|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 7, 2004 11:58:42 GMT -5
Re: Political Parties-- the downside is, that once you create one, just as soon as it becomes a factor, it will be co-opted by the same players. The Players will co-opt it.
As to the moniker "liberal"-- what does it mean, really? Since it has allowed to be defined by The Players, I'm not sure it has any authentic meaning.
It would be good to know what positions/principles you hold dear, and then maybe come up with some new monikers for these.
|
|
|
|
Post by calabi-yau on Apr 7, 2004 18:50:07 GMT -5
That is a useful paradigm with which to understand how bogus the political spectrum is, and how it is necessary to free oneself from it altogether. The 2 party system is not reprensative of American society anymore and hasn't been for a long time. America is not a nation. America is many nations. Face it. Welcome to the new USSR, made in Amerika. The Revolution will not be televised |
|
|
|
Post by dev0ra on Apr 7, 2004 22:25:32 GMT -5
Re: Political Parties-- the downside is, that once you create one, just as soon as it becomes a factor, it will be co-opted by the same players. The Players will co-opt it. As to the moniker "liberal"-- what does it mean, really? Since it has allowed to be defined by The Players, I'm not sure it has any authentic meaning. It would be good to know what positions/principles you hold dear, and then maybe come up with some new monikers for these. If not parties then, what would you suggest? Unfortunately, they seem to be a necessary evil. Note, I am not arguing with what you said. I agree. I'm just wondering what we can do instead. Or, how we might safeguard against the same thing happening to our new party,-- IF we decide to form one. As for what my positions/principles are, the top 4 are: 1- Getting us out of Iraq (with or without saving face, as I don't really see how it's possible at this point). 2- Universal healthcare. We are paying more than anyone else in the world for our current healthcare and not getting nearly our money's worth. 3- Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. And how to bring them back and keep them. I mean decent, well-paying jobs. Where an honest hardworking man/woman can actually live decently. 4- The Environment (this one should actually be #1, we destroy our planet, everything else is irrelevant) These are only my top 4. There are many others: education, civil/human rights... To me the term liberal means that I care about others, and not just about myself and immediate concerns. I recognize what I do or don't do effects others. I recognize our interconnectedness. I realize this is not the dictionary definition. Rather, this is MY OWN definition. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 8, 2004 8:19:11 GMT -5
Well, to me, you are in favor of Good, and opposed to Evil.
The only quibble I would have is re: the specifics of Universal Health Care.
The reason the Hillary "reform" was rejected, is that people who have had to deal with the government to obtain their rightful benefits: veterans, parents, disabled, etc etc etc. know that for the government to have the power of life and death over people is a bad thing. A very bad thing.
I think that what people want is an excellent health care system, with alot of research going on that is not directed by the commercial interests, and they want all to have access to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay Berner on Apr 9, 2004 4:06:14 GMT -5
"bummer. I can see it happening too"
Here's the icing on the environmental cake...
The very last straw...
Children and pregnant women in my town are being urged to avoid garden-grown vegetables, because for the last six decades people have been scraping lead paint off their houses, and it falls into their yards, and accumulates. Garden plants absorb the lead and concentrate it at insanely unsafe levels in the fruits and vegetables, which is particularly bad for developing kids.
While I'm not a foetus, I still don't want to ingest that much lead. There go my hopes for a garden this year, unless I do everything in 5 or 20 gallon containers.
We're doomed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay Berner on Apr 9, 2004 4:25:16 GMT -5
"What is a deathrocker?" Suicidal teenagers from the late 70's and 80's who dressed in black rags and were obsessed with all things morbid. They were attracted to a sub-category of punk rock called "Deathrock," which was nothing at all like heavy metal. It was downright melodic most of the time, but it was dark, depressing, soft, and slow. The sort of music you could listen to while hanging yourself. Most deathrockers died off from suicide or heroin complications by the early 90's, and the ones that were left quietly withdrew into figurative mausoleums to wait until the end of their days. Every now and then one of the old bands does a last and final tour, and you can see the decrepit remnants of The Scene turn out, embarrassed to still be alive. Deathrockers spawned a sub-sub-subculture called Cure Girls, and the Goths kind of descended from them. Snatched at random from Google: www.deathrock.net/ |
|
nemo
Full Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by nemo on Apr 9, 2004 7:27:56 GMT -5
Since we're on the SF (not 'sci-fi', godammit; I believe it to be anything but fictional) subject of ecological collapse in the frame of human civilization, may I offer Philip Wylie's "The End of the Dream"?
It's long out of print, and can generally only be found in paperback form in used book stores. It was (bitingly caustic and bang-on target) social critic Wylie's last book, published in 1971, and by today's standards somewhat off the mark...but only just.
(Interestingly enough, he recounts in the story of what happens in New York when a terrorist incident caused by a racist cracker creates a blackout, and an SST crashes into a major building - don't recall which one, it's been that long ago, and I don't have the book anymore - while approaching JFK Airport, causing widespread loss of life. The idea of jetliners-as-missiles has been around a loooooong time, Ms. Rice!)
The same kind of themes related in Brunner's "Stand on Zanzibar" and "The Sheep Look Up" are present in TEOTD, without the ET angle. It's bloody scary, as he pulls no punches.
It is heavily Malthusian in it's prognosis, and considering that many of 'our' leaders have allegiances to some very strange folks like the Club of Rome (who've been advocating militant versions of equally Malthusian ideas such as Zero Population Growth) you can't help but wonder if their agendas don't include such 'contingency plans'.
|
|
|
|
Post by POA on Apr 10, 2004 5:32:22 GMT -5
Go fer it. Lemme know when it's formed and I'll be one of your "charter members." btw... I voted "no" in the poll. Not because I'm against the idea, but rather, because I'm against the name. I think it's important that we TOTALLY disassociate ourselves from the Democratic Party. Might I suggest using the label they have been so determined to disassociate themselves from? "THE LIBERAL PARTY" or how about "THE PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS." ;D :D Here's why I like calling it "The New Democrats": The DLC-types have taken to calling themselves "New Democrats", so appropriating it and turning it to an exact opposite purpose from theirs (I don't think that political parties are copyrightable, but I'm not sure), not only plays on the work towards name recognition they've already done, but it annoys them every single time that we make progress taking the country back from them. Just thinking about it makes me smile as I type. Here's some ideas I have in addition to what you've already mentioned: 1) Immediate funding of alternative energy sources. We can't do anything to make the transition due to peak oil 'smooth', but we can at least make it less disastrous. 2) Immediate funding of birth control programs (reversing Bush admin position on this). 3) Withdrawl from Iraq and payment for a real reconstruction effort administered by whichever authority the Iraqis choose to be in charge (whether that's the UN, their own government, et cetera). 4) Constitutional and governmental reform. This includes especially the reform of electoral systems, campaign financing, and additional checks on the power of the executive branch. 5) Selling off and leaving the military bases in well over 150 different nations that the US has at this point. 6) An embargo on Israel unless Sharon starts negotiating. 7) Ending regressive taxation and the hideous tax cuts. 8) Educational reform ought to be on the list, but this is definitely not an area of expertise for me. 9) Reregulation of industry and enforcement of the antitrust legislation. 10) Start dismantling the military-industrial complex by (as a starter) the declassification of a lot of what they've done over the course of the last 50 years. In combination with a reregulated media, just hearing how badly they've simoultaneously bilked us and destroyed democracy here and abroad ought to damage their credibility enough to make further reforms easier. 11) Taking steps to end racial inequality in the United States. Some of this will be part of educational reform. Some of this also consists of much more stringent enforcement of anti-discrimination legislation, ending felon disenfranchisement, reparations, et cetera. I think 'fusion' with them at certain points would be good, but at the same time, any party (including ours) isn't perfect and there are mistakes that they'll make, and mistakes that we'll make. A bit of separation would be a good idea. For example (this was discussed a while back), the Greens want to run someone against Barbara Boxer for Senate in my state. While Boxer is hardly perfect, a much better target would be Feinstein. Here's why: 1) Voted for the Iraq war. Despite everything she said. 2) Her husband's company is (really) an Iraq war contractor feeding at the trough. 3) Voted for the Patriot Act. 4) DLC member. 5) Screwed up the California recall by encouraging Democrats to vote no on the recall-and then don't vote at all for ANYONE. Thus, she actually helped Schwarzenegger win here. In short, she's a poster child for everything that's wrong with the Democrats without being as openly horrid as a Lieberman or a Miller. Attack her and a lot of people might support it. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 10, 2004 10:42:08 GMT -5
"It is heavily Malthusian in it's prognosis, and considering that many of 'our' leaders have allegiances to some very strange folks like the Club of Rome (who've been advocating militant versions of equally Malthusian ideas such as Zero Population Growth) you can't help but wonder if their agendas don't include such 'contingency plans'."
This is frightening, and you hear people saying it looks like the Bush/Cheney people and maybe some others associated with the foreign policy community really wouldn't mind if masses of people died even here in the US.
Albright's comments about the deaths of millions of children being a good bargain for their pro-Israeli policies in the Middle East, for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay Berner on Apr 10, 2004 18:27:20 GMT -5
"Go fer it.
Consider it as good as done. One thing, though...
I HAVE DIBS ON REGISTERING THE NAME!
As soon as I figure out where, I mean. I spent two hours searching the web, and found nothing. If anybody wants to help (I could use it - I'm gettin' nowhere), just remember that I HAVE DIBS! An old friend just won the Pultizer Prize for criticism...please...let me have this...
"Not because I'm against the idea, but rather, because I'm against the name."
Here are the reasons I like the name:
1.) MARKETING.
They've spent billions building brand loyalty, and we can capitalize on it for free. Don't underestimate the power of that. Our mere existence will garner so much publicity - especially if we play it right - that we won't NEED much money. People will vote for us just because they're sick of the Old Democrats.
2.) ATTACK ADVERTISING
If we're NEW Democrats, the other guys automatically become OLD Democrats, and everybody in America has been trained to like New more than Old.
3.) IT'S NOT TOO DIFFERENT
Even if they agree with them, most people are too anxious to register with third parties like the Greens, WWP, PPP, etc...
"New Democrats" is different, but not too different.
4.) IT'S WHAT WE BELIEVE IN
Or, at least, it's not terribly far off from what we believe in, and God Beyond knows, it's what we need.
5.) CHEESED
Boy, will the Old Dems be cheesed off, or what?
Jay Berner
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 10, 2004 23:29:15 GMT -5
Could you call your state election board and find out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay Berner on Apr 11, 2004 8:00:57 GMT -5
I spent every bit of four hours looking on numerous government sites, but I came up empty. I did find some phone numbers on the FEC site, and I'll call tomorrow to see if they can steer me in the right direction. I've been doing some thinking about this. I think one of our mottoes should be "No Greens Allowed!" for two reasons: It will grab a Democrat's attention, and if we accept Greens into our fold we'll weaken the Green Party. I do not want to see the Green Party weakened - I want to see it grow. I think we should buddy up to the Greens from the get-go - offer to help at their protests and ask them to help at ours. Besides, we need the Greens around so we can swipe their positions and policies.  Another motto should be: "No Naderites Allowed!" for the same reasons. I also like the idea of "Leaderless Resistance." And I figure the best place to recruit is the Internet. It's cheap. |
|
|
|
Post by Jay Berner on Apr 11, 2004 8:27:35 GMT -5
"PS: Silly question, I know, but what will our platform be?
Zero corruption. Zero pollution. End the Drug War. Non-Violence. Social Justice. Pretty much the same as the Greens, really, but with a name that's not as scary to Dems.
"PSS: A crazy thought. Since many of us recognize that the Green Party's platform is pretty much what the democrats used to stand for, and that the Green party is very vibrant and GROWING... would it be too crazy an idea to just merge with them? If approached intelligently, I am sure they would welcome us with open arms..."
hehe - - We have to consider electability - - haha - -
Lots of Dems hate what their party has become, but won't ever be able to bring themselves to vote for a Green. Those are the people we have to fire up. We have to plant this idea in their heads:
YOUR PARTY IS DYING! THIS IS HOW YOU FIX IT!
"Then again, I have heard concerns that the republicans have infiltrated them, just as they have our own party (DLC, ABB, etc). I don't know if this is true or not. Mostly just rumour and innuendo, I think.
I'm trying to think of a way we can form small cells that work independently of each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay Berner on Apr 11, 2004 9:53:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 11, 2004 12:40:02 GMT -5
I don't know if the New Democrats as you have described would appeal to me.
In thinking about it for a bit, but not in depth, and knowing what I have heard about the Greens, I think that what is missing is a political party that represents actual people rather than special interests.
This is typical, of course, in that political processes work by way of coalitions around various issues, but I think that what Clinton had seemed to be -- forging policies based on a real understanding of the problems rather than forged based on special interests, is what we need.
"Social Justice" doesn't necessarilly relate at all to solving the problems w the public schools, e.g.
|
|
