Month: July 2004

  • Random other news. My band Daisy Cutter is playing at The Red Sea tonight. Details on the website.

  • Fact Check is keeping it up with a couple more looks at campaign ads:

    Kerry’s claim that the Corporate Tax Code is responsible for moving jobs out of the country, and his implication that this aspect of the tax code is the current administration’s doing, is overblown and misleading.

    Yet another ad claiming Kerry is wishy washy is taken to task detail by detail. In some cases, things being claimed are simply wrong. In other cases, his mind did change, but when you look more than superficially, the change of mind makes sense.

    Anyway, is changing your mind so bad?

    If one were to look over the political comments I’ve made in the past four years or so, one would see a lot of movement throughout the political spectrum. As I consider new things, my point of view changes. As I consider more new things, sometimes it changes back. Granted, I’m not in office or running for office, so it is pretty easy to be sure that I’m not doing it to get anything.

    It is an interesting thing.

    I don’t want a politician who will pander to whatever will get them money, influence, or votes at the time.

    On the other hand, I don’t want a politician that is so locked into one set of ideals that they are unwilling to consider what other people have to say.

    So where, exactly, is that line?

    ###

    Apparently, Nancy Reagan has come out against Bush. I still wonder why the Republican party wouldn’t rather have someone like McCain in office.

    ###

    “My friends, the high road may be harder, but it leads to a better place. And that’s why Republicans and Democrats must make this election a contest of big ideas, not small-minded attacks. This is our time to reject the kind of politics calculated to divide race from race, group from group, region from region. Maybe some just see us divided into red states and blue states, but I see us as one America–red, white, and blue. And when I am President, the government I lead will enlist people of talent–Republicans as well as Democrats–to find the common ground, so that no one who has something to contribute will be left on the sidelines.”

    – John Kerry, Democratic presidential
    nomination acceptance speech,
    July 29, 2004

    And if you’re not a Democrat or a Republican? I guess you’re not worth mentioning.

  • Well, I’ve come across it before, but I think it is time to add Capitol Hill Blue to my regular reading list. Here’s an interesting article that claims that Bush might really be loosing it. Based on the level of detail asserted, either it is true, or someone’s begging for a lawsuit.

    ###

    Capital Eye has a a nice article on corporate support for both of the corporate parties.

    ###

    My horoscope from The Onion:

    Scorpio: (Oct. 24 – Nov. 21)
    Your promise to rebuild the world with blood, pain, and legal pot will resonate with the weirdest voting bloc yet recorded.

    *evil grin* Mwahaha.

    ###

    Stolen from The Kevblog

    People don’t expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.

    – Barak Obama

    Barak Obama is a Senate candidate from Illinois who nicely illustrates the promise of the Democratic party that my parents and grandparents believed in. Please take a moment to check out the full transcript at Featherly’s Kevblog. While I don’t agree with every conclusion Obama makes, he presents a vision I can respect.

    ###

    Also weighing in, from a different side of the spectrum regarding the DNC, is Something Positive:

    “What?! I don’t know how they do politics in your old fisher-price country, but here in America, this freak show is how our politicians make up for the next four years of fuckin’ us in the ass.

    *chuckle* Yep. Sometimes I feel like the main difference between the Dems and the Repubs is whether they’ll use lube and give you a reach around while they’re at it.

    My. That wasn’t very PC, was it.

    ###

    Finally, a nice short political philosophy written by Michael Atherton:

    My Political Philosophy

    1. Axiom of Rights. Every individual has the right to live their lives as they see fit, as long as their actions do not interfere with the right of others to do the same.
    2. Axiom of Responsibility. Every individual has the responsibility of following and being aware of when they are violating Axiom 1.
    3. Axiom of Government. Governments are created by individuals to insure that Axioms 1 & 2 are adhered to, to enforce contractual obligations, and to promote the General Welfare.
    4. Axiom of Disobedience. In the event that any government does not responsibly enforce the first three axioms an individual may, on their own responsibility, violate any governmental dictum.

    Things to think about…

    ###

    Have a great weekend!

  • Well, we’ll have to see how damaging this will end up being to the credibility of those of us who believe that the Bush administration is a bunch of warmongering weasels. I wonder how many more of these there will be.

    Circular firing squad indeed.

    Be careful with the “Bush is a liar” rhetoric. As far as I know, you’ll find very few provable lies. You will find statements that were overly confident, predictions that turn out to be wrong, and statements that lead people to make the leap to false conclusions, but few outright lies. Never forget “plausible deniability”: a politician who traps their self in a provable lie is a rare fool.

    Speaking of which, even though I have indulged in it on occasion, be careful of the “Bush is an idiot” rhetoric as well. First of all, it isn’t really all that relevant. The policies of the Bush administration are what they are, and are based on the world view and philosophies of more than just one man.

    Secondly, it smacks of elitism. Whether or not you’re comfortable with that, the “swing voters” tend not to be. It doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong when you’re shooting yourself in the foot.

    ###

    Quick rundown on the current candidates within my sphere of awareness:

    George Bush. While I briefly toyed with the idea of voting for him in a fatalistic “let it burn” approach to the election, and I do think George Bush is the best chance of destroying America’s status as a hyperpower, I just can’t do it.

    Kerry/Edwards. *sigh* Well, I may decide to go with the “Lizard Strategy”, just to let the international community know that not all of America supports the Neocon vision of the New World Order. The problem is, from what I can tell, I agree with Kerry on less than half the issues. Less than half. How can I, in good conscience, vote for that?

    So, who out there is more palatable to me?

    I haven’t looked much at him yet, but the Libertarian presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik may prove to be interesting. We’ll see.

    Of course, there is always the Reform Party/independent presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, and vice presidential candidate Peter Camejo.

    There is always the “I’m sort of going to run” Green Party candidates, David Cobb and Pat LaMarche. They seem like decent folks, and trying to grow the Green party is a worthy goal, but I can’t really get behind a campaign that intends to only try and win in “safe states”. Why not just skip the presidential campaign and focus on any other seats you’re trying to win.

    Sadly, it looks like Dennis Kucinich is throwing in the towel. There goes the Democrats’ best chance of having me vote for them.

    Well, I should probably get on looking into the candidates. Sadly, knowing that Kerry or Bush is going to win (probably Bush after some sort of September Surprise) makes it quite a bit harder for me to justify the time and energy for supporting any candidate.

  • T.R.Y. Monkey!

    The article Inside the Monkeysphere, by David Wong, is well worth reading. It is Buddhism for the jaded cynic; a well illustrated, humorous, description of what is wrong with the world, why it is that way, and what you can do about it.

    The article is sociological, not political, but as politics is a part of society, it touches humorously on the subject:

    “A representative democracy allows a small group of people to make all of the decisions, while letting us common people feel like we’re doing something by going to a polling place every couple of years and pulling a lever that, in reality, has about the same effect as the darkness knob on your toaster.”

    The timing is interesting, but I think the points made in the article support the first portion of my previous post.

  • Looking for a political party concept is complicated by the fact that I have different ideals depending on what level the decisions are being made at.

    At a national level, I believe in a more or less a libertarian commonwealth approach. States should be self-governed, autonomous bodies governed by the people within that state, and the federal government should be a thin layer which provides a guarantee of defense, human rights, and basic facilitation of economics.

    I believe that each state should operate how the citizens of that state choose.

    I think that I’d most like to live in a state that leans towards the philosophy of Libertarian Socialism, but I could see wanting to live in a socialist state if it was done right or a libertarian state if it was done right.

    On a local level, I might more towards Democratic to Socialist to Communist, although we’d have to be talking a pretty small “local” before I start to feel comfortable with a true communal approach.

    I’d want to be within 1 or 2 (maybe 3) degrees of seperation of everyone in a communal locality, and after I “joined”, I’d want any changes to require a consensus type of decision.

    However, even on this level, I’d want a certain level of libertarianism to remain. I’d never want to live somewhere that could tell me not to do what I want within the privacy of my own space. Other people are welcome to choose to live in that sort of place. I don’t want to.

    I AM willing to give up some choices if it is in exchange for some benefit – for example, I’ll wear a motorcycle/bicycle helmet if you’ll grant me medical care in the event of a wreck. But I want the right to choose whether I accept the trade – if I am willing to go without the medical care, I get to skip the helmet.

    So, how would one define a political system like that? I think that really, the national goals, state goals, and local goals are un-related and each would need its own party at its own level. The parties may cooperate on relevant issues (like all three might fight against making marijuana illegal), but they are really seperate.

    ###

    Well, no more feedback on the social programs thing – am I being too heavy handed? Sometimes, it seems like my posts/responses to various forums get surprisingly little feedback. I’m never sure if that’s because they’re so “out there” that they don’t deserve response or if they’re so heavy handed that they won’t get a response.

    While I do occasionally get a response that more or less says “yep, that sounds right”, I’m pretty sure they’re not convincing everyone of my perspective.

    Here’s an interesting question to add to the list:

    What is a good method to either prevent or regulate monopolies and near monopolies?
    Should we? (for the record, I think monopolies are almost always a bad thing)

    ###

    Have you seen this site which claims to track the cost of the war in Iraq and compare it with costs for other social programs?

    Dan Savage of Savage Love recommended wonkette’s web log, which appears to be political/humorous in nature.

    Fact Check is a must read site! It appears to be non partisan as it criticizes ads by everyone. They also have a great tag quote by Sen. Daniel Moynihan:

    “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”

    ###

    I received a letter claiming to be from Senator Bill Frist selecting me to represent my voting district in a “Majority Leader’s Survey” which was assigned to me as a “Representative of all republicans living in [my] voting district.”

    *hrm* Well, that’s interesting.

    My first impulse was to do nothing, but it would be a shame to surrender an opportunity to have my opinions counted.

    My second thought was to do what I could to sabotage the results, but that felt petty and pointless. One data point doesn’t make a lot of difference, and giving bad information doesn’t help anyone.

    So, what if I were to give my honest opinion?

    True, I’m not a Republican, but I’m also not a Democrat. No one owns my vote. If the Republicans start behaving in a way I approve of, I’d vote for them. Granted, the national party would have to change a great deal, but if they are asking for my opinion, they can have it and do what they will with it.

    Btw, who registered me as a Republican?!? After a bit of web research, I’m not the only non-Republican to receive this sort of thing from the NRSC, so probably no one. The organization seems to be for real though.

    tic. toc. tic. toc.

    I just finished scanning the survey. It ends with the following three check boxes (I’m paraphrasing here): YES! I want to donate some money; NO, I don’t want to answer the survey, but here’s some money; and NO. I don’t want to answer the survey or donate, but here’s $11 so that you can send my survey to someone else.

    Hrm…

    Well, I could always complete the survey and make a donation of $0.00, but the fact that there wasn’t a clear option of “I’d like to submit the survey but not give any money” is leaving me less kindly disposed towards the National Republican Senatorial Committee. I wonder how many people in my voting district got one of these, anyway.

    tic. toc. tic. toc.

    Well, there’s a number questions I had to leave blank, because I didn’t think any way I answered it would accurately represent my position (it’s a checkbox survey), but I did my best. I hope it helps build a party I’d want to vote for, but I’m not holding my breath.

    Oh. If anyone wants to check out the organization, here’s their web site. According to opensecrets.org, they’ve raised almost $34,000,000 this year.

    The Open Secrets site is very cool.

  • I thought this one would prompt some discussion.

    Education: I’m not sure that we are capable of nationally ensuring equal and quality education. Consider bumping this down to state level and reducing taxes so that the states can cover it.

    Inktea responds:

    Your method ensures states like South Dakota will not be able to afford to take care of its social programs. Unfortunately, unequal distribution of wealth and resources across the nation means that the money in places like South Dakota would be *very tight*. Forget education- we’re already paying our high school teachers the least in the country- if we get less money from the federal government, AND funding to other social programs is cut, you can bet your aunt fanny that we won’t be able to make ends meet almost anywhere. Families that can afford to would end up moving to other states, that could afford to appropriately fund a child’s education. Places like South Dakota would end up being wastelands of impoverished people who cannot afford to leave for anywhere else.

    Are you sure you want to cut federal funding for social programs?

    My point of view are based on three opinions. I believe that handing all the cash up to the feds to be redistributed back down ends up with a lot of it disappearing to pork barrel projects and questionable priorities (defense budget vs education budget?) Second, I believe the national level is too large to provide a truly competent educational system. Finally, I believe the educational system is “fundamentally flawed”.

    I do belive that our education programs are definitely under funded. Teachers have one of the most critical jobs in our society and are not given enough respect or compensation. However, I have a number of problems with the system as it is. I think our current system protects incompetent teachers and stifles the creativity and initiative of the competent ones. I believe that the basic purpose of our educational system is contrary to the intellectual growth of our students. I believe we need to change the mandate, fund the teachers, and demand results.

    As to funding amounts…

    Unfortunately, I don’t have the numbers available, but I would imagine that if we significantly decreased (or eliminated) the federal tax burden, even states like South Dakota would have enough to fund their social programs. Just decreasing our defense budget to 25% of its current levels should free up an enormous amount of resources. In states with less resources, one would expect living expenses to be lower, so a somewhat lower level of monetary compensation should afford a similar lifestyle to higher pay in a higher expense region. Does having less money lead to a lesser society if existing in that society requires less money?

    Out of curiosity – how much of a district’s budget comes from : Local Sources, State Sources, and Federal Sources? If anyone has those numbers, please post them.

    With federal funding comes federal oversight and federal dictates as to curriculum and mandate – a bureaucratic monopoly that seems to put us on the fast track to low level mediocrity. By at least pulling it back to a state level, one hopes for more accountability and more ability for communities to have an impact on the decisions that are made regarding their educational programs.

    This does mean that some states will choose different approaches. One may ensure that all educators have at least a masters degree, set small class sizes, and demand measurable results. Another may use vouchers and privatization to attempt to gain the advantages of a competitive system.

    Each state will have the right to set their own priorities and their own funding. By having different areas able to try different approaches, we will have more experimentation and hopefully states will cue off each other as to what works and what doesn’t.

    In my opinion, our nation is too large for homogenization to make sense or work. Many of our states are the size of entire European nations, and should have enough of a broad base to support their basic needs. Large may allow for some types of efficiency, but it is also typically less innovative, and it is almost always of lower quality.

    As to the current system being broken…

    In many ways, those who had access to education when it was provided completely by the community ended up with far better educations than students today do. All one has to do is read typical literature or newspapers from earlier eras to realize that the literacy levels were much higher.

    The problem was, not everyone had access to that education.

    The only role the federal government should have is ensure that human rights are not being violated by having access to education be discriminatory – your race or gender should have no impact on what level of education you receive.

    One thing to consider about the current public education system is that it (and its priorities) were pushed by the industrialists in the early 1900s like Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan. It’s purpose is not to advance the students, but to ensure they have the ability to be good automons in an industrial society. These are the priorities instilled in our current system, and this system must be torn down.

    I think it should be clear that I do not accuse teachers (as a whole) – a number of my family and friends are teachers, and they all have or had some idealism towards their career (the same can not be said about some of those who I tutored during college). However, no matter how idealistic, those who give great things to their students often do it in spite of the education system. It is bureaucrats, (some) administrators, and politicians that I blame.

    At the end of the post, I’m attaching a longish article that I found worth reading.

    Ok! What the hell is up with this?

    Basic story – U.S. Congressman and former Governor from South Dakota blows a stop sign and wipes out a motorcyclist. He serves 100 days in jail for manslaughter and presumably needs to pay some hefty civil damages because he killed a guy.

    Well, since he was a Congressman in the state for various appointments and appearances, they say that he isn’t responsible for the civil damages – his employer (the US) is.

    So this guy blows a stop sign, kills a guy, but instead of being personally responsible for his actions, we are since he was in his state on official business.

    *grrr*

    I don’t actually have a problem with this guy only serving 100 days in jail, but I do have a problem with him living any richer than your average college student until he has paid full compensation for his victim’s death. (Whatever full compensation might be considered to be…)

    I read this today. I’ve heard it before, but I liked it.
    A man said to the universe:
    “Sir I exist!”
    “However,” replied the universe,
    “The fact has not created in me
    A sense of obligation.”
    Stephen Crane (1871 – 1900)

    Here’s an article I found somewhere, a while back. It is a bit heavy on the conspiracy theory for my taste, but is worth the read:
    Good Reasons to DROP OUT OF SCHOOL and DROP OUT OF COLLEGE

    John Taylor Gatto climaxed his 33 year teaching career as New York State Teacher of the Year after being named New York City Teacher of the Year on three occasions. He quit teaching on the OP ED page of the Wall Street Journal in 1991 while still New York State Teacher of the Year, claiming that he was no longer willing to hurt children. His books include: Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (1992); The Exhausted School (1993); A Different Kind of Teacher (2000); and The Underground History Of American Education (2001) The following was culled from his most recent work.

    Perhaps the greatest of school’s illusions is that the institution was launched by a group of kindly men and women who wanted to help the children of ordinary families — to level the playing field, so to speak. Let’s see what’s really behind these illusions:

    THE MAKERS OF MODERN SCHOOLING

    The real makers of modern schooling weren’t at all who we think.
    Not Cotton Mather
    or Horace Mann
    or John Dewey.

    The real makers of modern schooling were leaders of the new American industrialist class, men like:
    Andrew Carnegie, the steel baron.
    John D. Rockefeller, the duke of oil.
    Henry Ford, master of the assembly line which compounded steel and oil into a vehicular dynasty.
    and J.P. Morgan, the king of capitalist finance.

    Rich white men like these, and the brilliant efficiency expert Frederick W. Taylor, who inspired the entire “social efficiency” movement of the early twentieth century, along with providing the new Soviet Union its operating philosophy and doing the same job for Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany; men who dreamed bigger dreams than any had dreamed since Napoleon or Charlemagne, these were the makers of modern schooling.

    THE BUSINESS OF SCHOOLING & THE FOURTH PURPOSE

    If modern schooling has a “Fourth Purpose,” there must be an earlier three. Traditional forms of instruction in America, even before the Revolution, had three specific purposes:

    1. To make good people
    2. To make good citizens
    3. And to make each student find some particular talents to develop to the maximum.

    The new mass schooling which came about slowly but continuously after 1890, had a different purpose, a “fourth” purpose.

    The fourth purpose steadily squeezed the traditional three to the margins of schooling; in the fourth purpose, school in America became like school in Germany, a servant of corporate and political management.

    We should reveal the mechanism of mind control training, habits, and attitudes.

    Children were literally trained in bad habits and bad attitudes! Teachers and principals, “scientifically” certified in teachers college practices, were made unaware of the invisible curriculum they really taught.

    The secret of commerce, that kids drive purchases, meant that schools had to become psychological laboratories where training in consumerism was the central pursuit.

    THE BUSINESS OF SCHOOLING

    Since bored people are the best consumers, school had to be a boring place, and since childish people are the easiest customers to convince, the manufacture of childishness, extended into adulthood, had to be the first priority of factory schools. Naturally, teachers and administrators weren’t let in on this plan; they didn’t need to be. If they didn’t conform to instructions passed down from increasingly centralized school offices, they didn’t last long.

    In the new system, schools were gradually re-formed to meet the pressing need of big businesses to have standardized customers and employees, standardized because such people are predictable in certain crucial ways by mathematical formulae. Business (and government) can only be efficient if human beings are redesigned to meet simplified specifications. As the century wore on, school spaces themselves were opened bit by bit to commercialization.

    These processes didn’t advance evenly. Some localities resisted more than others, some decades were more propitious for the plan than others. Especially during and just after national emergencies like WWI, the Depression, WWII, and the Sputnik crisis, the scheme rocketed forward; in quieter moments it was becalmed or even forced to give up some ground.

    But even in moments of greatest resistance, the institutions controlling the fourth purpose — great corporations, great universities, government bureaus with vast powers to reward or punish, and corporate journalism — increasingly centralized in fewer and fewer hands throughout the twentieth century, kept a steady hand on the tiller. They had ample resources to wear down and out wait the competition.

    The prize was of inestimable value — control of the minds of the young.

    SCHOOL BECOMES A DANGEROUS PLACE

    After 1900 the new mass schooling arenas slowly became impersonal places where children were viewed as HUMAN RESOURCES. Whenever you hear this term, you are certain to be in the presence of employees of the fourth purpose, however unwitting. Human resource children are to be molded and shaped for something called “The Workplace,” even though for most of American history American children were reared to expect to create their own workplaces.

    In the new workplace, most Americans were slated to work for large corporations or large government agencies, if they worked at all.

    This revolution in the composition of the American dream produced some unpleasant byproducts. Since systematic forms of employment demand that employees specialize their efforts in one or another function of systematic production, then clear thinking warns us that incomplete people make the best corporate and government employees.

    Earlier Americans like Madison and Jefferson were well aware of this paradox, which our own time has forgotten. And if that is so, mutilation in the interests of later social efficiency has to be one of the biggest tasks assigned to forced schooling.

    Not only was the new form of institution spiritually dangerous as a matter of course, but school became a physically dangerous place as well.

    What better way to habituate kids to abandoning trust in their peers (and themselves) than to create an atmosphere of constant low-level stress and danger, relief from which is only available by appeal to authority? And many times not even then!

    Horace Mann had sold forced schooling to industrialists of the mid-nineteenth century as the best “police” to create moral children, but ironically, as it turned out in the twentieth century, big business and big government were best served by making schoolrooms antechambers to Hell.

    SCHOOL BECOMES AN ARENA OF MEANINGLESS PRESSURE

    As the twentieth century progressed, and particularly after WWII, schools evolved into behavioral training centers, laboratories of experimentation in the interests of corporations and the government. The original model for this development had been Prussian Germany, but few remembered.

    School became jail-time to escape if you could, arenas of meaningless pressure as with the omnipresent “standardized” exams, which study after study concluded were measuring nothing real.

    For instance, take the case of Bill Bradley and George W. Bush, two of the four finalists in the 2000 presidential race. Bradley had a horrifying 480 on the verbal part of his own SATs, yet graduated from Princeton, won a Rhodes Scholarship, and became a senator; Bush graduated from Yale, became governor of Texas, and president of the United States — with a mediocre 550. If you can become governor, senator, and president with mediocre SAT scores, what exactly do the tests measure?

    Perhaps they sort out good scientists from bad? If so, how is it that both the scientists principally involved in the Human Genome Project have strange scholarly backgrounds to say the least!

    Francis S. Collins, the head of the public portion, was home schooled, and never followed any type of formal curriculum.

    Craig Venter was a very bad boy in high school, a surfing bum who nearly flunked out, and he didn’t go to college after graduation, but into the U.S. Army as an enlisted man before being shipped off to Vietnam!

    SCHOOL AS A PLACE OF BEWILDERMENT AND BOREDOM

    The new purpose of schooling — to serve business and government — could only be achieved efficiently by isolating children from the real world, with adults who themselves were isolated from the real world, and everyone in the confinement isolated from one another.

    Only then could the necessary training in boredom and bewilderment begin. Such training is necessary to produce dependable consumers and dependent citizens who would always look for a teacher to tell them what to do in later life, even if that teacher was an ad man or television anchor.

    www.johntaylorgatto.com/

    add your own comments …

    - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
    Follow up commentary
    - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

    Subject: Interesting

    Loved this article. The whole public education system needs to be revamped. Interestingly enough, you know who often ends up being the most “successful” in life? Not the stars of the school: the valedictorians or the homecoming queens. But the “weirdos” and “freaks” who didn’t fit in, yet were very bright. That’s because they didn’t feel the need to conform and didn’t acquiesce to the groupthink. (I define successful as happy, satisfied, living…not existing.)

    For me, school was almost 20 years ago, now. I don’t know what it’s like for kids today because the media is far more pervasive.

    - – -

    Subject: Quotes to Contemplate

    Compulsory schooling is undoubtedly the enemy – no matter WHAT your goals – even being a capitalist pig – drop out! Bill Gates fled his first year of college. Einstein was a high school drop out. The list is long. Today it’s worse than things were 20 years ago – the corporate brainwashing is more shameless and open. Prussia invented compulsory schooling in order to make better soldiers – and the similarities between boot camp and school are striking. The U.S. started up compulsory schooling when the factory owners had a VERY difficult time getting independent and educated people to want to work in a factory all day. the solution: grow em dumber. Here’s some quotes to contemplate:

    “Public school – where the human mind is drilled and manipulated into submission to various social and moral spooks, and thus fitted to continue our system of exploitation and oppression.”
    – Emma Goldman

    “Education is very important. That’s why I never let schooling get in the way of mine.”
    – Mark Twain

    “Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education.”
    – Bertrand Russell

    “There is, on the whole, nothing on Earth intended for innocent people so horrible as a school.”
    – George Bernard Shaw

    “Now they’re talking about making kids wear uniforms in school. This is pretty stupid. Don’t these schools do enough damage making these kids think alike, now they want them to look alike too?”
    – George Carlin

    “In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards.”
    – Mark Twain

    “What’s the difference between a bright, inquisitive five-year-old, and a dull, stupid nineteen-year-old? Fourteen years of the British educational system.”
    – Bertrand Russell

    “Here’s a bumper sticker I’d like to see; ‘We are the Proud Parents of a Child who has resisted his teacher’s attempts to bend him to the will of his corporate masters’.”
    – George Carlin

    - – -

    And More:

    “School produces mental perversion and absolute stupidity.” –Vincent Youmans, world-famous American physician and academic (1867)

    The creation of the compulsory public schooling system was ordered by “certain industrialists and the innovative who were altering the nature of the industrial process.” –James Bryant Conant, President of Harvard University from 1933 to 1953 (1949)

    “We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science.” –Rockefeller’s General Education Board (1906)

    “[Education is] a means to achieve important economic and social goals of a national character.” – The Education Department’s report “Designing Education for the Future” (1968)

    And, as my dad used to say, “High School is just a Minimum Security Containment Facility.” – and I was in a “good” school system.

  • Well, since I have gotten involved in the web log concept, I’ve been arguing against using propaganda and sensationalism. Granted, “the opposition” gets good effect from these techniques, but in my ideal world, you don’t fool or trick people into doing what you want.

    I was very concerned that many of those against the war in Iraq tended to rely too heavily on these sorts of approaches and were going to get themselves in trouble by railing heavily on things that looked bad but were tenuous or unconfirmed.

    It now looks like one of these may come back to bite us all on the butt – the Nigerian Uranium issue. The Daily Howler has a good conversation on this topic. What really chaps me is that if one or two of these blow back, people are going to reject everything that was said against the war thinking that it was all hot air.

    The problem is, in many cases, our “leaders” didn’t lie. They presented information in a way which would be misinterpreted and then didn’t correct those misinterpretations. It h as the same effect and is still deceitful, objectionable, and – in my opinion – abhorrent. But, to call them lies is to also mislead. Nail them on what they actually did and maybe encourage people to learn to see through the rhetoric rather than just get bombarded by misleading exaggerations by both sides…

    ###

    StrangeBlackCat and I have been going back and forth on what our ideal political party “planks” would be. We were asked:

    Okay, another question for your your new party- how involved in social programs will your government be? Will there be funding/foundations/government organizations? If so, who gets to say how those organizations operate?

    Well, SBC and I may end up debating this one and I’m sure others will, but at a federal level, I’d say minimal to none. The country is too large for these to be run without inefficiency, pandering, and corruption, and it doesn’t seem right to enforce a “blanket solution” on everyone. I’d remove these from the federal government, reduce federal taxes, and let each state decide if they wish to raise their taxes and provide these programs, and if so, how they will run these programs.

    Also, for general stances: Euthanasia? Death Penalty?

    Euthanasia – I really can’t believe the audacity of a government trying to tell someone they aren’t allowed to die. Euthanasia should definitely be a personal right.

    It gets a bit more complicated when you start involving other people in the event. If someone asks to die and someone else pulls the trigger, is that Euthanasia or murder? If a doctor prescribes hemlock to someone who is suffering from treatable clinical depression, what happens? These issues do need to be considered.

    Death Penalty. No way. First, unless there is a 0.0% chance of error, don’t do it. Second, I believe our legal system should be aimed more at rehabilitation and compensation than towards punishment. The dead can’t be rehabilitated and they can’t compensate their victims.

    Now, of course, should someone sentenced to life without parole decide that he would like a good rope to reduce the length of that sentence, that’s a personal choice…

    To take a quick look at some of the topics mentioned by StrangeBlackCat (many of these need work):

    • Abortion: God, I hate this issue. There isn’t any good answer. As I said in SBC’s comments, I think it basically comes down to the fact that we, as a people, need to decide when someone is a human being and entitled to the rights therein. At that point, you may be able to have them removed from your body, but you shouldn’t be allowed to kill them (barring a triage situation). Before that point, they’re not a person.

      At 8.9 months, that’s a person in there. At 10 seconds, I just can’t see it. There’s a start, now narrow it down…

    • Agriculture: What About it?

    • Campaign Reform: Ooh, that’s a toughy.

      First of all, corporations aren’t people and should not be permitted to donate to a campaign. Of course, each and every member of that corporation may decide to donate, and that’s fine.

      Beyond that… It’s a matter of reducing the impact of money on government without limiting free speech. I’m not yet sure what the best way to do that is.

      One thing I’d definitely like to see: At some level, Campaign promises are oaths, and breaking them should be considered fraud.

    • Capital Punishment: Covered Above

    • Civil Rights: UN Declaration of Human Rights pretty much covers it. It may need a bit of tweaking, but a nation’s first and foremost responsibility should be protecting the Civil Rights of its’ people.

    • Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights: These have gotten way out of hand. Roll ‘em back to where they were at around the time of the framing of the constitution. No idea exists in a vacuum, and to a certain extent, every thought created was supported by the society around it – therefore, no idea can be owned. However, in the interests of progress (there’s a dangerous phrase), we want to give some incentive to people to move ahead with their better ideas. Therefore, we do want a limited copyright. Limited in time and effect.

    • Crime: What about it?

      There should be no such thing as a “consensual crime”. The criminal justice system should have three mandates:
      * Enable compensation of all victims of a crime : No one who committed a crime should be allowed to be wealth until all damages they have cause have been repaid.
      * Facilitate Rehabilitation whenever possible and as effectively as possible
      * Ensure the protection of society from those who are undergoing rehabilitation or who can not be rehabilitated.

    • Defense: Our borders are our borders. Defend them, but do not push national defense beyond them unless we are directly threatened (eg: We’re attacking you in a week) or are actually attacked. Our Defense budget should be reduced to something reasonable – probably not more than the rest of the world combined.

    • Economy: Ensure that promises are not broken without penalty. Enable open trade between our states. As to import/export, I still need some input/thought on this issue.

    • Education: I’m not sure that we are capable of nationally ensuring equal and quality education. Consider bumping this down to state level and reducing taxes so that the states can cover it.

    • Energy: This should, like the postal service, become a federal concern – energy is a basic need and we need to make a focused effort on developing renewable energy resources. Like FedEx, there can be private providers, but the government should be a primary provider. In some cases, this can be passed down to state/regional interests.

    • Environment: It can only take so much pollution and exploitation. Ensure that no one is permitted to exceed those amounts.

    • Euthanasia: Covered above – the right to cease living should be a matter of personal choice.

    • Foreign Policy: I believe we need to focus on improving and supporting the United Nations. If the UN requires military intervention, allow U.S. citizens (including military personnel) to volunteer, paid for by the UN. Of course, we (and other nations) need to ensure the UN has adequate funding and rigorous oversight.

    • Gun Control: At most, registration and accurate ballistic tracking.

    • Health: This is a toughy that needs to be discussed more. In general, I would like to support numerous Health Care Coops getting off the ground and providing basic coverage.

    • Immigration: Make sure we can support those who we allow to immigrate. Don’t allow immigration beyond that amount.

    • Media: Hoo Boy. Anything that presents itself as “news” (as opposed to editorial or entertainment) should be held accountable for deception or distortion. What else about media?

    • Natural Resources: See energy and environment

    • Privacy: It should be protected anywhere one has a reasonable expectation of it or in any case where it has been guaranteed by those collecting information. Beyond that, it doesn’t really exist.

    • Social Security: Hmm. In general, I’d like to see us make sure that no one starves or is unwillingly homeless. If that base need is met, SS is not as necessary. I’d probably make “providing the basics” a state issue.

    • Welfare: State Issue.

    So, all of those need to be discussed more – any requests? Any more topics that need to covered?

    ###

    And on the lighter side, here’s an interesting brain game:

    I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deson’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig yes?

  • Evict The Fool, Elect The Tool.

    Many of us are wondering how to deal with the 2004 presidential election. On the one hand, Kerry’s a corporate tool. On the other hand, Bush getting another “mandate” could be very bad. The fatalist in us says “let it burn”, but when it does, there will be a lot of suffering. Here’s another option:

    July 4, 2004

    The Lizard Strategy
    Or how to defeat Bush without losing our souls
    by Ricardo Levins Morales

    “Now we get to go out and lie to our members once again,” a union staffer recently complained to me. She was referring to the 2004 presidential election, and her frustration is understandable. Like most of organized labor she, and her union, are convinced that the Bush administration must go, and that the only way to make that happen is to persuade their members, and millions of traditional non-voters, that Senator John Kerry represents their interests. This is a thankless and difficult task since, like the sister says, it’s a lie.

    It’s also not very effective. What follows is a proposal for how radicals and progressives can have an impact on the 2004 elections in the short run, while keeping our eyes on long-term goals.

    To take advantage of the opportunities offered by the presidential race we will have to view the political landscape with fresh eyes and overcome ingrained habits. We will need to intervene in the mainstream of U.S. politics, without lying to our members.

    To put this proposal in context I should state that my own political history lies firmly in the camp of independent politics. On the one hand this means believing that grassroots power is built in the streets, in communities, and in workplaces. The importance of elections is most often determined by what happens in those arenas. Elections can reflect, and in turn can impact, the course of social change, but do not determine its course. (In my occupied homeland of Puerto Rico, the struggle to evict the U.S. Navy from Vieques was carried out by people who are barred from voting in presidential elections, but the persistence and organizing reach of the movement forced the powers in Washington into retreat.)

    It has also meant using my vote to encourage long term movement building by supporting third party candidacies whenever possible. In the seven presidential races that have transpired since I came of voting age, I have never voted for a Republican or a Democrat. This is not from any “vote your heart” sentimentality (a prerogative of the overly comfortable). I make political choices to have an impact in the world, not to make myself feel good. At one time I was prepared to vote for a “lesser evil” out of concern about Supreme Court appointments, but gave my vote to a third party when it became clear that my state would overwhelmingly vote for the “lesser.” At each juncture we need to weigh present risks against future possibilities and make the choice that will put us in the best position possible ten miles down the road.

    Every strategic choice contains within itself a tension between the future and the present. This can be illustrated in the comparison of two electoral strategies. A third party strategy calls for investing in the future, in long-term base building and accumulation of power, even though it will likely result in victories along the way for the more reactionary mainstream candidates. The objective here is to develop the organization and support base that can ultimately pose a genuinely pro-people alternative to the corporate parties. The lesser-of-two-evils approach seeks to stem the erosion of people’s rights, resources, and the environment by supporting the candidate likely to cause the least damage. It also hopes that we can pressure a leader whom we helped elect to at least respond to our concerns in a way that a more openly hostile politician would not. Each of these strategies emphasizes one side of the present/future equation, often at the expense of the other.

    Who Wins? Do We Care?

    Let’s start by looking at the short-term side of the equation. Is it important that Bush be defeated? This is by no means an obvious question. President Bush has managed to shatter the credibility of the U.S. Empire. Along with it has gone the illusion of U.S. military superiority equals invincibility (and that in a uni-polar world!) This has had repercussions on many fronts, including a growing resistance on the part of small nations to the free-trade globalization juggernaut. His aggressiveness has unleashed an unprecedented global anti-war movement and undermined the recruitment ability of the U.S. military. For those of us who do not share the vision of a triumphal United States Empire, these are not negative achievements. On the other hand the Bush crowd is convinced that its mandate comes from God, and would take an election victory (however slim) as a green light to pursue its reckless ambitions. This has the potential to cause tremendous human and ecological devastation.

    The Democrat, John Kerry, is a reactionary career politician with a history of accepting labor support while undermining our interests. He supported Clinton’s draconian “Welfare Reform”, has been a champion of corporate “Free Trade” treaties; and is committed to escalating the illegal war in Iraq (and dragging the United Nations deeper into it). He supported the repressive Patriot Act and the march to war. A Kerry presidency would work to rebuild the unity of the “international community” (a euphemism for an ugly consortium of neo-colonial nations). Multi-lateral co-ordination with European and other industrial powers on the international stage would not be good news for the weaker, resource-rich countries caught in their crosshairs. Kerry is vying to become the richest president yet. The Heinz family fortune (which he married into) extends throughout the economy and is heavily invested in sectors that benefit from corporate free trade, weaker unions, and less regulation of capitalism.

    In this context, to speak in terms of lesser or greater evils is not clarifying. What we have are different mixes of dangers and opportunities. Bush could cause greater short-term damage and Kerry could engineer a more stable long-term system of plunder. This holds true across a whole range of issues from civil liberties to affirmative action to war to the environment. The Republicans drive an SUV and the Democrats drive a compact but they’re going the same way.

    Clinton and Gore were able to stymie or roll back environmental protections (suffice to mention PCBs, toxic dumping in the oceans, pesticides in baby foods, dioxins in paper processing, oil rights in nature preserves, climate change and logging federal lands) because they were assumed to be environmentalists.

    The most important reason for making the removal of Bush a priority has to do with our relationship to our sisters and brothers in struggle around the world. Public opinion polls across the planet show deep opposition to the direction of international developments, and identify U.S. policies as the driving force behind them. Many are watching our elections for a sign as to whether we support Bush’s agenda. Why does this matter?

    A Global Precinct

    Residents of the global south are, as Arundhati Roy says, citizens of the empire. The decisions made in the board rooms and bureaucracies of the U.S., impact and sometimes determine the life choices of millions, but they have no opportunity to vote for the decision makers. Whether you are struggling to protect access to water, protect land from confiscation, defend education, promote public health, achieve a livable income, or resist brutal repression, you will sooner or later run up against the power and agenda of the United States.

    The people of the periphery respond by organizing, by individual struggles to survive, by becoming refuges or immigrants, by lashing out at our tormentors. Our options for struggle are shaped by our recent histories. Poor peoples’ movements have been systematically crushed by local and international systems of repression. Police and military terror, bribery, covert action, and religious extremist groups have all been used to prevent mass secular democratic movements from threatening corporate investments. Will the angry activists in these countries see themselves as part of a worldwide struggle of the have-nots against the greed of the haves, or as bin Laden and Bush would have it, as participants in a global confrontation between religions and cultures? This will in part be determined by whether we who live in the heart of the regime are seen as backers of our Emperor, or as allies in the fight against him. If we appear to give our endorsement to the regime, we will seem to confirm the second world view and encourage the advocates of “holy war”. The implications of this view can be seen in the rubble of the World Trade Center.

    The election is a crude method that can only carry a simple message. This is not because poor people of color are not capable of subtle analysis. It is because the medium of transmission, the global news media, will not carry subtle communications on our behalf. If Bush wins, the fact that Kerry is cut from similar cloth is not likely to survive the translation. If the Democrats and third parties together outpoll Bush and yet he wins by plurality, it will be the simple fact of his win that will be talked of in the markets of Karachi and the taxis of Cairo. The political choices we make (including, but not limited to voting) must always take into account our fellow subjects outside the walls.

    Internees in Nazi concentration camps utilized the symbolic potential of the vote in 1933, when faced with a referendum on support for Hitler’s foreign policy. Wanting the largest possible vote, the regime distributed ballots even to camp prisoners. After much debate, progressive inmates in many camps decided on the tactic of a unanimous vote for Hitler as a way to signal the world that the process was a sham. Our situation is considerably different but our message is no less important, and we must be just as innovative in getting it out to the world.

    If our short term goal is to remove Bush through the election then (barring the unforeseen) it will require Kerry’s ascension. However this does not require joining the Democratic campaign or endorsing its illusions. Much effort is being put into progressive voter registration campaigns. These target the millions of potential voters who have remained outside of the electoral process until now. Many are young people, people of color, poor folk and recent immigrants. They are the people who have not viewed the ballot as greatly affecting the problems of concern to them. The Democratic Party chose Kerry because he was considered “electable.” That is to say, that it would be difficult for the White House to attack him from the right. In selecting a colorless right wing candidate, they have chosen someone not likely to inspire the marginalized populations who could determine the outcome of the election. Even registering large numbers of potential voters is no guarantee that they will turn out on November 2. Kerry is facing a ruthless campaign operation that is capable of damaging his image considerably before the election. His reactionary politics and slippery stands will be particularly damaging with young people. They are the age group with the lowest voter turnout and are particularly sensitive to hypocrisy.

    The strategy of mainstream labor and liberal groups consists of promoting the message “Kerry Good, Bush Bad!” This requires papering over how far to the right the Democratic Party has gone. It is also a process of diminishing returns: even if successful, it encourages cynicism and disengagement as we are served a predictable menu of betrayals. The slogan “Let’s Take America Back,” being pushed by some well-meaning populists should be buried immediately! Unless they mean “back to 1491,” it represents nostalgia for a golden era that only makes sense if it is racially coded to exclude vast numbers of our people. Whenever that time was, I, for one, do not want to go back there and am appalled that I’d be invited. The “good old days” don’t look so good from the other side of the tracks!

    Doing it Our Way

    A social change strategy cannot be one that simply lets people be sucked in and spit out. It must contribute to a critical consciousness that will help people determine and act on their own interests in the future. The following proposal is inspired by the Louisiana governor’s race of 1991. That year the Republican nomination was won by David Duke, the former “Imperial Wizard” of the racist Ku Klux Klan. Duke’s neo-fascist politics galvanized a grassroots opposition. Duke’s opponent was the incumbent; a corrupt, scandal-ridden machine politician. Governor Edwin Edward’s standing was so bad that it was not possible to make a positive case for him. The opposition chose instead to organize their campaign behind such slogans as “Vote for the Lizard, Not the Wizard,” while bumper stickers reading “Vote for the Crook, It’s Important,” flew off the shelf. This permitted an ultimately successful campaign that did not stoop to selling a bill of goods to the rank and file voters. The message was that voting for the incumbent was a tactical choice that did not require promoting illusions about Edwards.

    Adapting it to the different conditions of the Kerry-Bush race, what would be the implications of a Lizard Strategy?

    • It would be a way to engage marginalized and first-time voters without patronizing them. Young people, people of color, poor people, and recent immigrants are intelligent and quite capable of comprehending nuance, complexity, and tactics.

    • It would develop a voting block that would be largely immune from dirty tricks against or self-inflicted damage by, the Kerry campaign.

    • It would give an activist framework to Bush opponents who are prepared to “hold their noses and vote.”

    • It would not leave the people we organize vulnerable to disappointment when they are forgotten after the victory party. In fact they would enter the post-election prepared for the need to force any concessions we may hope for.

    • It would allow people to effectively oppose Bush while stating clearly their rejection of Kerry’s opportunist politics.

    • It would present a model for creative intervention on terms not dictated by the major parties.

    • It would begin to loosen the ideological ties that bind large sectors of voters to the Democratic Party even as it offers them ever fewer benefits. These are people who have grumbled for years but are not ready to make a clean break in the absence of a “viable” alternative. In a Lizard campaign they could begin to test their muscles.

    A slogan such as “Elect the Flake, Evict the Snake” would express openly what many people feel. It also injects an element of humor that can make the mobilization effort fun.

    Taking it to the Streets

    For this approach to work requires reversing past assumptions. Some Greens, for example, are waiting to see if Kerry will say enough of the right things to justify their voting for him. Ralph Nader is trying to move Kerry’s positions toward the left. This is akin to helping the wolf into a sheep costume. To get Kerry to mouth progressive positions does not do any favors to the constituencies who might be fooled by it. There is nothing in Kerry’s history, or that of his New Democrats, to suggest that he would feel committed by any progressive noises he made during a campaign. It would be another case of lying to our members and finding ourselves with fewer of them to lie to the next time around. The enthusiasm of many college students for Bill Clinton’s campaign led to widespread disillusionment when he abandoned or gave only token support to all of his pledges except for NAFTA.

    A Lizard campaign allows us to disengage completely from Kerry and his politics. Indeed it will elicit the open hostility of the Democratic leadership and its allies. If the emergence of a significant Lizard voting block (in the current juncture any voting block is significant!) causes them to adjust their positions then so be it, but it is not the goal of the strategy.

    A Lizard campaign is a coalition effort. It would not present a distinct alternative platform that all its participants would unite around. We should therefore support the participation of Ralph Nader and Green party candidate David Cobb in any public debates. We need to amplify alternative perspectives in order to increase our people’s capacity for independent thought and action. In the current context I think that a Lizard vote will do more to build a constituency for future third party efforts than voting for the parties’ presidential candidates, but under no circumstances should we tolerate the Democrats’ efforts to attack or sideline them or other progressive voices (including insurgent Democrats like Dennis Kucinich).

    If it gets off the ground the Lizard campaign will be a grassroots effort. We won’t see endorsements or funding from mainstream lobbying groups. Lizard campaigners will not be invited to photo ops with Kerry or given mic time at his rallies. What we can do is capture the imagination of young people whose hearts do not skip a beat at the sound of Kerry’s voice. People aged 18-30 vote less than any other age group. There is no indication that this pattern will be any different in 2004. Young people opposed to Bush are less enthusiastic about Kerry the more they learn about him. One of the greatest appeals of this strategy to young people will be the lack of pretension. There will be no need to disguise the nature of either candidate. It would be difficult for the Republicans to counter-protest at a Lizard rally since their attacks on Kerry are not relevant to us but we could be a magnet for media attention. We could expect speakers from grassroots movements and communities who would never be (nor wish to be) invited to speak at a Kerry rally to voice the real issues confronting their constituents. A movement rooted in people’s real issues and founded on telling the truth in all of its complexity is tailor made for the participation of poets, musicians and all artists. We would need to capture the imagination of enough organizers for the concept to be spread widely through our networks. The support of a handful of community and campus organizations, alternative media outlets and web sites could be enough to get initial traction. If taken up as a strategy it can be fine tuned through planning conferences, e-mail discussions, and all the other mechanisms at our disposal. A network of Lizard committees in cities across the country could decide this election and if there’s one thing we know how to do, it’s organize!

    The stakes in this campaign are high, although they do not fall along the lines we are used to discussing. No matter who is elected in the fall we must be prepared to confront him with relentless organizing. We know that we will be facing a President committed to imposing a puppet government on Iraq which can only be pursued by expanding a brutal and immoral occupation. He will also champion so-called free trade agreements. These are the cornerstone of a strategy to replace national sovereignty with corporate sovereignty as the centerpiece of global governance. To disguise the significance of Kerry’s stands on these issues is unconscionable. Supporting free trade along with labor “side agreements” and local union legislation is like supporting slavery, but with a dental plan. It’s a nice touch but it misses the point.

    Much as we should avoid exaggerating the differences between the major parties, it also does not serve us to pretend that the outcome of the race doesn’t matter. The Bush crowd has presented the world with an unabashed declaration of supremacy and the world will see this election as a referendum on that posture. Lacking a parliamentary system we can only say no by rejecting Bush at the polls.

    At the same time we can honor our long term commitment to social change with a campaign of independent mobilization that summons the power of the disenfranchised to defeat Bush without sowing illusions about the current, stacked electoral system; and which opens the agenda to a significant reassessment of that system. We must refuse on principle–now and always–to lie to our people! To build real power in our communities we must face today’s dangers with a commitment to honesty and respect for our people’s intelligence. We must organize for a future not of more lessers and greater evils but of real hope and meaningful change.

    Feel free to circulate this article in any format so long as you do so in its entirety and credit the author. Ricardo Levins Morales is a political artist and long-haul activist who works at the Northland Poster Collective in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

    Personally, I don’t think Kerry’s a flake, but I do believe he’s a corporate tool, therefore:

    “It’s Tool Time”

    “Evict the Fool, Elect The Tool”

    “Sometimes all you have is a hammer. Elect John ‘The Tool’ Kerry to beat the Bush in 2004″

    etc. (please submit more ideas…)

    One thought on the subject — Rather than checking the box next to “Democrat : Kerry, John”, write him in on the write-in line. That way, he still gets the vote, but one isn’t supporting the National Democratic Party.

    Another thought. I wonder what happens with the vote if you write in someone who is on the ballot as a vice presidential candidate? Hmm…

    ###

    Congrats for reading all that!

    In local news, “Kilted Coffee” will be opening up on Nicollet Ave & 14th street in a couple weeks. Sounds worth checking out. Kilt wearers should know that they’re hiring. If you’re interested, call Dan at 612.670.2507/dan@kiltedcoffee.com. They also need Painting, Floor Installation, Signage, Bar Building, Drywalling, and Web Site Development. Hey, Web Site Development! Cool.

  • For some good reading, check out The Daily Howler’s dissection of some media criticisms of Fahrenheit/911. I haven’t yet seen the movie (or any Michael Moore show for that matter), but I look forward to it.

    The state politics list has recently been talking about Minnesota based political web logs. I haven’t had a chance to start reading a bunch of them, but here’s a short list of some that I intend to look at when I have the chance:

    I also intend to check out some of the links on http://www.fraterslibertas.com, including Mitch Berg’s Shot in the Dark – A good place to find the regional conservative viewpoint of things.

    I should make it clear that I do not endorse any of these web logs. I may find I agree with some of what some of them have to say, but from what I’ve seen, I’ll also disagree with a fair amount of it. So why read them?

    While in a day to day fashion we (humans, Americans, Minnesotans, etc.) may be petty, greedy and selfish. We commit all sorts of sins and make a wide variety of mistakes. However, I do believe that ultimately most of us want the world to be a good place where everyone can exist. A place where our children have better, safer, freer lives than we did.

    But everyone looks at the same basic problem from a different perspective and comes up with different solutions. Some of these solutions are simply unacceptable to me (such as the Project For The New American Century or the concept that the way to ensure gay rights is to pressure them to not be gay).

    It is too easy to become a fascist of your own beliefs – to have your philosophy become your religion and your efforts become your crusade. Convert or die! To develop a better approach, I believe that we need to know and understand the opinions and concerns of everyone who would exist in our ideal world – which, unless we propose mass slaughter, would be everyone.

    It may even be possible that, in considering a viewpoint that initially seems wrong, that one may suddenly see the problem in a new light and change one’s own mind.

    In any case, similar to the “War on Terror”, a war of ideals can not be won by killing the opposition. It can not be won by forcing the opposition to submit to your will. It can only be won by creating a vision that the opposition can become a part of. That will be accomplished by a combination of convincing them to change their minds and making sure that what you offer is broad enough to accommodate a reasonable range of differences.

    ###

    As much as I claim that we need to focus on what we want to build rather than what we oppose, I can’t resist sharing the following…

    I was answering a survey the other day which asked me the following:
    In your own words, why do you believe things in the country are off on the wrong track?

    This question can not be answered so easily. What follows were simply the things that came to mind without much thought, but they are a starting point for deeper discussion:

    • In general, I think that representative Democracy is broken by an corporatist two party system that are two faces of the same coin. I think we need to restructure elections (using a system such as Instant Runoff Voting) and look seriously at campaign financing reform. (although I don’t have a good suggestion of what way to turn)
    • I think we need to stop looking at corporations as anything more than a contract between two or more people to do business together. A contract can not fund candidates, a contract doesn’t have rights, a contract doesn’t own property or have liability – the people behind the contract do.
    • I think we need to realize that we are only 4% of the world and if we truly believe in Democracy, we should realize that we don’t have the right to enforce our will on anybody outside our borders – we should participate in world politics the same way we expect our citizens to participate in local politics.
    • I think we need to remove parentalistic and consensual crime laws. I think we need to end the war on drugs. I think we need to end the war on terror – You fight an idea by convincing people not to hold it, not by killing them and driving them further into it.
    • I think we need to start using renewable energy sources and cease using imported and fossil fuels. This is critical.
    • I think the media, in general, should be fired. I think that lying, deception, or distortion in anything involving political or economic choices should be considered fraud and that every decision maker who approved the distortion should face criminal penalties.
    • I think that teachers should be paid a lot more and be given the tools and resources they need to do one of the most important jobs our country has. If this is not possible, I believe we should end the farce that we call “public education” (this needs a lot more explaining, but I believe is a core issue)
    • I think that our courts need to limit frivolous law suits and suit settlements, and that medical care needs to be made more accessable and affordable in some way.
    • A great deal more, but at this point I decided not to finish the survey…

    Anyway, that was a quick run down that is by no means comprehensive (many important subjects are missed) and is not well explained or reasoned.

    Hopefully in the near future I will be able to start digging deeper into some of the individual points.

    One of the great challenges I believe we face is that for either Democracy or Capitalism to work in a healthy manner, we have to have an active, informed, involved community. We do not. I believe that part of the problem is media and another part is education, but it is probably more complex than that. How does one address this issue without falling into the classic liberal contempt for the masses? For a humorous look at this issue, check out The Onion.

    ###

    Daisy Cutter is playing at the Red Sea in Minneapolis July 11th and 30th. Yes, I know I need to update the website.