: Congress isn't stopping the war funding, and Congress isn't initiating impeachment hearings.

I am proposing that left and progressive organizations, civil rights groups, Church groups, anti-war coalitions, labor unions and other progressive and liberal groups start organizing mass actions that involve marches to the local board of elections or voter registrar's office, for collective de-registration from the Democratic Party. Here in Philadelphia, we could have a mass march from Independence Hall to the Board of Elections, for example.

This is a strategy that would hit the Democratic Party leadership like a bucket of ice water--or a brick--in the face.

I just think it's (politics) a numbers game. We need millions to do what probably a lot of independent or third party progressives are already doing. If a Democrat is a real progressive (like a Dennis Kucinich) support him, but if not support a Green, a Socialist or anyone who's left of the Democrat. Instant runoff voting would also help this proposition. We could create a progressive America, if only enough people would get behind this approach.

I came across this list from a message board I participate in. In my opinion, what it reflects, is that the military is government. The right-wing Republicans of course don't believe in government. Although the troops (the majority of) vote Republican, I think that if they looked into veteran's issues they'd see that the Democrats are clearly superior to Republicans in caring for vets (I believe Kerry won the support of most/all veteran's groups). People that run for office are obviously much better informed on political issues (than the average Joe), and they do the necessary research to realize the Republicans are no friend of the soldier.

Regardless of what one thinks of Ron Paul's positions on the issues, if you are seriously considering voting for him you should take into account that Paul is motivated by his respect for 'individual rights'. Personally, I'm motivated by social justice not self-interest. Kucinich, Nader, McKinney (and David Cobb or whoever runs Green), would do most if not all of what Paul would do, but they would progress a lot of other things forward as well. Whereas Ron Paul may agree with progressives here and there, his overall vision is a deeply reactionary one. Progressives who vote Paul may have a bittersweet pill to swallow, should Paul move into the White House come early 2009.

I don't have any kids, but when I worked at a bookstore I was amazed at all the tripe out there 'for kids'. Books about farting dogs, murdering teachers, gossip clubs, and the like... I was thinking what happened to Narnia, Beatrix Potter, and Wind in the Willows? They say every generation thinks the next one will be the ruin of the country, but take a look at what our youth are reading; and you'll think this too.

In the case of religion I think some religious people believe that if sin/immorality comes into their community/nation, that it will undermine everyone. It will bring in the bad/devil, and undermine the well being of society. They don't really look at other cultural and economic forces that act negatively on their standard of life. This is the dilemma of the religious right (it seems to me), and is why they are so ignorant about what's really going on in the country.

I believe in live and let live myself. The actions of others might have some influence on me (I don't think physics knows this yet), but what folks do is their own business. Of course, if some one is being hurt, that's another matter; but barring that I believe in an individual's freedom to do what s/he wants.

Very funny UFO Dennis? I don't care if Dennis says he saw the Virgin Mary (or he is the Virgin Mary, lol) he's by far the best on the issues, and the MSM's pathetic attempt to caricature him is truly sad. There's so much substance to his campaign and he gets so little press, it's absolutely shameful that the MSM devoted so much time and effort to this.

For example, my favorite talk radio host, Mike Malloy's presidential candidate seems to be Dennis Kucinich; yet he's doing Draft Gore announcements during the commercial breaks of his show? Am I the only one confused by this? I personally don't see much common ground between Gore and Kucinich.

On the issues: Gore is a free trader, Dennis is not. Gore is (or was) DLC, the DLC probably wouldn't even accept Dennis is he tried to join their ranks (which he would never do). Gore is or was pro-nuclear power, Dennis is against it. Gore is pro-death penalty, Dennis is against it. Gore is for the war on drugs, Dennis is against it. Gore doesn't not support decriminalization of marijuana, Dennis supports it. Gore supports fast track authority, Dennis opposed. Al Gore supports non-government universal insurance (meaning keep the insurance companies around), Dennis supports getting rid of the HMO's and going to a universal single payer system. Obviously I could go on, this is just the tip of the iceberg...

I just tried to take a look at Daily Kos (I hadn't been there in eons), but it seems now one has to register and give his/her personal information to get in. What a bunch of crap, as a small time blogger I know how hard it is to generate traffic, I simply don't believe in dissuading people from taking part in a specific blog (seems undemocratic to me). Oh well, I'm not Kos's biggest fan, Markos seems like a smart guy from what I've seen of him; but I don't think I really agree with him politically. He's too opportunistic for me, I've even heard he's smeared Dennis Kucinich on his website. Just like I don't get Ron Paul, I really don't get the Daily Kos blog either. I've gone to read it a few times, but it doesn't do a whole lot for me... I'm not writing this to slag Markos (who's fighting the good fight); I'm just trying to vent a little bit, about something that's irking me at the moment.

I never realized how much the macho mindset, often leads one to vote Republican. I just saw an Iraq documentary called War Tapes, and one of the soldiers in it (who was reading the Nation Magazine) said that the majority of his comrades would be voting Bush. Moreover, he said the ones who weren't voting Bush, would be doing so secretly (and not admitting it to their friends). He chalked it up to the rhetoric of fighting it out with the terrorists being appealing to a lot of 'macho' soldiers. I guess all the warmongering/chest-thumping of the right/Bush, has paid some unfortunate dividends at the ballot box.

I've never seen a candidate where people really don't understand the implications of his program as much as Ron Paul. He seems to have succeeded at being all things to all people, when he has extreme (completely out of the mainstream) positions on a great many issues. Is the internet responsible for all the sheople that are following Paul? That's clearly part of it, but does it explain everything? I'm not sure.

In my opinion what's really weird, is that you'd think (at least I would) Kucinich, or at least Edwards, would really catch on (not that they have the internet presence that Paul does, I'm talking about a non-front runner candidate catching fire; why Paul?). I don't know how many folks that are reading this have read Dude Where's My Country by Michael Moore; but the whole point of that book is that Americans poll liberal/progressive on a slew issues, but policies are not implemented that reflect where the American people stand.

Aaarrggghh, I was duped by hype. It seems Rosie posted the following on her blog tonight.

the show that never was
Posted by ro on November 7th at 7:06pm in in the news

msnbc
one hour
live
following keith olbermann

we were close to a deal
almost done
i let it slip in miami
causing panic on the studio end

well
what can u do

2day there is no deal
poof
my career as a pundit is over
b4 it began

just as well
i figure
everything happens for a reason
bashert - as we say

and on we go

Oh well, I'm certainly not her biggest fan, it seemed like something different for cable news though.

In my opinion, MSNBC is hiring Rosie to compete with Larry King. Her show won't be hard news, it will be more like whatever you call what Larry King does (infotainment?). She will do a lot of show business, tabloid/celebrity stories, natural disasters, murders/abductions, psycho-killers, and things like that. Still for 9/11 truth, and her liberal politics she will at least be better than Dan Abrams (who is there now).

All the ballyhoo about Ron Paul, is much ado about very little in my judgment. Ron Paul doesn't support publically financed elections, so a hypothetical Ron Paul Presidency wouldn't take the corporate paymasters out of our government. Ron Paul is of the school of thought that monetary contributions to political candidates are 'speech'; but until the money is taken out of American politics we can only expect piecemeal reform of the government, not a full draining of the swamp.

The Democrats are giving me little faith that they are a progressive/liberal party. In my opinion we need proportional representation and/or instant runoff voting in this country. These things would go a long way towards empowering third parties. They would also make the Democrats stand more for progressive values, and the Republicans stand more for the values of their base (dread the thought). There's a lot of talk about how polarized the country is, but there's also a lot of folks who say the two parties actually agree on too much. While I see some of what the polarization people are talking about, I think I actually agree with the second argument more...

Have a look see at this article. It's amazing to me that the network that canned Donahue (who hosted their highest rated show at the time) for being too anti-war, is now suggesting having the lineup they would have with Rosie. They say the capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with, that may be the only explanation in this case; with weapons manufacturer/oligopolist GE.

I really don't want to take up blog space to highlight too many books, but this one looks like a must read. Here's some excerpts from a review, scary stuff:

Printed by the socially conscious Chelsea Green Publishing House, "The End of America" describes the "ten classic steps dictators or would-be always take when they wish to close down an open society." Wolf makes abundantly clear that "each of those ten steps is now underway in the United States today."

Wolf warns: "John Adams wrote, 'Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.' We stand at a defining moment for America. If we do not act now, we risk the freedoms that sweat, blood, sacrifice, and loyalty to inalienable rights have earned us over the past two-hundred thirty-one years."

More bone-chilling reading:

In a letter to booksellers and librarians, Wolf wrote: "We in America have been letting democracy run on autopilot, trusting 'the pendulum' of reason and fairness to swing back. But the pendulum is broken in an unprecedented way. It turns out that liberty, like nature, requires a relationship with us if it is to sustain us."

In short, we have failed the test of vigilance.

Naomi Wolf reminds us that freedom cannot be taken for granted. If one doesn't fight for it against the forces of oppression, we will be like the slowly boiling frog that doesn't realize that it has been killed until it is too late.

I just want to say I have no hard evidence of anything, but it's something I've been worried about pretty much Bush's entire presidency. I wasn't alive, but apparently many speculated during the Nixon administration, that Nixon might try to cancel elections. As much as we should take this seriously we don't want to get wrapped up in paranoia... I found an article from 2004 that projected the Bush/Kerry election wouldn't happen (or would be postponed).

Over time I've become more and more suspicious that Kerry gave the 2004 election to his old buddy Bush (another issue I don't have hard evidence on, but when I look back to the inept, hapless campaign that Kerry ran I can only come to one conclusion). After all Skull and Bonesmen make a pact to benefit each other above all else (for the success of one another); if I'm not mistaken this includes God, country, and family.

Pervez Musharaff declared a state of emergency in Pakistan. It's always interesting to me that the MSM most often refers to Fidel Castro as 'dictator', while referring to U.S. allies like Pakistan's dictator as 'president'. Musharaff just made it that much harder for that to happen, the MSM will still probably have the gall to do it at least from time to time.

Schumer's going to cave in and vote for the duplicitous Mukasey, he's 'my' Senator (I have to live with this piece of garbage); I can't tell you one thing he's done in his whole time in office (I think he voted against Alito, whoopty do he's should have filibustered that rat). He NEVER stands up to Republicans or the right-wing. I live in a state that's supposed to be one of the bluest, but I've got two of the worst Democratic Senators in the Senate, aarrrgggh....

RFK, Jr. lives in my state, I'm hoping he runs for the Senate at some point.

This is a pretty good piece remembering the death and life of Paul Wellstone. He truly was one of the best politicians in American history (maybe in the history of the world). I think it's a little hyperbolic on the Senate though, we've got Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, and Sherrod Brown... Ted Kennedy and Tom Harkin are pretty good too, and I probably missed at least a couple more.

With the exceptions of Kucinich and Gravel (who don't seem to be showing up in the polls, except on progressive websites and liberal talk radio) John Edwards clearly has the most populist, democratic, incisive rhetoric of this election year. The way Hillary's been coronated, it's tough to say what kind of a chance he has, unfortunately... The media seems to be focusing on the national polls. I think Edwards does much better (polling wise) in Iowa and New Hampshire. It's really not right for the media to focus on national polls, because the candidates are spending their money in Iowa and New Hampshire, and maybe a few other states right now; but since when has the 'liberal' media ever been fair to some one speaking like Edwards.

It's interesting that 'liberal' Democrats are opposed to democracy. The two major parties don't own the votes of the citizens of the U.S., they should earn them by standing up for some principles, not being the lesser evil. If the Democrats would push for instant run-off voting, in congress now, there would never be another 'spoiler' (there can't be a spoiler unless one assumes political parties have rights to votes, no individual outside myself or party has a right to my vote).

The Democratic party has not run anyone since McGovern (with the possible exception of Walter Mondale) who stands for a good deal of what I believe in. If Nader doesn't run I'll just vote Green or Socialist anyway (unless Kucinich or Edwards wins the nomination, there's a snowball's chance in hell I'd vote for Obama if he started to speak more populist and clearly). To defend the 'spoiler' idea, reminds me of the Yes Men skit, where one of the Yes Men spoke in front of (I think if was the WTO, or WEF) about how votes should be purchased. He argued citizens should not be given freewill to decide, but candidates should buy citizens' votes.