I don't usually post press releases but this one sums things up quite nicely.
From: VoteNader.org
Call it the no more whining campaign.
Don't tell us about Bush/Cheney.
We know already.
The sewage has risen to the surface.
The question is - what are we going to do about it?
The answer is - Nader/Gonzalez.
McCain/Clinton/Obama talk and talk about change and a better world.
But they are all in the hip pocket of the corporations.
Do they advocate for single payer public national health insurance?
They do not.
Do they advocate for cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget?
They do not.
[...]
Do they stand for reversing U.S. policy in the Middle East?
They can not.
All they can do is whine and complain.
And talk about an amorphous "change."
Nader/Gonzalez on the other hand, is the can do campaign.
We put our people vs. the corporations platform on the table.
And - per your request - we've just updated our issues pages with more detail.
We're working hard to get Nader/Gonzalez on as many state ballots as possible.
And - per your request - we've just launched a clickable state by state map of the country for ballot access.
[...]
If you support a progressive agenda, please support a progressive campaign.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Asleep at the switch
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
It's no secret that corporations have a stranglehold on our democracy. This is thanks to a bizarre and perverse interpretation that somehow equates money with speech. The mental contortions required to defend this are quite astounding, especially since money and speech are not equated in any other context except politics. As a result, non-citizens (such as corporations and unions) can bribe political candidates in broad daylight and in (more or less) complete legality.
But even when feeble legislative attempts are made to impose token regulations on this madness, it's often not even enforced.
This piece from the Albany Times-Union's Capitol Confidential blog offers an illustration.
Last year, the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) sent evidence to the state Board of Elections (BOE) of 61 corporations that donated illegal amounts to political campaigns. Twelve months later, the BOE is still investigating the matter.
(Good government group like NYPIRG along with some media constitute the only real check on the chummy culture of corruption in Albany.)
Recently, NYPIRG relased evidence of another 118 violations to the bipartisan (not to be confused with non-partisan) BOE.
The BOE is supposed to enforced the law but “They still haven’t done anything about it,” said NYPIRG’s legislative director Blair Horner, one of the true white knights in Albany.
A BOE spokesman whined that their workload has increased in the last few years as the number of electronic reports has skyrocketed. But if they are not going to bother enforcing the law, even when a watchdog group does a lot of their legwork for them, then what purpose does the state Board of Elections serve?
It's no secret that corporations have a stranglehold on our democracy. This is thanks to a bizarre and perverse interpretation that somehow equates money with speech. The mental contortions required to defend this are quite astounding, especially since money and speech are not equated in any other context except politics. As a result, non-citizens (such as corporations and unions) can bribe political candidates in broad daylight and in (more or less) complete legality.
But even when feeble legislative attempts are made to impose token regulations on this madness, it's often not even enforced.
This piece from the Albany Times-Union's Capitol Confidential blog offers an illustration.
Last year, the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) sent evidence to the state Board of Elections (BOE) of 61 corporations that donated illegal amounts to political campaigns. Twelve months later, the BOE is still investigating the matter.
(Good government group like NYPIRG along with some media constitute the only real check on the chummy culture of corruption in Albany.)
Recently, NYPIRG relased evidence of another 118 violations to the bipartisan (not to be confused with non-partisan) BOE.
The BOE is supposed to enforced the law but “They still haven’t done anything about it,” said NYPIRG’s legislative director Blair Horner, one of the true white knights in Albany.
A BOE spokesman whined that their workload has increased in the last few years as the number of electronic reports has skyrocketed. But if they are not going to bother enforcing the law, even when a watchdog group does a lot of their legwork for them, then what purpose does the state Board of Elections serve?
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Hillary's appeal to middle America: blacks are lazy!
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
How desperate and despicable is that egomaniacal (expletive deleted) Hillary Clinton?
We've long known she's corporate owned. But she's now stooped to a new low, even for her.
The woman of privilege recently claimed that Obama's support was "weakening" among "hard-working Americans, white Americans."
It's a good thing she added that clarification. Because she wouldn't want to leave the impression with saintly "middle America" that she thought black Americans were hard working.
Democrats should ask, if they haven't already, if they really want someone so divisive and contemptible as their nominee.
As I've said before, I was never a huge fan of hers before the campaign but I didn't hate her.
I do now.
Is there any question now she's willing, more so that even the ordinary politician, to put her own gargantuan ego ahead of the good of not only her party but her nation? How in Heaven's name can anyone still see her as having a shred of honor?
Liberals like to think that such pathetic garbage is the unique provenance of the Republican Party. And it certainly is more popular in the GOP. But some Democrats obviously aren't above appealing to such naked bigotry in order to help their poll ratings.
How desperate and despicable is that egomaniacal (expletive deleted) Hillary Clinton?
We've long known she's corporate owned. But she's now stooped to a new low, even for her.
The woman of privilege recently claimed that Obama's support was "weakening" among "hard-working Americans, white Americans."
It's a good thing she added that clarification. Because she wouldn't want to leave the impression with saintly "middle America" that she thought black Americans were hard working.
Democrats should ask, if they haven't already, if they really want someone so divisive and contemptible as their nominee.
As I've said before, I was never a huge fan of hers before the campaign but I didn't hate her.
I do now.
Is there any question now she's willing, more so that even the ordinary politician, to put her own gargantuan ego ahead of the good of not only her party but her nation? How in Heaven's name can anyone still see her as having a shred of honor?
Liberals like to think that such pathetic garbage is the unique provenance of the Republican Party. And it certainly is more popular in the GOP. But some Democrats obviously aren't above appealing to such naked bigotry in order to help their poll ratings.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Skateboarding and imagination
I don't skateboard, but my 'little brother' does. So I take him to the skate park usually once a month or so. He's not very good but he enjoys it.
One of the things I like about the skating culture is that it's free-spirited. And, perhaps surprisingly given the reputation skating has in 'respectable' circles, the culture strikes me as fairly collegial. It also requires perseverance, something that's not a bad thing to learn in a country where instant gratification is a central value.
Kids today spend so much time in front of screens that many of them have no idea how use their imagination. And forget this generation gap canard. It's little different with adults. Witness how my colleagues treat me as quite the oddball because I often lie on the grass and engage in the eccentric activity of reading a book or... even more incomprehensibly, just relaxing and looking at the sky.
So the other reason I respect skating as an activity more than a lot of people is that really stimulates creativity and imagination. It's an fascinating fusion of being around others and expressing yourself.
I was thinking about this yesterday when my 'little brother' and I were walking home from the skate park and stopped inside the local children's bookstore.
In addition to books, they also have various toys for sale and for use. One of the ones they have for kids to play with is a simple racing car track. Not for battery-powered cars, but just for the small metal ones like Hot Wheels.
A little kid sat down at this track and picked up one of the Hot Wheels and with a befuddled look, asked his mom, "How do you start this thing?"
I chuckled a little bit, until I realized how sad it was.
One of the things I like about the skating culture is that it's free-spirited. And, perhaps surprisingly given the reputation skating has in 'respectable' circles, the culture strikes me as fairly collegial. It also requires perseverance, something that's not a bad thing to learn in a country where instant gratification is a central value.
Kids today spend so much time in front of screens that many of them have no idea how use their imagination. And forget this generation gap canard. It's little different with adults. Witness how my colleagues treat me as quite the oddball because I often lie on the grass and engage in the eccentric activity of reading a book or... even more incomprehensibly, just relaxing and looking at the sky.
So the other reason I respect skating as an activity more than a lot of people is that really stimulates creativity and imagination. It's an fascinating fusion of being around others and expressing yourself.
I was thinking about this yesterday when my 'little brother' and I were walking home from the skate park and stopped inside the local children's bookstore.
In addition to books, they also have various toys for sale and for use. One of the ones they have for kids to play with is a simple racing car track. Not for battery-powered cars, but just for the small metal ones like Hot Wheels.
A little kid sat down at this track and picked up one of the Hot Wheels and with a befuddled look, asked his mom, "How do you start this thing?"
I chuckled a little bit, until I realized how sad it was.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Thank God he didn't give away his jockstrap
(Credit for the title goes to my brother)
I know he's married to a woman who used to be a bubblegum pop band, but I can't say I've ever 'gotten' the hysterical schoolgirl crush that so much of the world seems to have on celebrity brand (and occasional soccer player) David Beckham.
He's always been a mediocre soccer player, except for his ability to cross the ball or take a free kick. He's not particularly good looking. In sharp contrast to other sporting brands like Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods, Beckham is not particularly charismatic. When you hear him talk, he sounds like he's reading a script (which he probably is) most of the time and like a doofus when he's not.
It's one thing to fight over a million dollar baseball, the premise of which is absurd enough. But even by the standards of lunatic sports fans with no perspective and parents who act like children, this is still pretty lame.
I know he's married to a woman who used to be a bubblegum pop band, but I can't say I've ever 'gotten' the hysterical schoolgirl crush that so much of the world seems to have on celebrity brand (and occasional soccer player) David Beckham.
He's always been a mediocre soccer player, except for his ability to cross the ball or take a free kick. He's not particularly good looking. In sharp contrast to other sporting brands like Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods, Beckham is not particularly charismatic. When you hear him talk, he sounds like he's reading a script (which he probably is) most of the time and like a doofus when he's not.
It's one thing to fight over a million dollar baseball, the premise of which is absurd enough. But even by the standards of lunatic sports fans with no perspective and parents who act like children, this is still pretty lame.
They must be in cohoots with the travel agencies
You gotta love European soccer.
Their Champions League final has Manchester United and another English club (London's Chelsea) playing each other in Russia.
While the UEFA Cup final has a Russian club (Zenit St. Petersburg) playing in... Manchester, England.
European officials obviously received geography assistance from the folks who placed American Throwball teams Indianapolis Colts in the South Division, Dallas Cowboys in the East and St Louis Rams in the West.
Their Champions League final has Manchester United and another English club (London's Chelsea) playing each other in Russia.
While the UEFA Cup final has a Russian club (Zenit St. Petersburg) playing in... Manchester, England.
European officials obviously received geography assistance from the folks who placed American Throwball teams Indianapolis Colts in the South Division, Dallas Cowboys in the East and St Louis Rams in the West.
Friday, May 02, 2008
The role of women in Rwandan politics
This essay is part of an occasional feature on this blog that presents compelling stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world besides fake debates over fake patriotism.
The Rwanda Project of the Hunt Alternatives Fund has some interesting literature on its work in that country. The project particularly focuses on enabling females to more fully participate in society. It notes that since the 1994 genocide, Rwandan women have made remarkable contributions to rebuild their society. They also made unprecedented political gains, achieving near parity in the legislature's lower chamber.
It notes that female parliamentarians in the country have drafted the only substantive bill to emerge from the legislative rather than the executive branch, a far-reaching law to combat gender-based violence; spearheaded efforts to eliminate discrimination and enhance human rights protections; and fostered cross-party and male-female collaboration through the Forum of Rwandan Women Parliamentarians and by involving men in efforts to craft legislation.
The website includes reports on women's involvement in defending the rights of children, promoting anti-domestic violence legislation and supporting female participation in local politics.
The Rwanda Project of the Hunt Alternatives Fund has some interesting literature on its work in that country. The project particularly focuses on enabling females to more fully participate in society. It notes that since the 1994 genocide, Rwandan women have made remarkable contributions to rebuild their society. They also made unprecedented political gains, achieving near parity in the legislature's lower chamber.
It notes that female parliamentarians in the country have drafted the only substantive bill to emerge from the legislative rather than the executive branch, a far-reaching law to combat gender-based violence; spearheaded efforts to eliminate discrimination and enhance human rights protections; and fostered cross-party and male-female collaboration through the Forum of Rwandan Women Parliamentarians and by involving men in efforts to craft legislation.
The website includes reports on women's involvement in defending the rights of children, promoting anti-domestic violence legislation and supporting female participation in local politics.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Maybe The Post-Star's afraid to let their reporting speak for itself
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
The corporate media is hypersensitive to criticism, isn't it.
Not all criticism, mind you.
It loves the simplistic 'the media is too liberal/conservative' dichotomy. If both extremes hate you, goes the logic, you must be doing Pulitzer-esque work. It allows them to abdicate any responsibility for substantive analysis.
The kinds of criticism the corporate media doesn't like is accusations that it's shutting out diverse voices. This criticism is stone cold true. Just look at the amount of free corporate media coverage given to the Annointed candidates (McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Obama, Clinton) in comparison to the media's Untouchables (Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel... and that's not even including smaller party candidates). They choose who's message 'deserves' to be heard and then when the rest complain, the corporate media holds its hands up and sniffs, "The public just isn't interested in them."
If you're an ordinary TV watcher and you see tons of reporting and yapping head analysis on the Annointed Ones and next to nothing (except maybe the occasional hack job on 'the quirky campaign of...' and rare yapping head edict that 'So and so can't win') about the Untouchables, then what do you expect? How can a candidate resonate with the public if the public is virtually never exposed to that candidate's message?
The recent visit of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader to Glens Falls exposed this hypersensitivity yet again.
A gentleman named John Thomas of Hartford, NY wrote a letter to the editor complaining about the quantity and quality of coverage given by The Post-Star to Nader's visit. Mr. Thomas felt that both were inadequate.
He complained that the visit of TV personality Rachel Ray got more coverage than the visit of a presidential candidate and one of the most influential Americans of the 20th century. This is factually correct. Ray got more coverage.
Now, it's no secret that I'm a Nader supporter, although I don't know John Thomas. But what bothered me most was how The Post-Star could not resist adding a snotty little Editor's Note to Thomas' letter.
The Editor's Note sniffed that Nader's visit got 'ample play' in the paper. That 'ample play' was a brief preview story and a small recap at the bottom of the local section.
Translation: Naderites should get on their hands and knees and genuflect to the brick red building that they deigned to give Nader any coverage at all.
Well, that's the paper's opinion.
Thomas' letter expressed a different opinion.
Isn't this the very purpose of the letters to the editor and editorial sections?
The letters express the opinions of readers. The editorial expresses the opinions of the newspaper.
Editor's Notes to letters to the edtior are very uncommon in this paper. Usually, the daily only includes them if the writer makes a factually false statement or to clarify something in the letter that may have been murky. Sometimes, it's used to note that the letter writer has some personal connection with the issue discussed.
The general rule of the paper seems to be to let the letter writers have their 15 minutes, so to speak.
None of these applied to Thomas' letter. He didn't say the paper offered no coverage. He said Nader should've gotten more than Rachel Ray.
Yet the paper felt the need to rebuke Thomas for expressing (and very mildly at that) his not demonstrably false personal opinion... which is the whole purpose of the letters to the editor section.
Makes you wonder why the paper is so hyperdefensive.
The corporate media is hypersensitive to criticism, isn't it.
Not all criticism, mind you.
It loves the simplistic 'the media is too liberal/conservative' dichotomy. If both extremes hate you, goes the logic, you must be doing Pulitzer-esque work. It allows them to abdicate any responsibility for substantive analysis.
The kinds of criticism the corporate media doesn't like is accusations that it's shutting out diverse voices. This criticism is stone cold true. Just look at the amount of free corporate media coverage given to the Annointed candidates (McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Obama, Clinton) in comparison to the media's Untouchables (Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel... and that's not even including smaller party candidates). They choose who's message 'deserves' to be heard and then when the rest complain, the corporate media holds its hands up and sniffs, "The public just isn't interested in them."
If you're an ordinary TV watcher and you see tons of reporting and yapping head analysis on the Annointed Ones and next to nothing (except maybe the occasional hack job on 'the quirky campaign of...' and rare yapping head edict that 'So and so can't win') about the Untouchables, then what do you expect? How can a candidate resonate with the public if the public is virtually never exposed to that candidate's message?
The recent visit of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader to Glens Falls exposed this hypersensitivity yet again.
A gentleman named John Thomas of Hartford, NY wrote a letter to the editor complaining about the quantity and quality of coverage given by The Post-Star to Nader's visit. Mr. Thomas felt that both were inadequate.
He complained that the visit of TV personality Rachel Ray got more coverage than the visit of a presidential candidate and one of the most influential Americans of the 20th century. This is factually correct. Ray got more coverage.
Now, it's no secret that I'm a Nader supporter, although I don't know John Thomas. But what bothered me most was how The Post-Star could not resist adding a snotty little Editor's Note to Thomas' letter.
The Editor's Note sniffed that Nader's visit got 'ample play' in the paper. That 'ample play' was a brief preview story and a small recap at the bottom of the local section.
Translation: Naderites should get on their hands and knees and genuflect to the brick red building that they deigned to give Nader any coverage at all.
Well, that's the paper's opinion.
Thomas' letter expressed a different opinion.
Isn't this the very purpose of the letters to the editor and editorial sections?
The letters express the opinions of readers. The editorial expresses the opinions of the newspaper.
Editor's Notes to letters to the edtior are very uncommon in this paper. Usually, the daily only includes them if the writer makes a factually false statement or to clarify something in the letter that may have been murky. Sometimes, it's used to note that the letter writer has some personal connection with the issue discussed.
The general rule of the paper seems to be to let the letter writers have their 15 minutes, so to speak.
None of these applied to Thomas' letter. He didn't say the paper offered no coverage. He said Nader should've gotten more than Rachel Ray.
Yet the paper felt the need to rebuke Thomas for expressing (and very mildly at that) his not demonstrably false personal opinion... which is the whole purpose of the letters to the editor section.
Makes you wonder why the paper is so hyperdefensive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)