FW: [Peace-discuss] Is Iowa important?

[Laurie at advancenet.net]

> 
> > And the alternative?
> 
> First, you would need to have a cultural and political revolution
> before one could even consider a truly radical alternative; but we all
> know that that will never happen in the U.S. unless it undergoes a
> complete political and economic meltdown with the collapse of its
> social institutions and socio-economic structure.
> 
> Second, aside from the above, there are a number of alternative forms
> of both Democracy and electoral processes that could replace what now
> exists that might afford greater representation of the populous and
> greater control over elected and non-elected public officials, greater
> and fairer access and participation of the individual citizen (as
> opposed to the fictions legal citizen known as the corporation), and a
> more common good oriented society and governmental structure than the
> existing special interest oriented one we now have.
> 
> Among the features that such an alternative might have would be (1) to
> limit the campaigns to a given specific time period of a limited and
> specified duration, (2) to limit expenditures by candidates and parties
> or persons and organizations on their behalf or in support of them to a
> reasonable and relatively small amount over the course of the campaign
> and election period,(3) to require the media (including TV, radio,
> press, cable, satellite, and even internet based mass media) to furnish
> each and every candidate for a public office a specified amount of time
> or print space for free during both prime time (or front page) and non-
> prime time (non-front page) equally for all candidates to individually
> present their materials as well as a specified amount of time or print
> space for candidates to collectively participate in debates among
> themselves where no legitimate candidate is excluded for any reason;
> (4) to prohibit any political advertising or promotions in or on the
> mass media by the candidates, political parties, or others on behalf or
> in support of a candidate or political party other than the free
> required time allocated to them for that purpose by the mass media
> under number (3); (5) deny the right of corporate entities to be
> considered as individuals under the law with the same civil and
> political rights as actual human beings with respect to the political
> process such that they have no right to make contributions either
> monetary or in kind, run ads or other promotional materials, lobby,
> etc.; (6) set limits on the amounts of money that individual human
> beings can contribute or spend in money or in kind during the
> campaign/election period or for purposes of lobbying government
> officials; (7) establish a system of proportional representation in the
> federal and state legislatures such that minority interests are
> guaranteed representation and participation; (8) establish
> constitutional provisions that allow for popular recall of elected
> officials at all levels of government; and (9) prohibit such things as
> signing statements and executive privilege, set time limits and sunset
> provisions on classified documents and executive decisions and
> agreements, require full and complete disclosure of all executive and
> court orders and actions to the public when such actions impinge on the
> publics' civil, legal, and human rights or result in invasions of their
> privacy.
> 
> Of course these are but a few features that I would suggest an
> alternative might have along with mandatory strong punitively enforced
> laws for those who violate, conspire to violate, or have knowledge of
> violations but withhold it the things noted above - including mandatory
> long prison terms without probation, exclusion from participating in
> the political process at any level and in any way, and stiff punitive
> fines and damage payments.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Morton K. Brussel [mailto:brussel at uiuc.edu]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 1:18 PM
> > To: Laurie at advancenet.net
> > Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Is Iowa important?
> >
> > And the alternative?
> >
> > --mkb
> >
> > On Dec 30, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Laurie at advancenet.net wrote:
> >
> > > This is assessment by Mike Flugennock  is the first realistic
> > > assessment
> > > that I have seen on this list or anywhere else that does not buy
> > > into the
> > > overly optimistic premises that in the long run Democracy is good
> > > and things
> > > will work out for the better in the future because the possibility
> > > that
> > > there can be candidates for public office can be trusted, that
> > > there are
> > > progressive and radical candidates who are not caught up in the
> > > establishment game supporting basic establishment premises and
> > > looking out
> > > for their own self-interests, and that the electoral process is not
> > > merely a
> > > circulation of establishment elites or their representatives who
> > > are only
> > > willing to make symbolic gestures or minor reforms in unimportant
> > > ways to
> > > the peripheral values and assumptions that govern this society.
> > >
> > > The only thing to add is that what was said for the Democrats and
> > > Democratic
> > > Party is equally true of the Republicans and the Republican Party
> and
> > > probably most third party candidates who have enough strength and
> > > resources
> > > to become a candidate for any office at any level.
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-
> > discuss-
> > >> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
> > >> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 12:10 AM
> > >> To: Peace Discuss
> > >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Is Iowa important?
> > >>
> > >> ["Don't play it again, Sam," by Mike Flugennock in the blog
> > >> <http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/>. --CGE]
> > >>
> > >>      SAM SMITH wrote:
> > >>
> > >>      http://prorev.com/2007/12/most-important-primary-decision-in-
> > >> 40.html
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > >>> THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIMARY DECISION IN FORTY YEARS
> > >>> ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > >>>
> > >>> If Edwards wins the Iowa caucuses, it will be the most
> > >> significant
> > >>> progressive primary win since Eugene McCarthy got 41% of the
> > >> vote
> > >>> in New Hampshire in 1968.
> > >>
> > >>      Sam, dude. I love ya, bro', but I'm begging you. Knock it off
> > >> with
> > >> the Senator Goodhair hype. The guy makes a big deal out of being
> > some
> > >> kind of progressive populist, but ... How long was he a nobody in
> > the
> > >> Senate before he got picked to co-pilot the 2004 Swift Boat To
> Hell?
> > >> Senator Breck Boy was a runner-up in the same Political American
> > Idol
> > >> contest that plucked Senator Magic Negro from out of nowhere.
> > >>
> > >>      ... with all due respect, man, for the love of all that's
> > >> good and
> > >> decent, why are you so nuts about John Edwards? He was gung-ho for
> > >> the
> > >> war when he thought that knowingly believing the lies would keep
> his
> > >> ass
> > >> in power, and when he got caught out believing the lies, he spewed
> > >> the
> > >> same old "oh, I was so terribly deceived" line of crap that all
> the
> > >> other Democrats were spewing when public opinion shifted against
> the
> > >> war
> > >> -- and then, went right back to believing the lies being told
> about
> > >> Iran, for _another_ big Bush war drive.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> While those who prefer the personal, albeit single digit, purity
> > >>> of supporting a Kucinich may scoff...
> > >>
> > >>      While I think Kucinich is a totally useless energy- and
> > >> resource-sucking vortex designed by the Democrats to waste the US
> > >> Left's
> > >> time, still -- I think whatever movement you're in is fucked
> without
> > >> "purity" of thought and vision. No revolution was won without it.
> > >> We're
> > >> in the trouble we're in now because the US Left insists on
> shackling
> > >> itself to a dead institution that's made a business out of
> > >> compromising
> > >> principles for political expediency until it's got no principles
> > left
> > >> to
> > >> compromise. Don't forget the Pogo quote that you, yourself,
> proudly
> > >> brandish on the PR blog site.
> > >>
> > >>> ...even Ralph Nader agrees that an Edwards
> > >>> nomination would be a historic shift in the political
> > >> landscape...
> > >>
> > >>      And that, friends, is pretty goddamn' sad. Sad that the
> > >> Democratic
> > >> Party nomination of a rich, white, gated-suburb-dwelling,
> > >> ambulance-chaser whose idea of universal health care is to force
> > >> everybody to become customers of for-profit health-insurance
> > >> corporations -- the "Nixon Plan" for corporate-dominated
> > >> healthcare --
> > >> would be considered a "historic shift in the political landscape".
> I
> > >> knew things were sucking in this country lately, but I never
> > realized
> > >> that they were sucking so deeply and profoundly that the DP
> running
> > >> Senator Goodhair for El Presidente would be a "historic shift".
> > >>
> > >>      Now, on the other hand, a rock-bottom turnout next year -- a
> > >> turnout so small that no party or pundit could claim a "mandate"
> > >> or to
> > >> claim that "the People have spoken" or that "non-voters are
> > >> apathetic"
> > >> -- followed by a widespread general strike, followed by a very
> > large,
> > >> spontaneous, belligerent, possibly a bit violent, mass
> > >> mobilization to
> > >> Capitol Hill (a la the 1970 post-Kent State convergence on DC) to
> > >> demand
> > >> the immediate resignation and exile of _all_ incumbent political
> > >> leadership and a brand-new election -- now, _that'd_ be a historic
> > >> shift
> > >> in the goddamn' political landscape.
> > >>
> > >>> Edwards' election would signal the end of another era, namely
> > >> that
> > >>> of Reagan, the Bushes and Clinton - one that has wrecked social
> > >> democracy,
> > >>> returned the economy to robber baron standards and caused us to
> > >> be hated
> > >>> around the world...
> > >>
> > >>      Oh f'cripesake, Sam. The guy's a goddamn' _Democrat_... you
> > >> know,
> > >> the party which has been aiding and abetting this misery as far
> > >> back as
> > >> I can remember. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." --the
> > >> Who.
> > >>
> > >>> Finally we can begin again. This would not be a reflection of
> > >> Edwards'
> > >>> virtues so much as of the strength of a constituency for change
> > >> that
> > >>> this country has not seen for a long time. And it would be a
> > >> victory for
> > >>> all of us.
> > >>
> > >>      No, it'd be a victory for the Democratic party and
> > >> corporate-cash-strung-out politics.
> > >>
> > >>      If you ask me, electing a Democratic Administration would
> > >> just put
> > >> off the inevitable. I'd just as soon see the final collapse of the
> > DP
> > >> and the immediate prospect of four years of "Giuliani Time"
> shocking
> > >> people off of their couches and into the streets. Look how well
> > >> President Chimp did at unifying the US Left -- until, of course,
> the
> > >> 2004 "election", in which sizeable numbers of them suddenly fell
> > >> into a
> > >> deep psychosis in which they believed that electing a party that
> was
> > >> enabling the current Iraq horror would end it. Many of them
> > >> continue to
> > >> shuffle around in this debilitated state to this day.
> > >>
> > >>      I still remember how hard it was trying to organize the US
> Left
> > >> against the _last_ Democratic Administration...basically, like
> > trying
> > >> to
> > >> push a truck uphill with a rope.
> > >>
> > >>      All I can say is that I'm glad I've finally realized what a
> > >> useless
> > >> freak show this all is, and that I've quit caring. I can't begin
> to
> > >> tell
> > >> you how liberating it is to not give a rat's ass who "wins" the
> > >> "election" -- and how especially liberating it is not to care
> > >> about the
> > >> goddamn' _Democrats_ -- because I know none of that class of
> people
> > >> will
> > >> bring us any change, nor will trudging off and validating a
> corrupt,
> > >> collapsing institution with my "vote".
> > >>
> > >> 	###
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Peace-discuss mailing list
> > >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > >> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss