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

corporate dominance | government

Sanders: Iowa Caucus Result "A Victory For Our Political Revolution"

in partial response and context to a preceding post on the Portland IMC Newswire 'Bernie Sanders' Socialist America'  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/01/431505.shtml
[From that article, QUOTE:] "Bernie's idea of political revolution starts with the American people getting out to vote in record numbers..."

Tonight after the Iowa Caucus results came in with quite a close race between him and Democrat Party candidate Hillary Clinton, Sanders further advanced the "voter turnout / participation of millions" notion, for and about his campaign.

Sanders tonight, QUOTE:
"Tonight's result is a victory for our political revolution. We have proved that when people come together, anything is possible. New Hampshire votes next, where we have a slight lead in the polls. If we win there, we'll have all the momentum. What counts now is how we respond in this moment."

( FWIW personally I put virtually zero stock in what politician Sanders has to offer, but his rhetoric here is marginally intriguing for a Corporate-One-Party candidate. )

Excerpt of Bernie Sanders' post-caucus speech below.
Bernie Sanders after the February 1, 2016 Iowa Caucus

Tonight we accomplished what the corporate media and political establishment once believed was impossible: after trailing Hillary Clinton in Iowa throughout this entire campaign, it looks as if we will leave the state with roughly the same number of delegates.
I want to be clear with you about what this really means. Tonight's result is a victory for our political revolution. We have proved that when people come together, anything is possible.
New Hampshire votes next, where we have a slight lead in the polls. If we win there, we'll have all the momentum. What counts now is how we respond in this moment:
When we started this campaign, almost everyone wrote us off. We were down 41 percent in the polls... and those were some of the good ones. They said our ideas were radical and that we could never compete with the big-money fundraising of Hillary Clinton and her super PACs.
Well, you showed them tonight.
Victory is within our reach. But winning will require the active participation of millions of Americans in every community across the country nothing less than a political revolution.


What A Fine Corporate-One-Party "Revolution"! 02.Feb.2016 06:59


I keep pointing out that strategic score ("simple score") voting can be completely described in one short simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all (ignore them as if the did not exist), or strategically bid from five (5) to ten (10) votes to any number of candidates you wish (up to some reasonable limit, say 20 candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.

Of course, with no machines.

That way, you could (say, in a general election) write in Cynthia McKinney and bid her 10 votes, and bid Bernard Sanders 8 or 9 votes as a hedge (depending on you choice of strategy). This would completely disrupt the alleged two-party system. The oppressive duopolists can always use strategy, so strategy must be available to the common voters if they are to win.

By the way, the votes (or "heads") of both conventions were counted by Microsoft, whose employees largely contributed to that lady who laughs hysterically when people are murdered. This is being challenged now by Sanders:

Sanders camp suspicious of Microsoft's influence in Iowa Caucus
 link to www.msnbc.com

Of course, why should people worry about Microsoft's machines when they are forced to vote in a duopoly anyway?

as has been pointed out 02.Feb.2016 12:35


The 'two-party' mindset has much history and might be expected of typical American cultural impatience, each party occupying a place between a set of parenthesis separated by the sign of congruency. One can argue that in the primaries of today there is some slight chance of recognizing the difference in the variables each side of congruent by its representative personality, but that's about it that I can tell. I'm really not a student of white American history. Few who know me more intimately might deny such a thing outside of periods economic upset such as the 1929 depression with its politically socialist (however tame) bent. I prefer ancient with a decided tilt to the culturally uplifting aspects and their 'childish' myths. Dionysus knew how to party, had his 'shrooms', his orgies, and his blood-lust. Too bad he ain't around to give America a lesson as he did Pentheus...

One thing that might be lost upon Americans and more modern history is that we give credit to the Greeks for 'creating democracy', which in reality was operative in some form within some locales, traditions, tribes, and cultures long before. What classical Greeks are NOT given due credit is the consequent invention of 'demockery' in the same forms as we see today (Pericles comes to mind...). Only the 'free' and those who were perceived to have a 'stake' in existence as landholders, the rich, etc. were allowed a vote, and the 'Founding Fathers' in a bit more current yet decidely hero-based cultural backdrop also shared the same trait of having some segment of literal slave (owned as property) population and dismissive attitude toward women. 'The vote' had some connection somewhere with one's economic status and/or perceived value as a 'man'.

Now, admittedly, today, we can actually have a male produce offspring in the manner of Zeus and his 'children'. Cultural progress on the order of universal recognition of at least spiritual equality is at best a halting process. I know a great many of what I feel are good female thinkers who still feel that in essence their gender is 'Eve' spiritually. (They might get to know Lilith, huh?) We might feel with pride some measure of 'universal sufferage', that has hardly been the case. Blacks, the poor, in many respects women (though that is much more a cultural consequence than political), and most unfortunately children, are only more or less recognized and accomodated for what I might feel is the sake of the common peace than anything. A woman with more than one issue must be a hero in her own right and own the same flaws as any hero of the male persuasion. A black must also be a hero, but never on the order of Malcolm X or even the peaceful MLK, suffer the mental and brutal physical insults of a man such as Dick Gregory and vast others in their cause to simply be recognized as a human being in spirit as well as form. Personally, I believe that without the limited desegregation of the military (we needed mercenaries) and the vast need for female and black economic participation in WWII, all but the ever-present and generally consistent segment of the philosphical idealists would likely find today much different than it was in the late 1800s. Women, I admit, have fared much better, but homosexuality is not so much accepted to 'chistians' (while blood certainly is) and certinaly not on the order of social institution as it was in classical Greek Athens that women were dismissed as baby machines (with their abortion methods and the practice of exposure for control) and no better than chattel. 'Owned' women are still some measure of fact. If an individual doesn't hold consistently some hero-trait in something more than single instances, their status depends upon being compliant of the nature of Colin Powell or Clarence Thomas.

Now personally, I may like the idea of democracy set on the order of European democracies that in form anyway allow some measure of change between constitutionally prescribed voting instances (and to tie this in, a system which might be much more receptive to blues' voting scheme) as opposed to the 'American Way'. I do realize it's just a different hue of another lame horse in practice. I won't bother discussing a solution, because I haven't any that doesn't sound like an ideal. Some measure of ideals may be realized, but even those slight measures find a scheme to circumvent them. I do feel that the problem is much more deep as a common cultural phenomena than some voting scheme.

I'd love to feel that we're something more than that same old farmer in his field in Sumeria or Egypt staring down a row with a prayer for each seed as he walks it. They actually don't mind caressing the earth and planting the seed. What they need is peace and good weather, not power and scientific explanation. It's a reverant act to many and what better to be reverant but the source of one's continuing existence? What is more relective of his life as a human with intelligence? Hunting/gathering may in essence be only survival tactics much more limited to smaller, nomadic populations and even more limited talent and resources, though those tactics too have their intellectual and spiritual component. There have been times in the past that have held great upheavals in climate that press human existence, at least in the cultural history of the Europeans who moved enmasse to the great new world, and its greatly expedient that there be both agricultural and hunter traditions and practices. But what is obvious to me is that the hero cultures into which we've been born can't let go of the mistaken freedom of those hunter/gatherers. Many of our institutions and philosophies are firmly based in such idealism and its pursuit. I'm truly surprised that someone hasn't done an analogical assessment of something like capitalism in that light, especially with the seeming adoption and massacre of mistaken Darwinian ideas which before Darwin might only find elucidation in simple expediency of form of certain instances and practices. The 'stock market' today is prime example of the evolution of that idea, and damn if I can find anyone this morning who really has regrad for its actual practices who isn't lucky or observant enough to be on the right side of a dishonest and manipulated trade. Hey, you fuckers! I predicted the collapse of the housing bubble in 2002. I was just too early, and my principles don't allow me to partake knowingly in dishonest gestures that I realize so intimately. I admit, too, that I try to avoid challenging my honesty by games. That attitude never served me well in the minor management roles I found myself in and quickly out of over the years once it was realized that my skills didn't bring along management's 'natural' assumptions.

Now, to bring this in focus, Iowans love their farm and ethanol subsidies. I was hoping for a bit more recognition of the truth of Hillary Clinton. What isn't evident of her that doesn't haunt the darkest regioins of expectation? (I'd call her 'Queen of the Underworld', but the Greeks had real respect for the place as truly and experientially existant, while we're placed it into some islamic or christian never-neverland of vindictive and eternal retribution in general with some equally eternal and blissful heaven as its balance.) And I'm thoroughly glad Trump got a wake up call on his true entertainment value, though I do wonder if Cruz is nothing but Hillary as a christian who is formally vetted by the Marine Corps.

Iowans in general may be fairly comfortable situated in the middle of the continent with their stock feedlots, lack of a large industrial cities and pressures (and disenfrachised voters), pesticide and herbicide franchises, and (likely hurting a bit) farm equipment dealerships. Not quite representative of the majority of the US population, but setting the pace for the whole primary process. I've nothing against Iowa or Iowans, so don't read that into this...While they a century ago may have been more representative of the general population, a century ago the actual voting system and regime wasn't any whole better. Interestingly, one aspect that hasn't seemed to take a hit in Iowa is today's corporate influence in politics, whatever nominal agency represents it. Iowans are sure evidence of that.

I'm just trying to be somewhat realistic, and stick to subjects that are intimate within what is here, as it ain't going to change tomorrow without martial law. It must be understood that I'm a poet and musician who doesn't dabble in smart political ditties and eschewed that practice with a teen decision about my interests and work in the 60s when that kind of thing was all the rage in the protest song among my peers. Yeah, I dabble rather greatly in 'dream-time' and have had to be aware of the dark recesses of philosophy that I don't become a cynical, faithless shell of human representation such as we saw on the podiums in debates. (I'm still out on Bernie, but not insulted as with others.) I'll admit smokin' dope helps with the philosophy anyway. But as 'unrealistic' as my personal life may have been in the eyes of some, I do have a cultivated rational side that fed my belly and family, built our house ourselves with the minimal outside financial assistance and interest payments (and we wouldn't have borrowed that but for a pregnancy that didn't consider the financial commitments we'd already made).

I think what Iowa should tells us (but which we already knew, even with, if not potentially worse, that false savior Donald) that there are issues we might focus upon rather than who's going to be the fall guy for the current shit-show. From what I understand the Canadians and the Zealanders are set to vote on the TPP the 4th. Need more? The buffet is huge. Where is everyone? Sitting overly-chatty and with much too efficient restless fingers on a keyboard in front of the new 'boob-toob', our computer screens, phones with their tracking devices, or tablets?

Oh, well...SOS (same old shit) and you might consider this essay rightly the same. There are surely more ways to influence and vastly more issues than ever will be discussed on the national political stage than these shows that inevitably with lead to their national nascent-nazi gatherings. When will we get the idea that the president is truly more reminiscent of a Mexican pinata and focus on the local level, where change can be more efficient, more evident, and more often?

OK. I'll end with the usual apology after on of these sessions for my typing efficiency. Damn the only good thing I learned in high school and learning basic algebra, geometry, and trigonometry before becoming a teen...Unless you really feel the need. At that point, feel free. This is entertainment, somewhat, for me, so you can be assured I read your invective, but don't expect me to take it any seriously than you take this and I take my own. It's some measure of therapy on the order of the 'screaming' type for me. I hope, as is usual for me with presidential elections, that done with the frustrations from the past 4-8 years of a single individual quickly, making my usual assumptions concerning the status quo, beginning a fresh round of frustration might keep my fingers somewhat muted until the next great, truly monumental expensive instance for expression of the same.

Taxation and diplomacy or voluntariness and magic thinking 05.Feb.2016 08:06


Hillary compared Putin with Hitler while Senator Sanders urges diplomacy to settle conflicts. Russia lost 25 million in WW2 and was stylized as an "imminent threat" so the rightwing could create a security state. NATO now has 28 members. not only 16, encircles Russia and hopes to include the Ukraine. Why can't Hillary and the republican nuts recognize Russia's right to self-determination? Maybe they were mesmerized by "I Dream of Jeannie" when they should have studied history and tolerance!