"An analysis of the National Election Study exit poll data by Harvard political scientist Barry Burden showed that only 9% of the people who thought Nader was the best candidate actually voted for him. If people had not voted strategically, but instead voted for their favorite candidate, Nader would have had over 30 million votes instead of 2.9 million and might have won the election"
The full Barry Burden study is on line(PDF), but it's 23 pages long, and written by a political scientist at Harvard....so it's very fucking boring. I took this from the Draft Nader Page. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Oh, and a reminder, that's 30 million votes for a guy who spent about 80 million less than the other two candidates and wasn't in the debates. Which leads to think....maybe he should have run as a Democrat.
my mind has similarly been blown ... like, to pieces.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Green on Gore ...
Harsh words from the Green Party directed at leftist Gore supporters ...
It was under the Clinton/Gore administration that Depleted Uranium weaponry was first authorized. It was under was the Clinton/Gore administration that 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi children died from the sanctions, which is still a greater death toll than the Bush administration, although the Bushies are catching up quickly.
The Clinton/Gore administration first authorized "extraordinary rendition" and signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act which has further consolidated the corporate media, which is, in my opinion the biggest risk to democracy we face today. Let us also not forget "Welfare Reform" and the "War On Drugs", both an attack on poor people. Clinton/Gore again.
Then let us not forget that Gore actually won the 2000 election and instead of standing up for those who voted for him, including the 90,000 illegally purged from the voting rolls, Al Gore told the Congressional Black Cacaus to "sit down and be quiet", as noted in the Michael Moore movie Farenheight 9-11.
The WTO protests of Seattle in 1999 were targeting the policies of the Clinton/Gore administration. This includes signing up for NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, the IMF, massive give-a-ways of public land to the Mining Industries and of large tracts of our forests to the Lumber Industries.
None of this was mentioned in his cute little film. Instead of targeting the corporate responsibility for the crisis of global warming, he tells us what "we little people" can do. Buy a Prius, change a light bulb etc, not what General Motors should be forced to do. Just us "little people" changing bulbs etc. He also obviously did not target the policies started under his vice-presidency. No talk of NAFTA or corporate globalization in his movie.
Al Gore is a well packaged, corporate friendly "environmentalist." Al Gore is a "green-washed" corporate prostitute who has been green-washed just as surely as British Petroleum or any other corporate polluter. My fullest apologies to prostitutes for comparing you to Al Gore.
Now that is really an "inconvenient truth" and I can guarantee that this is something you will never hear from the Sierra Club, Dennis Kucinich or any of the local versions of him here in Minnesota. That is another "inconvenient truth."
In other words, wake up people. Pay attention to the actions instead of the words. You are being lied to, again.
It was under the Clinton/Gore administration that Depleted Uranium weaponry was first authorized. It was under was the Clinton/Gore administration that 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi children died from the sanctions, which is still a greater death toll than the Bush administration, although the Bushies are catching up quickly.
The Clinton/Gore administration first authorized "extraordinary rendition" and signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act which has further consolidated the corporate media, which is, in my opinion the biggest risk to democracy we face today. Let us also not forget "Welfare Reform" and the "War On Drugs", both an attack on poor people. Clinton/Gore again.
Then let us not forget that Gore actually won the 2000 election and instead of standing up for those who voted for him, including the 90,000 illegally purged from the voting rolls, Al Gore told the Congressional Black Cacaus to "sit down and be quiet", as noted in the Michael Moore movie Farenheight 9-11.
The WTO protests of Seattle in 1999 were targeting the policies of the Clinton/Gore administration. This includes signing up for NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, the IMF, massive give-a-ways of public land to the Mining Industries and of large tracts of our forests to the Lumber Industries.
None of this was mentioned in his cute little film. Instead of targeting the corporate responsibility for the crisis of global warming, he tells us what "we little people" can do. Buy a Prius, change a light bulb etc, not what General Motors should be forced to do. Just us "little people" changing bulbs etc. He also obviously did not target the policies started under his vice-presidency. No talk of NAFTA or corporate globalization in his movie.
Al Gore is a well packaged, corporate friendly "environmentalist." Al Gore is a "green-washed" corporate prostitute who has been green-washed just as surely as British Petroleum or any other corporate polluter. My fullest apologies to prostitutes for comparing you to Al Gore.
Now that is really an "inconvenient truth" and I can guarantee that this is something you will never hear from the Sierra Club, Dennis Kucinich or any of the local versions of him here in Minnesota. That is another "inconvenient truth."
In other words, wake up people. Pay attention to the actions instead of the words. You are being lied to, again.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
it's worse than i thought ...
read this.
and let me just say, honestly without any giddy glee (in fact, it's more like horror) ...
i told you so.
and let me just say, honestly without any giddy glee (in fact, it's more like horror) ...
i told you so.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Wayne's World
if you don't get feminist news like me, you may not know that a debate has been raging about the opening of a new Planned Parenthood in none other than my home state of Illinois in the town where Wayne and Garth lived. the city blocked the opening saying that planned parenthood did not obtain permits legally and anti-abortion groups rallied.
but so did pro-choicers ... and now the clinic, which i believe is the largest in the state, is open. hooray.
read the planned parenthood myspace blog here.
in other lame, anti-feminist moves, verizon decided to block NARAL's short code which allowed users to voluntarily sign up for news via text from NARAL. eventually, after thousands of customers wrote the ceo of verizon, he relented.
read some blogs about it on Huffington Post or where ever else you want.
which brings me to ....
drum roll please ....
capitalism and the importance of the following:
1. government regulation in capitalism. once upon a time, telephone companies (and gas and electric and other types of industries where a service was deemed essential and a monopoly deemed a necessary evil) were heavily regulated. the government told them that they couldn't take advantage of their decidedly un-capitalistic position of controlling our communications, heat, electricity, water, etc. They had to provide services to people. Good service. Unbigoted service. remember that time? me neither but it should be returned to none the less.
we assume that our sources of news are accurate and that we are being given information. news flash. we're not. no, we can't all spend all our time gaining all the itsy bit of info on everything that happens in this country. that's why we have journalists. journalists, who until recently, took seriously their ethical responsibility to be as fair as possible in their reporting, to protect whistle blowers, and to not bow to the powers that be. it's hard for reports to do this when their pay check comes from ... the powers that be.
plus my electric bill is outrageous.
2. consolidation of big business is anti-capitalistic. in fact, having only a handful of corporations operating in a single industry (or related industries) comes pretty damn close to monopoly. and monopoly is essentially the same as communism. that's right, communism. both involve one large, omnipotent entity controlling the production, pricing, and consumption of a product.
i don't how many people remember (or ever learned?) basic economics but adam smith, the "founder" of capitalism had this little theory of an "invisible hand." the idea being that all these small businesses compete in a market for customers and an invisible hand determines the price based on supply and demand. the key part here is small businesses. it's much like democracy. individuals make small decisions that collectively decided the direction of our government (baring violations of the bill of rights etc ... again importance of the role of government ...). nothing pisses me off more than small business owners who are fiscally conservative, which in today's political sphere is essentially pro-big business. which in turn, is anti-small business. perhaps you didn't notice but bush has consistently cut (and proposed further cuts) of the small business administration budget. not to mention he tax "cuts" which only benefit the rich and wealthy.
i saw the premiere of "An Unreasonable Man", the documentary about Ralph Nader. afterwards there was a Q & A with the film makers and someone asked a question about Ralph's support of capitalism. this girl was shocked to hear the Ralph was pro-capitalism and pro-small business (which in my head should ... and do go hand in hand).
when adam and i were first dating we would play a game where we'd ask each other random questions. once he or i asked what we most disagreed with about popular liberal politics. both our answer was that we felt that socialism was not the answer. i feel that this is another thing that the exceptional right wing pr machine has twisted: that all liberals are commies; that being anti-big business is equivalent to being anti-capitalism. i believe in entrepreneurship and supporting small businesses in america. i believe in capitalism. but i also believe in learning from history. a history that smacked us across our heads and told us that the government was an essential part of the economy and must regulate capitalism, i.e. the great depression.
so what can you do to support small business? i don't have all the answers but here are a few ideas:
buy handmade at etsy.com
buy things at locally owned stores
join a csa
choose to use a small business for things like: web sites/hosting/design/development, financial planning, real estate, insurance ...
yes, it might be a bit more work and a bit more expensive but think of it as moving towards a culture where walmart gets taxed more than you. which is really money in your pocket.
AND then there might be a real Wayne's World ... you know, locally produced media. it'd be awesome!
but so did pro-choicers ... and now the clinic, which i believe is the largest in the state, is open. hooray.
read the planned parenthood myspace blog here.
in other lame, anti-feminist moves, verizon decided to block NARAL's short code which allowed users to voluntarily sign up for news via text from NARAL. eventually, after thousands of customers wrote the ceo of verizon, he relented.
read some blogs about it on Huffington Post or where ever else you want.
which brings me to ....
drum roll please ....
capitalism and the importance of the following:
1. government regulation in capitalism. once upon a time, telephone companies (and gas and electric and other types of industries where a service was deemed essential and a monopoly deemed a necessary evil) were heavily regulated. the government told them that they couldn't take advantage of their decidedly un-capitalistic position of controlling our communications, heat, electricity, water, etc. They had to provide services to people. Good service. Unbigoted service. remember that time? me neither but it should be returned to none the less.
we assume that our sources of news are accurate and that we are being given information. news flash. we're not. no, we can't all spend all our time gaining all the itsy bit of info on everything that happens in this country. that's why we have journalists. journalists, who until recently, took seriously their ethical responsibility to be as fair as possible in their reporting, to protect whistle blowers, and to not bow to the powers that be. it's hard for reports to do this when their pay check comes from ... the powers that be.
plus my electric bill is outrageous.
2. consolidation of big business is anti-capitalistic. in fact, having only a handful of corporations operating in a single industry (or related industries) comes pretty damn close to monopoly. and monopoly is essentially the same as communism. that's right, communism. both involve one large, omnipotent entity controlling the production, pricing, and consumption of a product.
i don't how many people remember (or ever learned?) basic economics but adam smith, the "founder" of capitalism had this little theory of an "invisible hand." the idea being that all these small businesses compete in a market for customers and an invisible hand determines the price based on supply and demand. the key part here is small businesses. it's much like democracy. individuals make small decisions that collectively decided the direction of our government (baring violations of the bill of rights etc ... again importance of the role of government ...). nothing pisses me off more than small business owners who are fiscally conservative, which in today's political sphere is essentially pro-big business. which in turn, is anti-small business. perhaps you didn't notice but bush has consistently cut (and proposed further cuts) of the small business administration budget. not to mention he tax "cuts" which only benefit the rich and wealthy.
i saw the premiere of "An Unreasonable Man", the documentary about Ralph Nader. afterwards there was a Q & A with the film makers and someone asked a question about Ralph's support of capitalism. this girl was shocked to hear the Ralph was pro-capitalism and pro-small business (which in my head should ... and do go hand in hand).
when adam and i were first dating we would play a game where we'd ask each other random questions. once he or i asked what we most disagreed with about popular liberal politics. both our answer was that we felt that socialism was not the answer. i feel that this is another thing that the exceptional right wing pr machine has twisted: that all liberals are commies; that being anti-big business is equivalent to being anti-capitalism. i believe in entrepreneurship and supporting small businesses in america. i believe in capitalism. but i also believe in learning from history. a history that smacked us across our heads and told us that the government was an essential part of the economy and must regulate capitalism, i.e. the great depression.
so what can you do to support small business? i don't have all the answers but here are a few ideas:
buy handmade at etsy.com
buy things at locally owned stores
join a csa
choose to use a small business for things like: web sites/hosting/design/development, financial planning, real estate, insurance ...
yes, it might be a bit more work and a bit more expensive but think of it as moving towards a culture where walmart gets taxed more than you. which is really money in your pocket.
AND then there might be a real Wayne's World ... you know, locally produced media. it'd be awesome!
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Right on Ralph!!
Make them Sweat the Big Stuff
A society reveals its values, priorities and distribution of power in the way its rulers punish deviant behavior. Here are some examples for you to ponder:
Members of Congress were in an uproar recently over a MoveOn.Org political advertisement in the New York Times titled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” The following copy alerted readers to their belief that he may likely testify before Congress as a political General reflecting the rosy views on the Iraq war-quagmire by his commander-in-chief, George W. Bush.
How dare MoveOn.Org criticize a General in the midst of' Bush’s war of choice, growled Republicans and some Democrats as the Senators rushed to overwhelmingly vote for a resolution condemning the ad?
How dare those many Americans who criticized Civil War Generals, World War Two Generals, Korean War Generals (remember General Douglas MacArthur) and Vietnam War Generals (remember General William Westmoreland)?
This kind of criticism inside Army, inside the Congress and among the citizenry has been as American as apple pie.
How come a similar uproar has not come forth about the many female U.S. soldiers in Iraq raped or sexually harassed by male soldiers who are often their superiors? Where are the generals to crack down on these outrages? This story was documented in a long cover story in the New York Times Magazine some months ago, citing numerous sources, including the Pentagon.
Senators demanded the resignation of Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) caught in a toilet sting operation at Minneapolis airport. Senator Craig – he now says foolishly so – pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct. For doing what? As Frank Rich described the situation in the New York Times: “He didn't have sex in a public place. He didn’t expose himself. His toe tapping, hand signals and ‘wide stance’ were at most a form of flirtation.”
Conservative columnist, George Will expressed similar views.
The penalty for Senator Craig is likely termination of his Senate career but not one required by law. Just by pressure from his “pure” Senate colleagues.
Now contrast what should be required of George W. Bush by our Constitution, laws and international treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory nation.
Plunging our nation into an unconstitutional war of massive carnage and cost, and committing numerous, repeated crimes along the way, from widespread torture in violation of U.S. law and the Geneva conventions to spying on Americans without court approval (a felony), does not agitate the Senators as did the airport toilet tapping.
Added to the Bush presidency's serial and continuing crimes are his bungling and incompetence. He has enriched crooked corporations, burned tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and most seriously, deprived soldiers of sufficient body and humvee armor year after year, which has cost the lives and limbs of thousands of American GIs.
In a US court of law, such behavior would be judged criminal negligence.
Yet, there has been no demand from Congress for his impeachment, or his resignation, or even any support for Senator Russ Feingold's modest resolution of censure (S.Res. 302 and 303).
Bush's Justice Department has thrown the book at several plaintiff lawyers for paying people to be lead plaintiffs in securities fraud cases while not pursuing well over 90% of the corporate crooks who actually stole big money from investors and shareholders while paying themselves compensation beyond their dreams of avarice.
If the Department needed a bigger budget to go after this corporate crime wave, they should have requested it from Congress. The resulting fines and restitutions alone would have paid for such an enlarged law and order drive.
I am sure you can cite many examples of public hypocrisy, double standards and inverted priorities from your knowledge and experience. There are many explanations about why and how these powerbrokers and powerholders get away with such behavior.
But let us remember Abraham Lincoln’s observation about the power of “public sentiments.” We need to inform, focus and deliver a different quality and quantity of “public sentiments” directly to our allegedly public servants.
So that they start to sweat the big stuff.
This article was by Ralph Nader. Read the article on Nader.org.
If you think Nader cost Kerry and Gore the election, go to gregpalast.com and read the excerpts from his books on voter purge lists and other "true" conspiracies thanks to none other than W.
If you don't know all the things you should thank Nader for (seatbelts, food labeling, air bags, etc), then watch the documentary 'An Unreasonable Man'. And yes, it is fair ... much more than I am.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Manhattan is NOT an island!
actually there is Manhattan Island.
HOWEVER, the New York City borough of Manhattan which is defined by the boundaries of New York County (side note - is New York City the only place where there are multiple counties within the city limits? I think it might be), contains a section that is attached to the mainland, better known as the Bronx.
Marble Hill was once part of Manhattan Island. Then in the late 1800s they decided to redirect the Harlem River and annexed Marble Hill. Later they filled in the real Harlem River and wa-la ... mainland! Apparently there was much dispute over whether is should still be part of Manhattan or should become part of the Bronx. Eventually, it was ruled that it should remain part of the borough of Manhattan although it gets services from the Bronx. I mean, who wants their firefighters coming over suspension bridges? Not the residents of Marble Hill apparently. However, Marble Hill residents received a scathing blow to their manhattanness when it was determined that they had to switch to the 718 area code like Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island and could not keep the Manhattan 212. Suckers!
Read it on wikipedia here.
next stop ... long island. what the hell is? and what do people really mean when they say it?
HOWEVER, the New York City borough of Manhattan which is defined by the boundaries of New York County (side note - is New York City the only place where there are multiple counties within the city limits? I think it might be), contains a section that is attached to the mainland, better known as the Bronx.
Marble Hill was once part of Manhattan Island. Then in the late 1800s they decided to redirect the Harlem River and annexed Marble Hill. Later they filled in the real Harlem River and wa-la ... mainland! Apparently there was much dispute over whether is should still be part of Manhattan or should become part of the Bronx. Eventually, it was ruled that it should remain part of the borough of Manhattan although it gets services from the Bronx. I mean, who wants their firefighters coming over suspension bridges? Not the residents of Marble Hill apparently. However, Marble Hill residents received a scathing blow to their manhattanness when it was determined that they had to switch to the 718 area code like Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island and could not keep the Manhattan 212. Suckers!
Read it on wikipedia here.
next stop ... long island. what the hell is? and what do people really mean when they say it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
