11.16.2003
What do You think?
It's not popular to point out just how Demublican Republacrat the front running anyone but Bush candidates are. I know, it bugs folks. I agree we as a people need to mobilize as a united front to beat the big money Republican Machine. But I remember Misters Clinton and Gore. Not as bad. Nafta. More restrictive social safety net. Deregulation of the media. Enlargement of the Police State. Marc Rich pardoned, Leonard Peltier languishing in prison. Big money politics for big money people. But no, not as bad as Bush. Hell no, I can see that. But I remember the Clinton speeches as he became the Democratic Presidential candidate. I know you do too, I'm guessing like me you were filled with hope. We need to discern clearly and act on our hope. Do you remember that Gore's running mate was Lieberman for crying out loud? He was "good enough" then, but now he looks a bit GOPish. Not as bad as Bush, point taken. But not as good as we deserve.
Many folks think Mr Dean is a fresh choice. Many feel Mr Clark has what it takes to turn around America. Although the money and name recognition are not there my reading tells me there is only one candidate that steps into the fray, consistently. OK, the "choice" flip flop, that is a lightning rod. Show me another candidate that has been more consistant otherwise. War, Nafta, the environment, corporate influence on our government, healthcare that covers all without putting money oin the pockets of the insurance/pharmaceutical industry. Read each candidates stance today; then google up their past, break out an old magazine or two. Research your candidate. Sure, none of them are 'pure'. But which one has a vision of America consonant with the vision of our founding fathers? Put your preconcieved notions to the side. Factor in "financial beholdeness" and past track record. If your well researched analysis comes out counter to mine, fine. But you did the research. This is too fucking important an issue to just take the candidates rhetorical flourishes as Gospel. We have a year til we vote, should the Black Box voting stuff be cleared up each of our votes will count heavily toward the future of our nation.
The GOP has been shown morally and politically bankrupt to anyone who has any grasp of American Reality. You don't need to agree with me but please, don't go into the coming election blindly. If we are going to go up against the Mighty Wurlitzer settling for less bad is not good enough. In that you know I'm right. Put the votes for Nader and the late in the campaign "populist" Gore together, factor in the huge amount of people from all walks of life that are seeing through the lies the media is still feeding us about the war and economy and we can be winners. Yes, it is going to take out in the world activism, preaching to the choir with our blogs is just a facet of the struggle. We have an amazing moment to effect the course of our history. My thought is that settling is not OK.
Imagine if we could agitate enough to get an actual Debate rather than settling for the canned speech format that passes for debate in our tired status quo. We are at a tipping point to breath life into Democracy.
I let you know what I think. Tell me what your thoughts on all this are. If you think I'm off the mark educate me. We are all in this together. Let's us do our best. I'm searching too.
Are we rushing to elect a Frankencandidate? ( Nothing to do with Al Franken).
11/16/2003
|
That familiar trick from the Reagan era, cutting the taxes of the richest Americans and then selling bonds to make up our budgetary shortfall. Cutting taxes is cutting the country's income; not only are we not taking in the necessary money to run the country, when we sell bonds to finance the state we need to pay out interest. Now there's a 1 2 punch for the future fiscal wellbeing of the USA. Reagan redux...
I'm going to ask you to stop by The Whisky Bar to take a look at some current economic trends.
What sort of influence does the Bush "spend now pay later" give foreign governments over US policy?
What is going to drop into the lap of our elected President in 2004, a further stirred hornets nest in the Middle East, the US economy stuffed down the crapper?
11/16/2003
|
The Department of Defense seems to be holding up my statement, posted yesterday, that the Iraq - Al Qaida connection holds no water. News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.
Further on:
The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.
I suppose I should warn that if you don't care to get a Pentagon cookie on your hardrive you shouldn't follow that link.
The information in question was contained in an "annex" or attachment to a report NeoCon Douglas Feith had. It had not been at all for accuracy.
I saw that the Fox News article looked innaccurate, as I pointed out yesterday. But I felt I had to mention it, just in case... We'll keep updated with what develops, as the DoD didn't say there was no evidence. We need the truth.
If the Fox report is completely unfounded the damage is done. We will hear this information "proving" the Iraq AlQaida connection cited when our kneejerk "Patriot " associates support Mr Bush and his Neocon pals ongoing Vietnam, as our loyal soldiers and occupied Iraqis die. Listen to who trump up this "new information"; who on the airwaves and in print tout this as fact. There you have the enemies of a Democratic system, a system that is without substance bereft of accurate information. Having the crucial factual information a populace that will not read deeply, draw connections, reason and act on what they have discerned is fair game for the Corporate/Financial managers of this 227 year old experiment we call America.
Yeah, I'm talking about those same people that prey on our limited Democracy when they air disinformation campaigns such as this, a convenient name to refer to the ubiquity of their concerted message is this: The Mighty Wurlitzer.
the right has perfected what the CIA used to call a "mighty Wurlitzer" -- a propaganda machine that can hone a fact or a lie, broadcast it, and have it echoed and recycled in Fox News commentary, in Washington Times news stories, in Wall Street Journal editorials, by myriad right-wing pundits, by Heritage seminars and briefing papers, and in congressional hearings and speeches. Privatization of Social Security, vouchers for school, Vince Foster's supposed murder, Hillary's secret sex life, you name it -- the right's mighty Wurlitzer can ensure that a message is broadcast across the county, echoed in national and local news, and reverberated in the speeches of respectable academics as well as rabid politicians.
If the concept of shaping the attitudes and mind of the citizenry has you reaching for your tinfoil beanie I suggest you take in the 4 piece article "How They Do It" by Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest that will show you the mechanics of how this works and the relatively few major players in this well financed and orchestrated shift to the Right. Remember 4 or 5 years ago when folks like Rush Limbaugh were considered laughable fringe nuts? When the nations pResident calls him "a great man" you know that Mighty Wurlitzer works.
Homework:
The Commonweal Institute resource page dealing with this phenomenon and offering some context.
11/16/2003
|
|
|
