The courage of the House of Representatives has leaped exponentially and maybe the insanity of this war will finally have the center stage back that somehow was pushed cleverly behind the curtains for too long a while.  Just to let you know cyrena that I have added my name to the Iraq war Rapid Response team and sent a message for a dozen of my friends to add their names as well.  I know they will.  And I have also joined the USAction and True Majority project.

Can’t say I am at all interested in Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream (unless they have the sugar-free kind and I haven’t seen any yet), but it is way cool they were the founders of that political action group.  I guess you could use Oreo cookies to talk about the federal-budget-in-the-toilet-because-of-the-f*n-war priorities.  As Gertrude Stein might say, progress is progress is still progress.  Even if it is a snail’s pace of progress, it is something I suppose we should be grateful for but like Max I want to see the sometimes prolix talk of Conyers and Kucinich actually be able to convince their colleagues to act a bit faster.

And I mean how dare George Bush call those who are bold enough to take a sane view of a Middle East peace effort an appeasement?  Bush, the most rightfully reviled president this country has ever had, has the colorless impudence to take a potshot at Senator Obama who is the only one who gives a thin ray of hope of the possibility that there could actually be some dialogue with the usually intractable Arabs.  How can we continue to put up with that crazy man, George?  At least this will give Obama the opportunity to magnify even further the need to make that breakthrough. 

The step in California is another step for other states to come to their senses over the inalienable rights of all people.  Of course, as expected, I heard on PBS that the mentally afflicted religious right vermin will now seek an amendment to the state constitution.  We can only hope the bilious religious right will be buried once and for all under the avalanche of human reason. It was shocking and emotional to watch Mildred Loving talk about what happened to her and her husband under the evil racism of the United States, a country that has a constitution to protect its people.  Oh yeah!  I am not encouraged yet.

I’ve copied this verbatim from an email message that I received from the True Majority network. I’m counting this as progress, and I specifically suggest that THIS is what we’re about on this thread, though it may not be enough for some people.

For me, (who can in fact remember as far back as 2000 and the years until 2004, and even beyond until 2006 (finally started to see a peep of reaction and organized outrage) this IS what I call progress.
*******

“I wanted to share some breaking news. The House of Representatives just voted 149 to 141 to cut off funding for the war in Iraq.

This was followed by votes to put significant restrictions on President Bush’s war policy, including a timeline for withdrawal, and creating a new GI Bill to help returning veterans.1

Make no mistake, your efforts were a key factor in this decision. In the past two weeks, you placed over 2,300 calls to House members in targeted districts, demanding they bring a responsible end to the war and then calling for the exact vote result that happened today.

This is the strongest vote by the House since the war began in opposition to the President’s war.

But, this is just the first step.

After today, the fight goes to the Senate where we won’t have much lead time to generate the same sort of pressure. Sign up to join our Iraq War Rapid response team to get urgent action alerts as the battle over war funding continues.”

http://act.truemajorityaction.org/p/7002/petition?p etition_KEY=55

Thanks,

-Ilya

Ilya Sheyman
Online Organizer

****************
Then of course there is the decision by the California Court to provide for the recognition of same sex marriage. I’m not personally planning to marry anyone of either gender, but I’m very committed to the principle that human beings should be able to marry who they want, and be accepted into our society for WHO they are, not ‘what’ we’ve been programmed to be imagined by others.

This comes just a week or so after the death of Mildred Loving. She and her husband Richard brought us further into the humanity of our society by standing up to the miscegenation laws of Virginia that prohibited interracial marriage. California was the first state to do away with such ‘laws’ in 1949, and so it may be fitting that California has come to this now as well. I’d like to believe that to be the case.

I’ve not yet read the comments from Barack Obama on this. I know that he was not in favor of same sex marriage, but did approve of civil unions. I personally don’t see a whole bunch of difference, other than the ceremony. But then, I’m sure I’m looking at it though a legal philosophy lens.

Still, I find this all encouraging.

Max,

Your suggestion or proving that you have something different to say, is what your problem is as I see it.  Even though I agree with your basic ideas, so to argue the point’s are pointless, as I said before, it is your self appointed approach to shoving it down people is what makes it hard to swallow, even when in agreement. 

Must be just me. Your suggested bold request, is really what I am talking about.  So be it.

I am not anti-religious either which is a huge mistake most of the religious make about lumping all atheists in one bowl of cookie dough,  I have said if not here then often elsewhere on TD that I believe those who see into their religion and practice it out if the good that is written in their doctrines is healthy for themselves and the world at large, especially for those who do not want to do the work of thinking for themselves, or by their cultural indenture cannot think for themselves.  But I do not think most of the world’s religious do good for others outside of their religion (and sometimes even within their own religion)  given that Christians and Muslims make up most of the world’s religious.  The bloodshed these groups (and historically other non-western religious as well) in the name of their god, supposedly one and the same god in the Abrahamic traditions regardless of their unique expression, have caused throughout history and continues to this day is shocking and appalling and without any doubt anti-humanistic and without any redeeming value at all. 

Spirituality is a topic I will save for some other forum. 

Perhaps we will meet again.

Shenonymous,

Just one clarification - I’m not sure from what I posted how I’ve inferred “divinity”.

I don’t consider myself “religious” (though I’m not anti-religion) and I try not to confuse religion with spirituality.

But that said, I’m not talking about some out body experience or something; to the contrary.

In any case, good to “talk to you”.

Max

I wholly agree that change is what will save the world and myself as a participant in it. I found the right Robertson site. The newsletters will now come to my email address.  Although I liked what Judge Robertson stands for as well!  The good that Nader does is not being questioned by me.  I have already said I still listen to him.  It is just that I do not want to see a repeat of 2004 where the Republicans win the election by default, de fault of de dumb and ignorant public whose eyes are often blinded like lemmings ready to go over the edge with the next vacuous “American Idol.”

The word authenticity is getting overworked these days as the need for buzz words seems to be part of our culture, but I find myself wanting only to be associated with those who are authentic in their intentions about the world in which we all live and their associations with me.  I am a student of human behavior and am totally committed to contributing to the well-being of all human beings.  And I do that in my profession as an educator.  That and to avoid self-deception are the only moral imperatives in my book. 

I have appreciated your comments and views, though I do not share any notion of divinity as I think all genuine altruism for world and self is generated within one’s own mind through understanding of what it means to be real.  What the truth of reality is I do not know for sure, but it will be what I make of it for however long I live.

Abbia una buona vita e un giorno piacevole anche!

Leefeller

I think you’ve got a chip ol boy. I’ve never intimated religion. And it’s you that seems bent on using the word perfection.

I would suggest, if I can be so bold, that you take the little “check mark” off the “Notify…” so you aren’t aggrivated. Or just skip over what I’ve posted. There are many other places you could post your discontent or approval (of an endorsement) I’m sure.

Shenonymous, no need to distance yourself from what I’m saying when you agree with much it.

While I very much like Kucinich (Conyers was very disappointing after demanding impeachment when in a weak position, than taking it “off the table” when he could actually do something, speaks to the entrenched power of the coporatized system), but Obama and Kucinich are as far apart as two people can be on these issues; and there’s no reason to think that will change.

If you google Ivan Illich economic, you’ll find a host of articles and writings. He did die but not that long ago, and being dead does not reduce the quality of the work and life lived.

And yes, James Robertson is a common Scots name, but if you again, google his name and economic you’ll get a slew of writings and books written. He is still very much alive. Both have spoken at the E.F. Schumacher Society Lecture series.

As far as providing a detail plan. I provided these names because there are real limits (time, but also space on this site) to begin to lay out a “plan”. I have sketched a mere outline.

It’s simple to follow the one set up by the Parties they’ve been using the same one for over 200 years! That’s hardly a plan for change. Voting, in fact, is what’s referred to as “thin” democracy by Francis Moore Lappe. Living democracy engages people day in and out at the community and local level. Simply voting for what two parties have to offer is hardly a substantial act of democracy which requires constant involvement on earthly matters about learning/education, community health care, new cooperative business models, building community and much more… There’s much work to change. 

I’m not saying that others here are may not be heavily involved in community activism and change and improvement. etc. I’m not judging what people are not discussing here. What I am saying is that the energy to a duopolistic “plan” as if that plan was an innovative concept is misguided.

I am not saying don’t vote. Not at all. Vote for whom ever you think is the best of what you’re left with. But to hawk it as if it’s change…now that’s where I get off the train…and get up on my little soap box.

There are too many progressive ideas here to be caught up in the every two-four year hoopla that are elections. Each with a “rock” star to hype it. All fully vetted and marketed by corporate media to make the show “exciting”. Not to see it for what it is…and it’s been that way certainly since the book “The Selling of the President” was written (and it has gotten ever more sophisticated as it learns from Reality TV (American Idol and others) what American buttons to push).

When the very process creates a palatable set of candidates, you get mostly image. Nader sees that which is why he keeps running. Not to win, but to keep tolling the alarm. Acknowledging Nader’s important role does not make one a Naderite.

To read and see intelligent people (people who are dear friends of mine outside of TD) fall for it each and every time, is just a waste. I’m certainly not a lone in thinking that.

Have a great day!
Max

Obama’s endorsement by Edward’s, was a refreshing bit of relish on the salad.
Since I put this post to sleep, coming back to check up on it,  seems some things have happened and some are the same.  The incomplete philosophical talking points and others have caught on to Max’s sanctimonious all knowing religious approach to his perfect world

Reinventing the wheel under ones name and arguing how great the discovery and dumb others are for not seeing the same greatness, is like a joke without a punch line. 

Must say the political screen is becoming long of tooth.

I think I understand what you are getting at.  I accessed information on all your suggestions:  Judge James Robertson.  Interesting fellow, Quote: “The government’s use of the Kafka-esque term ‘no longer enemy combatants’ deliberately begs the question of whether these petitioners ever were enemy combatants,” I find a very compelling statement.  He is a thwarted judge unable to perform his duty.  I was impressed at the time he made those statements and I am still impressed but what does he have to do with the election?

I found E. F. Schumacher’s project attractive. “Both social and environmental sustainability can be achieved by applying the values of human-scale communities and respect for the natural environment to economic issues.

Building on a rich tradition often known as decentralism, the Society initiates practical measures that lead to community revitalization and further the transition toward an economically and ecologically sustainable society.”  Only the money and power mongers (the corporate world) would object, is an easy guess. 

Ivan Ilich, except for Russian architect and constructivist, died in 1959, was not found anywhere except for the story by Tolstoy that I read in high school.  “The Death of Ivan Ilich” is more or less a confessional of Tolstoy and his existential realization of his own death and his mental salvation through a belief in God.  What I think about Tolstoy is not relevant here but I, for one, do not think his solution for his epiphany a necessary conclusion for a meaningful life.

I also researched PROUT.  It seems an interesting alternative to economic systems in competition right now, capitalism and communism.  I wholeheartedly agree with the overall and essential convictions. “The basic necessities of life should be guaranteed to all as a birth right at this stage in human evolution.” Not sure why the tag “at this stage in human evolution” is needed, but the rest of the statement of purpose seems right.  Adding value to society is what humans ought to be doing.  I do not have a definition of “spirituality” but I do understand the word universal.  The redistribution of material resources is too close to communism for my comfort as corruption seeps in no matter who is in charge under the control of those principles.  Marx had an altruistic intention but mankind cannot eliminate its need for power and greed.  I have no idea what PROUT means by divinity.  What kind of divinity could it be?  Is it different than the god(s) that is prayed to by millions of Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, monotheistic or polytheistic?  There are over a hundred religions and cults, and sects in the world today.  Which is the best one because they do not all agree on even the most fundamental tenets.  And what about the humanist atheists who hold the highest standard of morals and the good of the world as their basic creed?  PROUT is an altruistic project with many of the same goals as many other such enterprises.  I have trouble with its need to single out the rights of women though.  For me the rights of women is inalienable and not subject to discussion!  Crimes against women are dealt with as if they were exactly like men.  Right to property for women is the same right as it is for men.  The empowerment of women as a group is assumed!

All of these explorations yielded humanitarian, benevolent, charitable all the right definitions of an altruistic world.  But I fail to see how these high minded and good notions affect this election.  If you are not interested in this election, what are you doing on this forum?  You should be promoting your philosophy of the world at universities, on talk shows, wherever you can gain an audience for that specific purpose. It is not getting much traction here.  For my vote and money, Barack Obama is the closest candidate to the descriptions you have offered here.

Thank you anyway for the wonderful exploration I got to do in searching out all of these items.

cyrena and Shenonymous,

I’ve made some attempts to “explain” but since time spent seems to be wasted - so far I’ve been called everything from an anarchist, to a McCainite, to a Naderite, to an idealist, to a cynic, and more (and all on this thread!)

Hardly a way to get to the meat of anything.

At bottom, I don’t think change, real deep change comes by 1) infiltrating the system with it’s center(s) of power ready to nullify you at every turn or 2)Go head to head with it. Candidates aside, these approaches either fail in the short run or turn out to create a worse situation than what existed.

My use of nature is something you may want to research. We are, I’m sure you’ll agree (hope), part of nature. Systems of domination represent a lashing out at the very thing we need - our air, our earth, our water by commoditizing and plundering. If that seems like so much hocus pocus so be it.

The kind of change I’m talking about starts with where you are. The federal government is like middle management in a corporation, it is a gatekeeper not a facilitator, it manages the rules and regs and usually controls the communication and knowledge stream. Build sustainable local economies and daily democratic environments that are socially and economically just. Then link or create global bridges to villages, towns and cities. The centers of power will either adapt or collapse. That’s change. You’re not going to get that by voting for Hillary, Obama, or McCain, or Nader (as much as Nader understands this better than any of the others). It can’t be done within the system which exists on different terms and will reject foreign incursion.

Anyway, you’ll probably think I’m just… whatever. Take a look at thinkers like Ivan Ilich, or James Robertson, or E. F. Schumacher or the work in PROUT (Progressive Utilization Theory) and many others. The world is changing while you worry about a faux horse race.

Just a quick addition to the excellent post (as usual) from Ernest.

The basic structure of the laws actually PROHIBIT the feds from overturning State Laws, without going through the whole long and drawn out process of a SC decision.

Consequently, when California voters put the marijuana initiative on the ballot, voted for it, and approved it, the feds were in violation when they descended on California to destroy those crops and close down all of the clinics, etc, etc.

There are STILL a handful of physicians who will write prescriptions for it, because they can lawfully do so. Physicians are licensed by their STATES, and not by the Federal government. Still, because of the federal interference (unlawful as it is) few (physicians) are willing to take the risk. (not so different from the days of old when abortion was considered criminal, and any physican providing such medical care was subjected to prison/fines/loss of license).

So, I said that to say that Obama wouldn’t be doing anything extraordinary in his own assessment of it. It’s the law the way it is fundamentally structured, because federal law is NOT supposed to supercede state law.

And, if all the rest of this stuff (including all the shit that the pharmies push) can be federally regulated, then there’s no reason that marijuana can’t be either.

Oh the other hand, I’m not sure that it should be. There would be an advantage if the states or the feds could collect some revenue from it, since marijuana is the largest cash crop grown in the US, despite the federal efforts to burn all of it. (not enough of those ATF folks to burn it all I suppose)

Still, there are inherent problems in that as well. I’m sure if the corps had figured a way, they would have brought it under regulation long ago, just like alcohol and tobacco. (nobody finds it at all odd that the US economy was built, at least in part on tobacco.)

Seeing as how tobacco/alcohol have become a health plagues, there is some irony to that legalization, while marijuana, which can actually be used for medical purposes, remains illegal.

Yesterday I read the entire article on the link you provided about Obama and his judicious use of federal law regarding medical marijuana, one that I think is completely sane.  Another site I found extremely helpful is ObamaTracker at
http://rawobama.typepad.com/raw_obama/

While making it clear that I am not aligning myself with what Max Shields says, because of his partially developed arguments I have not even a simple illustration of what he proposes, I do have questions in the same spirit as cyrena who questions Obama’s stand on Israel, what I would like to see is Conyers and Kucinich, both strong Congressmen, actually prevail in their progressive bills. such as their single-payer health care program.  While I vigorously agree with both of their efforts, how many have they been able to get passed through Congress, if they haven’t, why not, or doesn’t that mean much?

It seems like nothing rational said can shake Max’s entrenched green zone residence regardless of their ineffectual entrance into political office.

S.  If you go to the link I provided, you will see that this is precisely what Obama said.  He will not misuse valuable Justice Department resources to go after physicians who prescribe medical marijuana, and, if a change in federal laws regulating medical marijuana as a controlled substance are required, he would favor that.

Max’s assertion that Democratic progressives have somehow stolen Green Party ideas is laughable.  Newsflash, there have been progressives active within the Democratic Party since at least the early 1930s.  These are the people who brought you the New Deal, wage and hours laws, overtime pay, the right of unions to organize, the NLRB, Medicare, Social Security, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  The fact that relatively new progressive organizations like the PDA have not yet toppled the DLC stooges now in control does not mean that inroads have not and cannot be made.

One thing is unassailable.  There are a significant number of progressive Dems now in Congress—those who make up the Out of Iraq Caucus; progressives like John Conyers, a founding member of PDA, who joined with Kucinich in co-sponsoring a bill seeking a single-payer health care system.

And the number of Max’s “Greens” inside Congress—ZERO, NADA, ZILCH! 

Max demonstrates a remarkable ability to deride the efforts of those progressives who are working to restore democratic control of the Democratic Party, yet when asked, repeatedly by numerous posters, to suggest an alternative means to a more progressive tomorrow, Max the critic offers only a deafening silence.  That is why I compared Max to the fat uncle in “The Good Earth.”

Max, on this:

•  “Obama has been emphatic about his stands in regards to Israel and the rest of the Middle East. Do you think he’s lying? (I mean this is no minor issue, no minor mis-understanding).”

I just wanted to say (and partly in response to Nabih as well) that it’s quite possible that Obama IS lying! Now that sounds pretty awful to say, so I could ‘sugar coat’ it a bit, and say that he’s just playing the politics. But, it boils down to the same.

My own (and probably my only) major concerns with Obama have been what ‘appears’ to be his stance on Israel. I don’t see any major problems on his overall ME stance. In other words, I know him to be a cautious and pragmatic thinker.

STILL, I’m not so certain that he HAS taken any ‘emphatic stance’ on Israel, so I’m hoping somebody can refresh my memory on some of the things that I’ve possibly missed. (keeping in mind that I don’t monitor mainstream televised media – I do read the main newspapers, but I don’t do any of the TV news). The reason I ask you to keep that in mind, is because much of the things that I’ve read that have most concerned me in respect to Obama and his alleged ‘position’ on Israel, I’ve not been able to confirm.

For instance, the letter that Obama supposedly sent to Zalmay Khalilzad . I’m still trying to find out if that in fact actually happened. And, more specifically, WHY? In other words, I’m just not sure that I believe it, because there was absolutely NO reason for a Jr. Senator to dash off a letter to the Bush appointed Ambassador to the UN, while he was in the middle of a campaign. It’s also a total reversal of what his stance has been long ago, and long before his campaign for POTUS.

In short, I don’t trust the US Propaganda machine. I haven’t for a really, long time. The deal with Wright only proves my point, but that comes after so much else that has developed into full-blown fascism. There was a time when we could say rather casually, that “all things are not as they appear to be’. Well now, that’s become the rule rather than the exception. So, I’m taking (at least for the time) Obama’s words (that I actually hear myself) on Israel, as exactly that; Whatever it takes to get to a position to actually accomplish something, considering the reality of the fact that at this point in our history, nobody in their right mind could expect to criticize Israel, and actually be elected to the office. You see what happened when Jimmy Carter went over there recently, AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, and former president, just to do some good will work.

On this,

•  “Political change primarily work from grass-roots (not the Obama style that would require another post to compare, and is mostly rhetorical). It will be deep and democratic, and realign with the natural order from which life itself is created.” 

I’m not sure why you somehow dismiss this as what Obama has accomplished as grass-roots work. Well, maybe I do, but it’s not worth bothering with. My point is that this is another one of those circumstances of your own rhetoric. ‘realign with the natural order from which life itself is created.” Um hum…OK. It sounds lovely Max. It’s very much in line with the philosophy of the Native Americans, of which I am intimately familiar, and use as my own ‘pattern’ with no regrets. It’s about the balance. 

It is STILL very much a ‘put down’ of the efforts of not just Barack Obama, but an entire collection of humanity in America, a few generations since my own, that have placed their hope and enthusiasm in what we ALL recognize at some level, as the very URGENT need for a change in how we live. I think you sell us all short on that, with all of your ‘predictions’ of failure.

So, maybe yours is idealism as Nabih has respectfully referenced it. I’m not sure it’s not extreme cynicism and disrespect for any ‘way’ that isn’t yours.

From Obama’s quote, if states legalize Medical Marijuana, he would not ask the Justice Department to interfere using federal law.  Do I interpret that correctly, Ernest Canning?

Speaking for myself, point is Max, you say there are alternatives but you don’t specify what those are.  For days now we on this forum have been asking you to be specific. We ask you only because you have spent a great deal of time discussing the topic of this Hayden article.  I hope to learn something from you.  It is without a doubt a good thing that you are working at the local level and if you said exactly what that was, precisely, possibly you would get some help, or it could provide a model for others to start in their own community.  Reading Nabih Ammari’s post does not suggest in the least that he thinks all the problems in our “political reality” will go away with his one vote (albeit one vote is simple to be sure).  You speak in partial truths and even indicate that change is going to take time as is shown in your comment, “alternatives…..which can provide a new beginning.”  If this new beginning is not within the Democratic party as a progressive, nor within, and I can only guess, the Republican party as a new radical of some sort, then you are talking about a third party.  Now I saw where Bob Barr, seeking a Libertarian nomination, is now going to run as a third candidate.  This Ron Paul kind of guy, is that who you are talking about?  I certainly hope not, as we’ve been there done that one and things have not changed, but I may be premature in this remark.

Seems like John Edwards, my former favorite, just short of an endorsement, thinks Obama can unite the Democratic Party and not only appeals to young voters but to people who haven’t been involved in the process over a long time (who these latter are I am not sure exactly to whom Edwards is referring.  I like specifics, there is too much in the realm of the vague).  Nevertheless I think Edwards view is significant.  The Bush and Republican regime has left us with an astronomical even unspeakable debt and horrid economic “reality” as you say, and you may be right that no candidate can solve the crisis. It can only be a hell of a lot better than what we have had done to us. Who can argue with you that one person would not have the capacity to deal with all of the issues?  But the argument is inert because if no one can fix it, then it is unfixable and we might as well all just fall dead. You seem to think that person would be on this raft alone.  No matter who is president, it will be dealt with one way or another.  This entire political reality is like a hydra with innumerable heads that when one is cut off, ten more emerge.  Some issues have priority over others.  The medical marijuana issue is not as important to me as is the war.  Nor is it more important than the economy.  But it does have some importance.  The one-payer health care issue is a whole lot more important than the pseudo fracas with the Reverend Wright.  The Wright fiasco is only comparable to McCain’s and his association with the rabid Christian pastor, John Hagee, who in my estimation is a thousand times worse than Wright.  However, that being said, I believe Pastor Wright was wrong in his press conference to further indict Barack Obama and in my opinion, cyrena is correct in her appraisal of the entire drama.  Wright is not the victim.  His agenda to force more social justice for black America is anachronisitic for this election.  He too should be working at the local level to effect repair that he thinks is due. 

Just a few thoughts.  And thank you Max for your Mother’s Day wish.  It was very pleasant.

cyrena
Some of your posts are relevant and make sense. I’ve even found some of them not only thoughtful, but I would tend to agree with your comments.

For what it’s worth, this is NOT one of those posts.

Max

Par1 1 of 2

•  “With malice toward none, I do not see the capacity on the part of either candidate to deal with the economic crisis as it surges.”

OK Max…who do YOU suppose can do this? Just give us a name, any name…tell us why whomever you choose can deal with the economic crises as it surges. (it’s been ‘surging’ for at least a decade,  in case you hadn’t noticed). So yeah, let’s actually hear something from you that poses a suggestion for something instead of some rhetorical criticism. There are few people on this board who can talk as much as you do, and still manage to say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Here’s more of it…

•  “That does not mean that we will not survive, but it will take the manifestation of a different order to re-constitute our world. I do believe there are alternatives, outside the existing centers of power (financially and politically speaking) which can provide a new beginning.

So, what ARE they? How do these alternatives work? It’s all BS. Nothing but BS from you. You have yet to write or say anything of any substance. Does somebody pay you to post this stuff?

More bullshit here:

•  “I ask myself why did Obama even go to Rev. Wright’s congregation to begin with?

WHY do you ‘ask yourself”, this Max? WHY do you CARE where Obama decided to attend worship services? It has nothing to do with anything else you complain about. Are you like independently wealthy or something Max? And you have time to waste, to just sit around writing about a bunch of non-important issues? Tell us how Obama’s membership at Trinity United Church of Christ has ANYTHING to do with the disaster of the economy? Wanna make a connection there for us Max? WHY do you wanna know why he attended THAT church, instead of say, St Paul’s Lutheran Church two blocks over? Does that enter into your musings at all, when you ‘ask yourself’ this stuff? Did ya ever think that it might be because of the fact that despite his short term attendance at a Catholic grade school, Obama wasn’t particularly religious? He wasn’t raised in a religious environment, since his mother was an atheist, and his dad had returned to Kenya when he was just a child. He wife-to-be however, IS from Chicago, and probably from that Congregation. Do ya think maybe THAT’S how he came to know Rev. Wright? That is VERY customary for lots of folks Max, even white ones.

•  “After all Rev. Wright is clearly on a different journey. And, it appears with very little investigation, that such a congregation once SERVED Obama’s political ends. Now they don’t.”

This is really beyond the pale. WHO ARE YOU, to suggest that ANYONE’s church serves their ‘political ends’? Do ya think Barack Obama decided 20 years ago that he’d move to Chicago so he could become a member of this particular congregation? WHY WOULD HE DO THAT?

I think your perfidy and MALICE is very apparent here Max, because even without being a religious person myself, I know that the average person does NOT ‘seek out’ a spiritual guide for POLITICAL ENDS! Should we say the same thing about the rest of that 6,000 member congregation? Are they ALL there to SERVE each other’s POLITICAL ends?

And how do you figure that Wright is ‘clearly’ on a ‘different’ journey, other than the OBVIOUS, which is the fact that his ‘journey’ had already been about several decades LONGER than Obama’s, and that he long ago made the DECISION to be an ordained minister? Yeah, I suppose that part would be pretty obvious. SO WHAT? So yeah, when Obama finished law school and decided to marry Michelle and move to her home town, and join her church, Wright had already been pastor there for over 20 years, and Obama didn’t become a pastor. Instead of becoming a pastor, (right out of law school) he began teaching constitutional law in addition to his community activism, and eventually entered politics. Yeah…CLEARLY a different journey! Again I ask YOU…SO WHAT?

And how do you figure Wright to be a ‘victim’? I think it’s more of your not so subtle attempt at character and related types of personal assassination. He wasn’t INTENDED to be a ‘victim’ – OBAMA was the ‘intended’ victim, and that backfired. You can’t honestly believe that ANYBODY outside the religious community (or the Clintons) would have ever even HEARD of Jeremiah Wright, if he didn’t happen to be the senior pastor at the Church where Obama attends. Had YOU ever heard of Jeremiah Wright before Obama became a candidate for POTUS? (Yeah, the Clintons knew him).  IOW, outside of his own community and the other church communities and organizations, WHO KNEW HIM (or paid any attention to his sermons) until Obama became a candidate?

He obviously wasn’t a ‘victim’ when he delivered the sermons, since he wasn’t saying anything particularly NEW. His theological concepts, as they are entwined with social justice and human equality aren’t any different from say, Martin Luther King, Jr. So how did he only become a ‘victim’ after Obama started winning democratic primaries and caucuses all over the land? 

And how has he been victimized anyway? He’s a respected member of his own community, and on the national scene of our ministers and faith keepers. He was about to retire anyway, so it’s not like he’s lost his income. I don’t think he’ll be homeless, and he can continue to do the work that he’s dedicated his life to. How do you figure he’s been ‘victimized’ when most folks that bothered to listen beyond a few sound bytes, actually AGREE with him? Nobody is calling for him to drag a cross up a mountain and then be nailed to it, and he’s not a concert pianist who’s had his fingers mangled. He’s not a politician, and he’s not running for office, so I don’t get why you think he’s been ‘victimized’.

If anything, this treacherous ballyhoo cooked up by those who’ve consistently attempted to destroy Barack Obama, has actually brought Wright some attention that he wouldn’t have otherwise had. (Imagine, if Obama was Catholic, it could have been Fr. O’Flanigan or somebody getting all the attention) So now, he can just cruise around and give talks like Slick Willie does, and beef up his retirement income. (although most ministers don’t charge for their speeches and appearances). Still, I’m sure he can continue to do his work for as long as he chooses, or write a book or something if he doesn’t feel like hassling with all the travel. (That’s what I’d do).

Meantime, Obama will become the next president, and I know he’s smart enough to select outstanding advisors and the best help that America has to offer, and people like you will have to find other things to do with your time.

Ernest said: “Statements like “the distance (or lack thereof)” between McCain & Obama can be “measured in millimeters and not kilometers” are typical of the baseless, single-minded overstatement of the Naderites.”

First, if you read my posts, you’d have plenty of facts to support what I said. But, you seem bent on ignoring that and making these hollow comments.

I am not a “Naderite”. As far as “mindless”, I’ll take that as words of desperation.

You’re “plan” is not “pragmatic” given its history. It’s a failed plan. To keep it up as if you’re expecting different results (you know how that goes - which is why I’ve referred to it as a pathological plan, rather than pragmatic.)

I hear Dem progressives taking non-Dem progessive (mostly Green) ideas and trying to pitch them as Dem ideas. The Democratic Party like all massive enterprises will coopt those ideas - just like the Oil companies have tried to coopt alternative, renewable green energy! That’s what happens when lambs lie down with preditors - they get gobbled up and spit out.

Word to the wise, instead of speaking for everyone Ernest, why not just speak for yourself?

It appears this lack of self-confidence belies a lack of conviction to the Obama cause. You’ve already made excuses for Obama. So, when he proves himself to be a corporate shill, you’re covered. Again, it belies your lack of conviction.

Play your little “pragmatic” game. You will. I’m not hear to stop you. So why so defensive?

Max

Max’s Straw Men

Statements like “the distance (or lack thereof)” between McCain & Obama can be “measured in millimeters and not kilometers” are typical of the baseless, single-minded overstatement of the Naderites.

Let’s move to an issue yet to be discussed on this Board—Medical Marijuana.  The people of my state have determined that physicians should be able to prescribe marijuana to relieve pain for the severely ill, e.g. terminally ill cancer patients.  As an attorney who has represented the severely injured, including one who lost both arms and both legs; suffers from horrible “phantom” pains and who desires to avoid heavy narcotics, I know that, from a purely medical perspective, marijuana may provide an especially sound means of pain relief.

But the religious zealots in the Bush Justice Department, starting with Ashcroft, would not have it.  They insisted that federal law preempts state law, have shut down clinics and threatened physicians as well as severely disabled patient with prosecution.  With McCain pandering to the religious right, many of whose nut jobs see medical marijuana as the Devil’s weed, there is very little prospect for change if McCain is elected.

Obama said, “If it’s an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think it’s appropriate….What I’m not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.”

http://granitestaters.com/candidates/video_obama_02.html

One would have to also question the validity of Max’s effort to suggest that the likes of Tom Hayden, Jim Hightower and the other progressive activists are “lambs.”  The point of progressive organizations like the PDA is to, one-by-one, “replace” the DLC Congressional “wolves” with candidates who represent the interests of the vast majority of the members of the Democratic Party—the middle and working classes; not to lie next to them, seeking protection.

Not one of the posters on this site has suggested that all of the problems facing this nation will be resolved by defeating McCain.  What many have noted is that Max Shields has not and cannot offer a pragmatic means of achieving a progressive tomorrow that is better than those who are supporting Obama at the same time they work to fundamentally alter the Democratic Party from within.

Nabih Ammari,

A correction, you did not use the word naive. I read the word “idealist” as essentially characterizing what I’ve posted as “naive”. You may have meant just that, but you did not say it.

I was not able to vote for Kucinich - he was out of the run when the primary ran in my State, and I don’t live in Ohio district where he’s been running. So my thanks to you for helping to keep at least one true voice alive.

Also, it is true that the time spent of trivia completely distracts from the deep economic and ecological problems we face. Our political system utterly fails us.

Max

Nabih Ammari,

While I appreciate your giving the time to post a thoughtful consideration, I must, of course, differ.

I am not a naive soul, wondering the planet, anymore than any other on the message board.

Looking for answers to the questions is what I think we are all aiming for.

But it is wrong to think that mine is purely an idealistic view point. I would say it is quite the opposite.

I do not gauge my position based on an eloquent speech or the nastiness of media attacks. It is after all Rev. Wright who was shredded in the Media, not Obama (with some minor bruises, perhaps, to test his “political mettle”. And it worked it showed him for the pol he is). Obama merely dealt, ultimately with the dismissal of a pastor through the inconvenience of an election cycle. I ask myself why did Obama even go to Rev. Wright’s congregation to begin with? After all Rev. Wright is clearly on a different journey. And, it appears with very little investigation, that such a congregation once SERVED Obama’s political ends. Now they don’t.

So, I am not one to counterintuit the Obama/Wright and make Obama the victim. No it was Rev. Wright who was, if anyone was, the victim; and an inconvenience for Obama’s campaign; while an opportunity to further prove he was ok to the powers that be. (Reminds me of the movie “Trading Places”).

Throwing one’s lot with Obama over McCain has never been my argument. Rather it is the distance (or lack there of) between the the two which should be measured in millimeters and not kilometers. That is the crux of my point regarding this race.

The larger issue of our economic crisis is one that cannot and will not be cured by a system (one both McCain and Obama work tightly within) that has created the condition. Neither the Great Depression nor the resulting New Deal will happen again. Those are historical artifacts.

With malice toward none, I do not see the capacity on the part of either candidate to deal with the economic crisis as it surges. That does not mean that we will not survive, but it will take the manifestation of a different order to re-constitute our world. I do believe there are alternatives, outside the existing centers of power (financially and politically speaking) which can provide a new beginning.

And so, again, many thanks for your thoughtful comments. We differ on the interpretation of our social, economic political realities to the extent that you have chosen a simple vote to make it all go away (I’m exaggerating, of course, but not entirely).

Dem Progressives (you are an independent, good for you!) think they can bring solutions into the Party but have yet to figure out it is like the lamb laying down next to the wolf for protection.

Yours truly,
Max

PS, While I’m sure you did not intend it, calling some one who challenges the status quo, naive is an old trick by none other than..you guessed it…the status quo.

“For myself, I think Hayden’s “standing with the spontaneous wave of activism” that is the essential undercurrent of the Obama campaign; seeing to it that that wave continues forward even after Obama is elected; seeing that it translates into as many progressive Dems to replace the corporatists in Congress as are possible, is by far the better strategy—certainly better than anything posted by you or anyone else at this site to date.”

If saying it could make it so.

I won’t waste anymore words. Have a good day.
Max

If McCain wins, and then extends the descent into fascism began by the Bush/Cheney regime, the place progressives may find themselves is Guantanamo for that is the direction of the assault on civil liberties and the rule of law began by the current regime.  Indeed, it is not all that big a step from McCain’s reference to opposition to the imperial conquest of Iraq as “surrender” and the claim that such opposition amounts to treason.

As bad as things have been under Bush/Cheney, the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan reflects that the rule of law still exists, though it is hanging on by a slender thread.  I don’t know how to say it any more clearly.  One more Federalist Society on the Supreme Court would create a permanent majority that would be in a position to end the rule of law.  That cannot be corrected in through electoral politics in the next election or even in our life times.

We are all in agreement that Empire, the military-industrial complex and corporate control must be brought to an end not only for the sake of Democracy and perhaps the very survival of the human species, but you, Hedges, and Nader offer nothing concrete that will help to bring about the result you claim to desire.  For myself, I think Hayden’s “standing with the spontaneous wave of activism” that is the essential undercurrent of the Obama campaign; seeing to it that that wave continues forward even after Obama is elected; seeing that it translates into as many progressive Dems to replace the corporatists in Congress as are possible, is by far the better strategy—certainly better than anything posted by you or anyone else at this site to date.

Happy Mother’s Day Shenonymous

Max, I think you are talking about an extra performance matinee.  I don’t see anyone here actually disagreeing all that much with you.  Or you disagreeing with them about how the political picture can change.  Let’s think about how change happens.  It doesn’t change by maintaining the status quo.  That is the conservative Republican model now but it wasn’t a few years ago when they restructured themselves to woo the Christian Coalition in order to increase their voting numbers.  It is a numbers game.  The Democrats are not going to change either without a swift kick in the ass because the word conservative does not belong only to Republicans, it means among other things resistant to change, caution.  Example, as people get older they become more conservative in their thinking and mode of life as they see their life slipping into The Big Drink.  There is an element of conservative preservative posturing that goes on in all viable groups.  The progressive wing of the Democratic Party you say will become marginalized if Obama wins because, as you say, the Party will conclude that the progressives had very little to do with winning the election.  But I think that is wrong.  But putting my opinion there aside for just a second, what you are right exactly about, and most of the others and myself have said numerous times, is that change must come about at the local level.  And this is why you are wrong about the progressives influence.  It will be at that local strata that the progressive Democrats will exert their strength in getting more progressive Democrats elected.  You don’t think even for a New York minute do you that progressive Democrats will fold up their tents and slink off once the big election is over. Not on your life.  Furthermore, I also called attention to the fact that local elections seem to be the forgotten “tribe,” as I put it not so very many comments ago.  That is exactly where the focus ought to be now that the selection of the presidential candidate is just about a fait accompli. 

I say peace too, and keep on having fun in the ring.  I am not going to do any werk today.  It is Mother’s Day and I’m going girlie shopping.  See y’all later.

Ernest: “As the Doud piece that Shenonymous linked to reveals, Obama’s preference for multilateralism and diplomacy at least portends to, dare I use the word, some level of “hope” for the Palestinian victims of Zionist oppression where a McCain presidency offers none.”

I don’t disagree that someone running for president within the 2 party structure must be thoroughly vetted by the powers that be - AIPAC, DLC, transnational corporations, and corporate media. Kucinich didn’t. To some extent, neither did John Edwards.

My point, again, is that Obama fits the bill. Period. He makes the grade.

Obama has been emphatic about his stands in regards to Israel and the rest of the Middle East. Do you think he’s lying? (I mean this is no minor issue, no minor mis-understanding).

The battle for the hearts and minds within the Dem Party was fought with a loser and winner decades ago. The losers are progressives of yours and Kucinich’s ilk. The problem (and I’m not singling your out) is that this tie to the Dem Party has become pathological. Although I think your political strategy is fatally flawed, you along with hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions will try once again.

If the Dems win, progressives will probably move further to the fringes - why? Because the candidates will calculate that you were not essential to the win. If they lose, they will re-group and the centers of powers will, as they do, gravitate toward doing more of what they did this time again. Again, progressives will be marginalized (in fact they may be a scapegoat, as they tend to be after the Repubs finish with their swift boating).

For me to provide an alternative strategy, you need to suspend your notion of large scale Party politics and government. My conclusion is two fold: 1. the root causes of our dilemma are complex and cannot be changed through the system that is built to sustain them 2. an alternative will be based on social, environmental and economic justice, local living economies, and re-connecting our collapsed communities. Political change primarily work from grass-roots (not the Obama style that would require another post to compare, and is mostly rhetorical). It will be deep and democratic, and realign with the natural order from which life itself is created.

The US and previous empires are anomolies to nature. Nature abhors monopolies of any sort. They are hierarchical structured (I’m not posing an anti-hierarchical structure, but one that greatly diminishes the importance of that model). The US historical trajectory must be understood in order to transform it. Continuing to follow its path (e.g., inside the Dem fold) is counterproductive on all levels. Whether old styled progressives like Hayden agree or not, or Jimmy Carter thinks, in the end that his Party, the Dems, are marginally better (as much as I admire much of the work Carter has done) is neither here nor there. There assumptions are tied to the legacy of empire. That needs to change if we are to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. This is about transformation not head to head confrontation.

Max, I commend your work through local non-profits to change the local economies.  Since all politics are local, that is a positive step.  But it is not an “electoral strategy” which was the question I had put to you.  Remember the piece to which all of these comments relate is Tom Hayden’s explanation as to why progressives, at this point in our history, should line up behind the Obama campaign.  Since you and a few other posters have entered the discussion in order to challenge Hayden, the burden is on the “critics” to offer a practical alternative.  So far, I’ve heard none from any poster or from Chris Hedges.

One point upon which it appears that we agree, Max, is that neither of us knows whether, once elected, Obama will move in the same direction as Jimmy Carter in bringing true peace to replace apartheid in occupied Palestine.  But let’s look at what Carter himself said was the political reality.

“Amy Goodman:  Why don’t Americans know what you have seen?

“Jimmy Carter:  Americans don’t want to know and many Israelis don’t want to know what is going on inside Palestine.  It’s a terrible human rights persecution that far transcends what any outsider would imagine.  And there are powerful political forces in America that prevent any objective analysis of the problem in the Holy Land.  I think it’s accurate to say that not a single member of Congress with whom I’m familiar would possibly speak out and call for Israel to withdraw to their legal boundaries or to publicize the plight of the Palestinians or even to call publicly and repeatedly for good faith peace talks.  There hasn’t been a day of peace talks now in more than seven years.  So this is a taboo subject.  And I would say that if any member of Congress did speak out, as I’ve described, they would probably not be back in the Congress the next term.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/9/10/frm_president _jimmy_carter_on_palestine

While we cannot be certain whether a President Obama would have the courage to intercede as an “honest broker” and to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to finally educate the masses, there is one thing that is abundantly clear.  There is absolutely no prospect for a reversal of the present policies which have granted the Israelis free reign to carry out settlement activities, to wall in the residents of Gaza, reducing that tiny enclave to a 21st Century Warsaw ghetto, and to use American-made bulldozers mow down apartment complexes even if there are young Palestinian children inside.

As the Doud piece that Shenonymous linked to reveals, Obama’s preference for multilateralism and diplomacy at least portends to, dare I use the word, some level of “hope” for the Palestinian victims of Zionist oppression where a McCain presidency offers none.

Finally, Max, I will assume from your repeated failure to respond to my request for constructive proposals that would provide an alternative to the electoral strategy of progressive Democrats that you are unable to provide any.

Excuse me, Max, but I am not apologizing for trying to tempt you into making a “definite” statement about how you would keep Republicans from hijacking this election again. 

Seems like you haven’t visited the DPA or you would see that they are about more than the Israeli/Palestinian hostility.  That being said, as a Democrat I am not about the ‘Party’ as you called it and though a member I am not DPA.  I am for what the Democratic Party represents and that is the people of America.  I could not care less about ‘Party.”  I am a member so I may join my voice with the millions of others as there is magic in numbers.

But it is through that agency and only that agency that the Republicans will be dethroned.  I think that is precisely the majority of Democrats agenda, ordinary people do not play Party games.  All my Democratic friends feel the same as I do.  I agree that some people let the glamour of belonging to an organization blur their eyes and mind.  I have always shied away from such social structures. I don’t have the time for such mannerisms.  Granted there is a machine that goes by the name of Democratic Party, but there are two species of party members, the de rigueur mongers of power players, and the ordinary people.  I belong to the latter.  So I disagree with your assessment of Democrats in general. 

But just to put things in perspective, the Democratic machine has to fight the mighty and more powerful Republican machine, so let Gog and Magog fight it out and while they are doing that, the Democratic voters will simply win the election.

Ernest,

Your invocation of Jimmy Carter is like Shenonymous’s mention of Chomsky saying Obama is a little more moderate than Hillary on Iran. Out of context Chomsky’s point could easily be construed that they’re essentially the same, Obama just didn’t use the word “obliterate”, hence he tempered his poition against Iran.

As to Jimmy Carter, he is talking in general terms about the difficulty of doing what HE’s doing - which is honorable. Jimmy Carter went to Syria and talked to Hamas. That’s a real stretch from the kind of bombastic remarks that Obama has made regarding Israel/Palestinians. It is clear that to genuflect before AIPAC and sabber rattle as Obama has on a number of occasions when it was politically expedient speaks to the depth of his convictions.

You see, I think you are right, in order to be POTUS you must do these things, not only while running but you must continue to do these things once in office.

This is why I’ve said repeatedly that Dem progres-sives are wasting their time. As far as Hayden’s remarks about a progressive movement, I agree, but it’s not a Dem Progressive “movement”. Calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney is NOT a movement. The movement that is going on and is needed is one that begins to transform, not just our politics but the sociaeconomic structures that support it. That’s happening OUTSIDE the Dem Party. It’s an alternative to the same ol same ol.

My work through 2 non-profits is to transform our local economy and to rebuild our communities. Changing the political face will follow. Think of it in terms of Robert Kennedy’s “ripple of hope”. But it is more than just hope, it is doing.

I must say when was the Dem Party (as a party) progressive? I guess the term has gotten frayed. There use to be a progressive movement in this country and it was coopted (as the Parties do, they call it inclusive) so that W. Wilson ran as a Progressive and then did things that would make our current state of the Patriot Act look fairly status quo in comparison. And that’s when the Dems were 100 years younger.

No, the Party is a machine. It will not be altered by progressives. It will be mulched. If there are Dem Progressives working to make deep changes in their communities and municipalities I applaud them. But Party people are usually first and foremost about Party.

As far as what will Obama do once in, well you’ve answered it: we don’t know - and given what we seen NEITHER DOES HE. But, I’ll wager you this, he will not cross the powers. And that brings us back to the bottom line - you’re supporting Obama because he is a Dem and not McCain.

Fine. You are not enthralled with the Obamamania. That’s very good to hear. I don’t think that “energy” will last; and some of it may not even make it to the polls.

But let me be clear, I’m offering a critical view of Obama, not a political contest view. McCain and Hillary have been so transparent that it would be totally redundant to do the same of them. I’m not here to rally people to vote for Obama or McCain anywhere else.

so, so u think u can tell
heaven from hell
blue skies from pain
can u tell a green field
from a cold steel rail
a smile from a veil
do u think u can tell

they’re just three lost souls
swimming in a fish bowl
year after year
running over the same old ground
what have they found
the same old fears…wish u were here

Thanks Ernest. I was just about to post a rather lengthy piece that said most of what you’ve said right here.

Specifically, the total waste of energy and spilled ink from Max, that has YET to offer anything more than vague generalities of what ‘transformations’ need to take place, and always, always, always, everything that is WRONG (according to him) with Obama’s positions on everything from the ice cream flavor of the day to what he thinks about Lebanon, to the fact that his was one of 100 votes that confirmed Condi the Rice to Sec of State. (as if he was gonna stop it).

It’s BS and doesn’t accomplish a single solitary thing, and I happen to be of a utilitarian nature. I long ago joined the PDA, since we actually have some ideas on how to accomplish goals and objectives. None of us minds doing work that actually provides results.

So again, thank you. Now I’ll just get back to me 3 full-featured papers, the laundry, the chicken soup, and my hair color adventure, since they’re all happening at once.

Max…can you say, multi-tasking, or do you even know what it means?

As Hayden comments “The social movements have not disappeared in 2008 but follow a logic of their own, like a river cutting its path.”  For me Hayden made a a very astute observation and described political movement bouncing off the rough edges of differences people have as to the direction of the political river.

We as people will never think alike in this melting pot of ours and some of us do not have the ability to think at all.