portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government dnc & rnc actions

Dem convention is a sick joke

Having been off work today, I've had the misfortune to watch the Democratic convention. Being a foreigner, I must ask 'what the hell is all this nonsense about?
The 'delegates' who are speaking come on stage like they were picking up an award for some soap opera award, complete with snippets of music. They speak sound bites for two minutes, with their ties creased just in the right place, or their heads scarf wrapped around the shoulder just right.
Then at the end of the session it turns into a ice hockey game with more music and people dancing in the aisles with their placards. They may be dancing in the aisles now, but most people wont be dancing in the streets whoever wins in November.
This is not a democracy, this is a joke. Surely conventions should be about making a policy then voting on it. There are plenty of words about helping the poor, health care support for gays and lesbians, jobs, abortion rights and so on. We've heard it all before. These politicians tell so many lies their tongues should be circumcised
If they believed it why didn't they do something about these things before.( Lookout for the excuses about to come).
.American main stream politics is a joke.
And when someone like Nader comes along and offers some kind of alternative to the reps/dems he is attacked for taking part in the democratic process, even by some on the left.
Watching this is like having a colonoscopy. The dems are a pain in the rear and their procedure gives you a strong case of the s.....s. At least with a colonoscopy they sedate you!
Come on Americans and see what the rest of the world sees.
There is next to no difference between the Reps and the Dems.

Defeat Bush/Kerry. Organize and fight for something different.


Please let us know when you hear a speaker say
We will bring the troops home now and stop interfering in all other countries
a man can marry a man
A woman can marry a woman
you can smoke whatever you want
Lower the drinking age to 18 like everywhere else in the world
We will support all striking workers
As welfare people are told you have to work to earn your money, ban all inheritance.
We will stop the war on immigrants, Arabs
We support abortion access at any time everywhere
And so on!
The only promise they will deliver on is more money for the military and to bomb the hell out of anyone who gets in they way, Ain't that right, Bill?


November is a dangerous month to trust in politicians, so is July,January, September, April, October, May, March, June, December, August and February.
(sorry Mark)
Corporate Politics provide a wonderful illusion 26.Jul.2004 17:38

Brian

Join the Green Party! The Green Party is an international movement to end corporate domination and to bring back some humanity. We promote peace and non-violence, are strong advocates of gay and lesbian rights, call for an end to the drug war and legalization of marijuana for enjoyment/medicine and hemp for making products.

checkout www.gp.org

Vote Cobb / LaMarche (the only ticket with a woman on it!!!)
www.votecobb.org

Dear green party, 26.Jul.2004 18:33

heck

Please get some strong cantidates on local ballots. Has the local green party worked at all to address locally relevant concerns as they happen? If not could you? Sure I'd like to see a grassroots response to the facism I see in our government. I'm even sickened by the candy coated lie inherient in the statement "anybody but bush." Yeah bush and his gang are racist war profiteers, but the truth is there hasn't been an american presedent who wasn't. In the past Nader's national election drive seemed to overshadow anything else I've heard publicly about your organization. Other than mostly bad rumors. Does the green party exist as an organization aside from the Nader's pirgs? Does the local green party have a stand on the police violence that's occured lately? Do you intend to support or organize any campaigns for localism, and against multinational supremacy in our neighborhoods?

the only "ticket" 26.Jul.2004 19:43

clamydia

The only "ticket" with a woman on it, eh? Sorry, but I think that this show's already sold out. That's ok; it got terrible reviews anyway, and I prefer independent films.

Why not consider the Libertarian Party? 26.Jul.2004 20:45

Pleiades

I know the first response to the Libertarian Party is not usually a positive one. I thought the same things. However, one would be quite surprised to find these people to be very freedom oriented, rights and responsibilities, live and let live type of people. Some are a bit too conservative for me, and others are 'lefter' than I. The common ground is Freedom, Constitution, Responsible for choices, respect others, but mess with me or my property and you have an issue.

There is a really cool test they have that tells one where they sit on the political spectrum... it is at www.lp.org down the right hand side. I always thought of myself as a liberal type, and I turned out to have the ideologies of a radical libertarian.

My point here in all this chatter is why not check out the www.lp.org and see if you don't agree with the issues. They do have a stand on police, on schools, on free speech zones, on guns... yes, second amendment is very important to almost all Libertarians... and now that I understand tyranny and the need to keep some sort of protection from the tyrants, I must say my stance changed 180 degrees.

Just try it on and see what you think. They are being blacked out everywhere because they are actually gaining ground at a very rapid pace. You may not agree with it all, however, I do think you will find enough common ground to agree with the important things that currently matter with issues about our liberty and way of life outside the tyrannical model. This party is drawing people from both sides ... if you like Rep. Ron Paul, you get the picture. He is at www.house.gov/paul

Personally, I think all Patriotic Americans fit in this party.

Give me a break 26.Jul.2004 21:11

weld red

Libertarians are concerned with one thing, me,me me and me.
You the republicans and the democrats should go on an island and eat each other

Keep it local 26.Jul.2004 22:16

green with envy

So qucik the green party to become engaged in a president many green dont have a local candidate to run locally.

Whats with that?

Lot of work at home to be done before the Green goes

First-level thinking 26.Jul.2004 22:19

James

"Libertarians are concerned with one thing, me,me me and me."

No, Libertarians believe that individuals are able to form better and more efficient society than a select group of elites and their hordes of bean counting slaves. Libertarians belive that free individuals make the correct choice on the average. Libertarians belive in the social contract theory.

Libertarians believe that government is a necessary evil, with a single primary purpose: enforcing a monopoly on violence. Some Libertarians believe government should also wield that monopoly on violence to restrict monopolies of commerce. Other Libertarians believe that government should involve itself in situations where there is a clearly defined positive neighborhood effect.

Libertarians value individual freedom over equality, but that hardly means they are concerned only with themselves.

The LP supports gay marriage. They were opposed to the War in Iraq. They're opposed to the war on drugs. They protect gun rights. They support free and open immigration. They support freedom of speech above all others. They want to gut the military.

Where else do you find a group of people who are willing to talk about the real reason crime and violence are so prevalent in black communities: because the white power structure keeps sending armies of cops into black neighborhoods and arresting all the men. It's no wonder black children perform so poorly in school. All their role models have been caged by the white man for invented crimes which do not offend any natural morality or threaten any others.

The Libertarian Party has its problems and I'm not registered with their party. I consider myself a small 'l' libertarian. But it's simply offensive to read that Libertarians are concerned only with themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth.

no kidding 26.Jul.2004 23:00

disgusted

blah blah bush sucks blah blah John Kerry John Edwards must be better blah blah besides you have no choice blah blah

They seem to think our democracy is a football game or something. It is truly embarassing.

The delegates are going to blown away when Dennis speaks on wednesday, the only one left in the democratic party with substance. I have lost all respect for Clinton(what little I had), Carter, anyone promoting this get behind Kerry for no reason attitude. Kerry is clearly throwing the election to Bush, he would only have to be trying to be as awful as he is. He is trying to give it to Bush by lending him credibility. The skull and boners can probably get more done with Bush in office. Either way WE ARE SCREWED!
baaaaaa better than bush baaaaaa
baaaaaa better than bush baaaaaa
This is our vietnam war hero
This is our vietnam war hero
get to work!
get to work!

Kucinich 26.Jul.2004 23:56

Kucinich

"anyone promoting this get behind Kerry for no reason attitude."
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, whose dogged determination and intensely loyal grassroots support carried him through every primary and every caucus in the nation, has endorsed Sen. John Kerry and pledged to "do everything possible" to help elect him as President.

"Unity is essential to bring change in November," said Kucinich. "Unity is essential to repair America. Unity is essential to set America on a new path."

"With the same passion and commitment I demonstrated in my own campaign for President, I intend reach out on behalf of the Kerry-Edwards ticket to unite our Party with all those who may have felt left out. I will let them know that the time has come to unite in a common effort for change which is essential, not only for America but for the world."

http://kucinich.us/misc/kucinich_kerry.php

is a green going to respond or what? 27.Jul.2004 06:09

heckno

Please get some strong cantidates on local ballots. Has the local green party worked at all to address locally relevant concerns as they happen? If not why? Sure I'd like to see a grassroots response to the facism I see in our government. I'm even sickened by the candy coated lie inherient in the statement "anybody but bush." Yeah bush and his gang are racist war profiteers, but the truth is there hasn't been an american presedent who wasn't. In the past Nader's national election drive seemed to overshadow anything else I've heard publicly about your organization. Other than mostly bad rumors. Does the green party exist as an organization aside from the Nader's pirgs? Does the local green party have a stand on the police violence that's occured lately? Do you intend to support or organize any campaigns for localism, and against multinational supremacy in our neighborhoods?

A Questions for Libertarians 27.Jul.2004 14:42

me

Libertarians have some fine ideas--about half of them, the half that are left-wing. The other half, the right-wing portion, has problems as far as I can see. One of my great concerns is the environment. Will Libertarians endorse tough environmental restrictions which may already be too late to save the species on this plane?

Libertarian pollution restriction position 27.Jul.2004 16:16

James

Capping pollution is perfectly consistent with libertarian principles, because there are significant neighborhood effects associated with that pollution. Libertarians consider pollution to be both a communal cost, and a limited resource. (A limited resource, because once you pollute more than a certain amount in a given area, you die). Like other limited resources (radio spectrum, land, etc), libertarians support market-based, government-enforced solutions.

(I don't believe this is in the official Libertarian Party platform, but libertarians like Milton Friedman have proposed such solutions for many years).

Under a cap and trade system, you would have to bid on and purchase credits from the government in order to pollute. If you want to release 100kg of mercury from a coal-fired power plant, you need 100 1kg mercury emission credits.

There would still be an absolute cap on credits, of course. The government would decide what levels of pollution are safe for a given area. Noone would be able to pollute beyond that limit.

The price of the credits would rise and fall with the amount of pollution being released in the area. If there are only 100 offered credits for a certain type of pollution, and all 100 of the credits are desired, the price of the credits might rise quite high. The credits (and hence, polluting) would then become economically attractive only to industries for which polluting is an absolute necessity. And it would provide an incentive to invest in newer, cleaner technologies, if they are available.

The proceeds from the sale of the credits would goto an environmental clean-up and preservation fund. And if the cost of cleaning up the environment is greater than the amount of money available in the fund, you know you've priced your pollution credits too low.

Libertarian market-oriented pollution policies would stomp-out needless pollution and distribute it more equitably than simple absolute limits.

ruminations on libertarian green alliances on local politics, etc. 27.Jul.2004 21:41

green

"The price of the credits would rise and fall with the amount of pollution...."

No, it rises and falls with speculation on carbon credits and the depression of the price of such carbon credits in practice. Your theory is hardly the way markets work in practice, unfortunately and hopefully this is helpful. Using the example of the global carbon credits motif which were supposedly designed to slow or stop pollution using 'market neoliberalism methods,' all it has done is subsidized continuing political inaction and pollution instead of demoting pollution.

Second, all it has done is maintained the jurisdiction of change in the hands of the very corporations that are the criminal polluters, as they can buy up the global credits from the Third World (which has depressed the 'market' for the carbon credits because there are so many sellers), and let's the transnational corporations destroy the world. Third, it locks the Third World into a mindset of 'development' as innately involving destruction of the environment.

All of it is just a PR gesture, a stalling mechanim. Carbon credits are a stalling mechanism. The actual power stays in the hands of the polluters and they simply get to subsidize themselves for polluting more. It's origins as a 'solution' were combined with desires to co-opt other political actions and keep the politics under corporate state frameworks.


Carbon credits, if one rates them on removing pollution, have been a total failure.
If one rates carbon credits on keeping corporations in power and keeping their pollution unchallenged, it has been a success. First World countries only buy up Third World credits and continue polluting and the Third World is hardly any better off at all. Carbon credits are a well hyped scam, like the scam the Democrats are 'of the people' or the scam that the Republicans are for 'market forces.' They are actually the good cop-bad cop psyops of the evil corporate state that has to be thrown off to provide space for local action.

By they way, there is nothing called a market--at least anymore. The whole idea is just a popular mystification of the corporate state power that keeps the right-wing sheep happy. Belief in the market requires smaller groups than what we have presently. To believe in markets at this point--with the institutions we have--is to basically support the corporate fascist state.

Markets are effectively dead, killed by the very corporations that enshrine them with so much empty hot air of praise.

We live in a corporately administrated global mall, where up to around 1/3 of all global international trade are actually inter-corporate transfers of private economic insttutions. In other words, 1/3 or more of world trade are just global transfers of one division of a corporation to antoher--without any market at all. We are being administrated instead of participating in markets. Nothing 'bad' about markets, only that what we have presently have nothing to do with markets.

For the thinking libertarians out there, instead of one looking for a one-size fits all pre-conceived thought (there are those type of people on the left as well), designing sustainability is lot like artistry.

We require a way to get around this whole 'market' vs. 'state' framework to get people to realize it is an up vs. down issue and that this market vs. state is just another form of divide and conquer of the local area interests that keeps people fighting each other even though they have the same geographic interests to stop these corporate destroyers whether they are Democratic or Republican.

Mobilized media concepts of 'market' and 'state' are two different game shows they use to get a numbed audience of supporters to rally around in lieu of understanding their own local interests, or even getting to know each other on the local level. Instead of knowing about their local interests, they are lost in some corporate ideology, whether it be leftist or rightist, and they are rendered effectively blind. They are trained like dogs to yelp and chase on command at either a blue ball or a red ball when both are owned and tossed out by the same single corporate elites desires for managing people from a distance, for managing people without any democratic input. Look it up at  http://www.opensecrets.org. The financing of the left and right in the U.S. are pretty much identitical. The U.S. is ruled by divide and conquer corproate statists instead of democracy. Plus, the districts are basically Sovietized and a one party state already. People on the local level have effectively zero choices. Check out  http://www.fairvote.org for that. It's called gerrymandering.



I think there is some interesting information on these points in these books:

When Corporations Rule the World
by David C. Korten
 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1887208046/qid=1090988679/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4515187-1343133?v=glance&s=books

Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor
by Tom Athanasiou
 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0820320072/qid=1090988709/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4515187-1343133?v=glance&s=books

Fixing Elections: The Failure of America's Winner Take All Politics
by Steven Hill
 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415931940/qid=1090989632/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4515187-1343133?v=glance&s=books


Mentioned above in another comment, I agree with the 'half right' aspects of libertarianism though that comment failed to actually say what that half-right aspect was in their mind. In my mind, I think the best way to procedd on a libertarian/green alliance is to concentrate on the shared sense of decentralization and localism that greens and libertarians share--both against large scale managerial manipulations from financial powers, corporate powers, scientific powers, state jurisdictions, etc.

Would love to see a mixed green/libertarian ticket or platform. ;-)

What are you talking about? 27.Jul.2004 22:24

James

"carbon credits, if one rates them on removing pollution, have been a total failure. "

There is no active carbon credits trading program in this country. There are no carbon credits at all. The only cap-and-trade style program in existence in the United States is the acid rain allowance program, for sulfur dioxide emissions. (Which has been a success).

I think you're confusing yourself with a U.S. proposal at the Kyoto Conference to create an international carbon credit trading system. Kyoto is an awful protocol, but the U.S. proposal is a fine idea -- for carbon emissions, and carbon emissions only. (A fine idea, but only an idea, since the system doesn't exist).

Since carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but rather a greenhouse gas, it doesn't matter very much where carbon dioxide is released (unless your releasing a massive amount all at once). It's a global problem, not a localized one.

In contrast, however, it very much matters where air, water and land pollution occurs. To deal with those problems, you wouldn't create an international trading system, in which the U.S. can buy up third-world pollution credits. That would be pointless. You would issue credits for particular regions. You'd have Pacific Northwest credits, New England credits. Where there is a specific need, you would localize it even further. You could create Columbia and Willamette River credits.

"No, it rises and falls with speculation on carbon credits and the depression of the price of such carbon credits in practice."

Illogical. It's an auction -- you can set a reserve price. And that money goes to the cleanup and preservation of the environment. The price can't fall below a certain point. When the price is high, it's because there is too much demand for pollution releases. The high price will discourage that pollution.

"All of it is just a PR gesture, a stalling mechanim. Carbon credits are a stalling mechanism. The actual power stays in the hands of the polluters and they simply get to subsidize themselves for polluting more."

More illogic. How can it be a stalling mechanism when there are absolute limits? It's no different than traditional regulation, except that it incentivizes needless polluters to adopt cleaner technologies, and it forces polluters to pay the real cost for the clean-up and preservation of our shared environment (which they are dirtying).

"By they way, there is nothing called a market--at least anymore. The whole idea is just a popular mystification of the corporate state power that keeps the right-wing sheep happy. Belief in the market requires smaller groups than what we have presently. To believe in markets at this point--with the institutions we have--is to basically support the corporate fascist state."

This, and the majority of what follows in your post, is quite possibly the largest collection of non-sequiturs I have ever come across.

Painting with a broad brush 28.Jul.2004 12:05

Libertarian Municipalist

Talking about "Libertarians" and what "Libertarians" think is as meaningless as talking about greens, communists, democrats, conservatives, capitalists, christians, republicans, socialists, muslims, buddhists, anarchists, scientologists, hindus... need I continue...

The point is that people's beliefs do not fall into neat categories. The best you could do is to talk about a platform of a particular party since that will be written out, and presumably consensed upon (though not all members of that party will agree with much of it).

From my experience in discussing environmental issues with Libertarians I have not met a single one who believed in environmental protections. I have no doubt that there are some out there but the people I've talked with have said that environmental protections are an abuse of government and damages from pollution should be handled in court. That is, a company has every right to pollute the drinking water that goes to your town, but you have the right to try and prove that that contamination gave you cancer, and if so, collect money. These Libertarians seem to have a morbid joy in equating life with money. The official stance of the party is that the environment will be saved if we just sell all of our public lands to private interests.

Likewise, I have yet to meet a Libertarian who advocated reducing military spending but I have seen some Libertarians write about the possibility, and the party has no stance on the issue. And like the issue of military spending some Libertarians are waking up to what Jefferson called "the tyranny of the corporations" and are increasingly critical of the rampant corporate welfare in this country which completely goes against the principles of a free market economy. However, they haven't figured out, or at least, articulated, how to place the appropriate checks on corporate power other than the obvious removal of tax-payer subsidies to corporations. And too often those who write about the abuses of government spending to benefit corporations simply advocate turning over the issue to those same corporations who are benefiting from the abuse showing a clear misunderstanding of the root of corporate welfare. They can see the evils of the government, but blind to the corporate money that are directing the policies. But again, many more are waking up to this reality and we shall see what effect those people will have on the Libertarian Party.

I would suggest that people check out Badnarik's website. I find that I agree with most of his proposals though several I can classify as "doing the right thing for the wrong reason and will not have the stated effects." I would also suggest reading up on using the term sombunall when dealing with discussions of large generalized groups (I've avoided it here and reduced my discussion to my anecdotal experience because I'm not sure people would be familiar with the term sombunall). A discussion of "Libertarians" could go like this:

Sombunall Libertarians believe that military spending should be reduced for the following reasons...

Sombunall Libertarians believe that military spending should remain high or continue to increase for the following reasons...

Sombunall Libertarians believe that the solution to environmental issues is to privative all public land.

Sombunall Libertarians believe in the concept of "the commons" that should be protected as one of the limited powers granted to government.

Then you can discuss the ideas involved, rather than the generalizations about a group whose members may share little in common. As it has been said, "show me a Libertarians and I'll show you a Republican who doesn't want to pay any taxes and smoke pot."