http://kucinich.us/node/942

I posted a comment or two.

http://kucinich.us/node/942

I posted a comment or two.

That place is too fucking hard to navigate and the posters there are all over the map anyway.

After some of Raphaelle's quotes I think the Kucitizens are an accurate reflection of Dennis and his priorities. A movement based on that crap seems like it would amount to Gotham City electing the Joker mayor.

After some of Raphaelle's quotes I think the Kucitizens are an accurate reflection of Dennis and his priorities. A movement based on that crap seems like it would amount to Gotham City electing the Joker mayor.
LOL. Right you are.

After some of Raphaelle's quotes I think the Kucitizens are an accurate reflection of Dennis and his priorities. A movement based on that crap seems like it would amount to Gotham City electing the Joker mayor.
Raph is very down on him, so she cherry-picks her quotes. He's a very practical politician, and it'd be a mistake to sell him short.

http://kucinich.us/node/942

I posted a comment or two.
I just posted one also. I don't know whether it'll raise blisters, but that was my intention.

http://kucinich.us/node/942

I posted a comment or two.
I just posted one also. I don't know whether it'll raise blisters, but that was my intention.

Haha, you obviously have had a run in or two with the Kucitizenry. The only thing I wonder about is I thought Dennis had parlayed his earnings in Congress into a fairly well-to-do home. And I also think Congress types get a pension or something.

So I really doubt he'll ever be holding up a "Will legislate for food sign" again :)

The only thing I wonder about is I thought Dennis had parlayed his earnings in Congress into a fairly well-to-do home. And I also think Congress types get a pension or something.

So I really doubt he'll ever be holding up a "Will legislate for food sign" again :)
If he has a good house, then it's something new. The one he had in '04 was small and ugly.

And yes, he qualified for a pension this year. But he has too few years for it to be worth a lot. It'll be better than the ss pension I'm living on, but that's not saying much.

(And yes, I've had run-ins with them, very much including eridani. She's been such a consistent wet blanket over the years that I've finally become suspicious of her motives.)

doodly doo doodly doo.

Wonder what ever happened to that promise? Instead there are rationalizations and justifications and excuses for the necessary political timidity to preserve...what Mairead--to preserve what? Political reputation? A strong uncompromised stand with no qualifiers is exactly the thing--blunt, direct, forthright that wins respect. It is this ridiculous show of grandstanding with predictable capitulation that SELL US OUT and keeps us hanging on for just a few promising shreds of hope...

Fuck it. I have no respect for that OR anybody who continues to give him cover. Underlying the entire NeoCon game plan is Palestine--it all comes back to that. Last night I watched Cindy Sheehan on "Democracy Now" discuss a court case that determined if you support the funding of the war you can not claim to be against it. Well, if you not make a strong, courageous stand about the underlying motivations driving the ME policy and continue to posture that all sides are morally equivilant, than you know what? You are not against the war. You are a phoney, you are a coward--and you are standing in the way and continuing to spread false hope and fairy tales. Would you accept such a compromised position on the question of slavery? Kucinich is comparable to one of those politicians who straddled the fence on the issue and with expedient political manuevers, morally equivilant stands and noble-sounding rhetoric served to prolong the injustice. Kucinich is part of the problem--he isn't telling us something we don't already know and it isn't enough to just say it. Words or actions, Mairead? Words or action?

Wonder what ever happened to that promise? Instead there are rationalizations and justifications and excuses for the necessary political timidity to preserve...what Mairead--to preserve what? Political reputation? A strong uncompromised stand with no qualifiers is exactly the thing--blunt, direct, forthright that wins respect. It is this ridiculous show of grandstanding with predictable capitulation that SELL US OUT and keeps us hanging on for just a few promising shreds of hope...
... Kucinich is comparable to one of those politicians who straddled the fence on the issue and with expedient political manuevers, morally equivilant stands and noble-sounding rhetoric served to prolong the injustice. Kucinich is part of the problem--he isn't telling us something we don't already know and it isn't enough to just say it. Words or actions, Mairead? Words or action?
But Raph, we ALWAYS get more of what we reward. We NEVER get more of what we punish. That's not an arcane rocket-science concept, it's THE most basic rat-psychology principle. Hell, it's so primitive that it even works with flatworms. If we want more X, reward any movement toward X. If we want less Y, do not ever ever ever reward anything that resembles Y.

Dennis is doing what we're rewarding him for. If we want him to do something else, we have to reward that something else. Right now, he's giving everyone just as much leftism as we're willing to actually reward him for.

He's not going to stick his neck out again the way he did in '78. He trusted people to reward him for doing what they elected him to do, and they punished him instead! How aversive would that be? Pretty aversive! Who would do the same thing twice? Not me!

"The beatings will continue until morale improves" is a bitter joke for a reason: it's exactly the kind of massive, stupid error that we intelligent people too often make.

Building a machine for him would have been a real here-and-now reward, tangible, practical evidence of our intention to reward the behavior we want.

People who voluntarily go into sales are motivated by social rewards such as money. There have been a couple of sales managers who've been superb practical psychologists and have hooked into that. One of the best of their ploys (widely reported, it was so good) was to pay bonuses in cash money at the quarterly or annual motivational retreat. Imagine being money-motivated and seeing someone up in front of the room, standing there looking down at the table as the sales manager pulls wads and wads and wads of cash out of a box and stacks it up there in a huge pile to be taken away in a sack. Your mouth would water as you envision yourself being up there next quarter, where the loot is being stacked up for you to take away.

That's what the machine would have been. It would have been the equivalent of wads of cash on the table. "Here, Dennis. We want you to make our agenda happen. And if you'll promise that, we'll put you into office. And as proof of our goodwill and power, we've put together this 50-state machine, ready to swing into action to put you into the WH and pack Congress with like-minded people." Jeezus, he'd have been wetting himself in eagerness.

But the airy-fairy "wishing is enough" people couldn't get their shit together and weren't bright enough or aware enough or something enough to see what they were doing to themselves. Sic transit.

... it'd be a mistake to sell him short.
What does that mean exactly? What are the two alternatives you are seeing? How would one "sell him short" and what would be the practical (and presumably negative) consequences of doing that? What would we do or say if we were not selling him short?

... it'd be a mistake to sell him short.
What does that mean exactly? What are the two alternatives you are seeing? How would one "sell him short" and what would be the practical (and presumably negative) consequences of doing that? What would we do or say if we were not selling him short?
I suppose I'm saying that he's already shown himself to be on our side. We don't need to convert him or electroplate him or do anything else to him. He already did it to himself, growing up. So if we treat him as though he were interchangeable with any other Dem congresscritter, I think that's what I mean by selling short. And we'd be revealing something to our own discredit at the same time, namely the inability to recognise that "the rank is but the guinea's stamp / the man's the gold for all that".

Getting Dennis to do what we want would be a lot easier than getting someone like Kerry, Pelosi, or Senselessbugger to do what we want. It just makes sense to work on people like DK, Cynthia, et al. who are already close. Or at least it seems to me that it does, presuming that we need to work on someone (what's the alternative?). I mean, we want a certain outcome, so what's the path with the least arduous set of steps to get it? Trying to get someone like Pelosi to fall in with us is like trying to put a mirror-finish on a coprolite--it may be possible, but you'll grow old and probably dead trying.

Getting Dennis to do what we want would be a lot easier than getting someone like Kerry, Pelosi, or Senselessbugger to do what we want. It just makes sense to work on people like DK, Cynthia, et al. who are already close. Or at least it seems to me that it does, presuming that we need to work on someone (what's the alternative?). I mean, we want a certain outcome, so what's the path with the least arduous set of steps to get it? Trying to get someone like Pelosi to fall in with us is like trying to put a mirror-finish on a coprolite--it may be possible, but you'll grow old and probably dead trying.
OK, thanks.

I agree with you, however I think we should build an independent Left, and eventually the politicians will have to come to us, rather than looking over the buffet table of choices and then trying to shoe-horn what we do, think, and say into their agenda.

I think that the Democratic party politicians are in the way of building an independent movement. The path with the least arduous steps is the path that does not go through the Democratic party or any of the Dem politicians at all. In fact, ANY path other than the Democratic party will be much easier.

They are our representatives, we aren't their representatives. We don't have any Left for them to be representing.

Politicians just surf on waves of public sentiment You can' look for them to be the wave or to impose a wave. If they did, they would be dictators, not representatives. Our job is to change public sentiment. That means getting a left wing narrative out there. The public isn't rejecting left wing politics, they aren't hearing left wing politics. “Vote for Dennis” is not a left wing narrative. “Vote for Dennis because,..” isn't either.

There is no doubt that the thinking in the Kucinich campaign goes like this - “Dennis is really, really good. If we can just get him into power somehow, by whatever means, you know raise a bunch of money and stuff and work real hard and demand that MSM cover him, or maybe by visualizing what we want to have happen, then he really really WILL 'be my president' – isn't that exciting!!! - and all will be well. He will create the department of peace, and we will all live happily ever after. I just so know that I am right, right, right about this.”

Getting Dennis to do what we want would be a lot easier than getting someone like Kerry, Pelosi, or Senselessbugger to do what we want. It just makes sense to work on people like DK, Cynthia, et al. who are already close. Or at least it seems to me that it does, presuming that we need to work on someone (what's the alternative?). I mean, we want a certain outcome, so what's the path with the least arduous set of steps to get it? Trying to get someone like Pelosi to fall in with us is like trying to put a mirror-finish on a coprolite--it may be possible, but you'll grow old and probably dead trying.
OK, thanks.

I agree with you, however I think we should build an independent Left, and eventually the politicians will have to come to us, rather than looking over the buffet table of choices and then trying to shoe-horn what we do, think, and say into their agenda.

I think that the Democratic party politicians are in the way of building an independent movement. The path with the least arduous steps is the path that does not go through the Democratic party or any of the Dem politicians at all. In fact, ANY path other than the Democratic party will be much easier.

They are our representatives, we aren't their representatives. We don't have any Left for them to be representing.

Politicians just surf on waves of public sentiment You can' look for them to be the wave or to impose a wave. If they did, they would be dictators, not representatives. Our job is to change public sentiment. That means getting a left wing narrative out there. The public isn't rejecting left wing politics, they aren't hearing left wing politics. “Vote for Dennis” is not a left wing narrative. “Vote for Dennis because,..” isn't either.

There is no doubt that the thinking in the Kucinich campaign goes like this - “Dennis is really, really good. If we can just get him into power somehow, by whatever means, you know raise a bunch of money and stuff and work real hard and demand that MSM cover him, or maybe by visualizing what we want to have happen, then he really really WILL 'be my president' – isn't that exciting!!! - and all will be well. He will create the department of peace, and we will all live happily ever after. I just so know that I am right, right, right about this.”
I think we're saying broadly the same thing, only with slightly difference emphases.

You're saying build a voting bloc and then take what we want because once we reach critical mass, they'll have no choice but to kautau to us if they want to keep their jobs. (Does it sound like I understand?)

I'm saying that there are several levels of critical mass, and it's possible that we can...well, maybe not push the river exactly, but use leverage that's much less than absolute to get key people into office, thus increasing our effective mass by a discontinuous amount.

I'm probably worried about getting something going sooner because I've started to have nightmares about climate change. It's really got me spooked, because if we do go past the tipping point, absolutely nothing we do will make the slightest difference. It'll be like "On the Beach"--the most we'll be able to do is see that our loved ones enjoy quick and painless deaths. The very idea makes my tummy knot up. And the really nice thing about it is that we don't know where the damned tipping point is. All we know is that "things are closer than they appear" and it's got me spending more time than I like in the loo.

I think we're saying broadly the same thing, only with slightly difference emphases.
We are, yes.

You're saying build a voting bloc and then take what we want because once we reach critical mass, they'll have no choice but to kautau to us if they want to keep their jobs. (Does it sound like I understand?)
Yes. All of the significant political change over the centuries has come from pressure groups outside of the political establishment.

I'm saying that there are several levels of critical mass, and it's possible that we can...well, maybe not push the river exactly, but use leverage that's much less than absolute to get key people into office, thus increasing our effective mass by a discontinuous amount.
It's much easier than we think. Every time I start thinking it is difficult, I take that as a sign that I am complicating things too much. It isn't the arguments that are difficult to make, nor that people are difficult to persuade. The arguments are dangerous to make, and we try to moderate them without realizing that we are for the sake of security.

Getting “key people into office” is not a good goal, I don't think, unless we are talking about a coup or setting up a benevolent dictatorship. People in office cannot increase effective mass. It works the other way around. Effective mass puts people in office.

We are so steeped in consumerism, and the personal choice political model is a product of that. “I pull this lever, and out comes a candy bar” - voting seen as a vending machine. Elections are the last step in the process, and a relatively unimportant one. Elections are the effect of politics, not the cause.

I'm probably worried about getting something going sooner because I've started to have nightmares about climate change. It's really got me spooked, because if we do go past the tipping point, absolutely nothing we do will make the slightest difference. It'll be like "On the Beach"--the most we'll be able to do is see that our loved ones enjoy quick and painless deaths. The very idea makes my tummy knot up. And the really nice thing about it is that we don't know where the damned tipping point is. All we know is that "things are closer than they appear" and it's got me spending more time than I like in the loo.
It is already past the nightmare stage here, Mairead. We have 400 acres of fruit trees at risk right now, and 300 neighbors in the same predicament. That is just within an hour of here. There are 9,000 other growers at risk downstate and elsewhere in this country. This is the ninth year in a row of the fruit crop being put at risk all around the globe, and we know from the records in England that the monks kept, that over a thousand plus years there have never been two years in a row of fruit failing because of warm January and February weather, let alone nine. Fruit trees are on very long cycles, and would be the most resistant to climate change and the least likely to be effected.

The sense of urgency may be based on a false faith in quick fixes or expedients. What we do before the collapse, during the collapse, and after the collapse are all the same things. We can't know exactly how it will play out, and there are not a variety of alternatives depending on “how bad it is” from which we can select.

Getting “key people into office” is not a good goal, I don't think, unless we are talking about a coup or setting up a benevolent dictatorship. People in office cannot increase effective mass.

How sure are you? Because when I think about it, it seems like the world would have been very different had Hoover won in '33. Exactly what would have happened I don't know because there were several ways it could have gone, but I'm reasonably sure it wouldn't have gone as it did go with FDR in office. Maybe we would have had a civil war, and maybe that would have turned the US Red, or the fascists would have crushed the beginnings the way MacArthur and Eisenhower did the Bonus Marchers.

I more subscribe to the chaos-butterfly theory of history than the great-man one, but it's not a great-man argument to say that if FDR hadn't been dealing with a rightwing SCOTUS the New Deal would have been much more extensive than he was able to make it and the fascists wouldn't have been able to first stop it and then start unravelling it.


We are so steeped in consumerism, and the personal choice political model is a product of that. “I pull this lever, and out comes a candy bar” - voting seen as a vending machine. Elections are the last step in the process, and a relatively unimportant one. Elections are the effect of politics, not the cause.

To me it seems like it works both ways, since we are a lawful society. BushCo has power only because of the (presumed legitimacy of the) election. Whether it was real or a fraud, it gave him power. It acted as a sort of relay--a little bit of whatever the hell happened resulted in a huge increment of power to him and the lunatics for whom he's the sockpuppet.

So yes, if we do politics then eventually a particular election outcome will happen "naturally", but there seems to be good evidence that a smaller, more focussed amount of politics can provide functionally the same result.



The sense of urgency may be based on a false faith in quick fixes or expedients. What we do before the collapse, during the collapse, and after the collapse are all the same things. We can't know exactly how it will play out, and there are not a variety of alternatives depending on “how bad it is” from which we can select.

As far as I can tell, my feelings of urgency are based on the prospect, taken seriously by science, that "the collapse" and its knock-on effects will kill us all. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know when I point out that systems in dynamic balance are perturbable in ways that static-balance systems aren't. It won't take much to cause the entire global ecosystem to crash, and if it goes we go with it. There won't be an "after the collapse" that will concern us because we'll be gone.

You're already seeing a fraction of this collapse with the orchards. The change we've endured so far is rather trivial from our sensory point of view. We sweat more, there's no snow, the weather is screwed up, we grumble. But so far it's something readily tolerable even though most of us would prefer not to have to. But the fruit trees can't tolerate it. What happens when they go? What happens when other species go? What happens when it's so hot that it's not just people in fragile health dying, but robust people? When bugs multiply in the new warmth, when diseases spread 10X more rapidly? When the fish are extinct? When there's either no rain or torrents?

I really truly no-kidding think we need to account for the likelihood that, unless we stop the catastrophic changes in climate before they go past the point of no return, there won't be a future that includes us or our politics.

Exactly what would have happened I don't know because there were several ways it could have gone, but I'm reasonably sure it wouldn't have gone as it did go with FDR in office

This is something conservatives are apeshit over, but lets not forget establishing the Federal Reserve and fiat currency in the ledger.

You can argue that has been much more devastating than the New Deal could ever hope to off-set. I won't do that because I don't have a clear grasp of the political goings-on of that era or all of its ramifications on today, but thats something that should nevertheless be pointed out.

Exactly what would have happened I don't know because there were several ways it could have gone, but I'm reasonably sure it wouldn't have gone as it did go with FDR in office

This is something conservatives are apeshit over, but lets not forget establishing the Federal Reserve and fiat currency in the ledger.

You can argue that has been much more devastating than the New Deal could ever hope to off-set. I won't do that because I don't have a clear grasp of the political goings-on of that era or all of its ramifications on today, but thats something that should nevertheless be pointed out.

I'm not completely sure I understand what bothers people about "fiat currency". On the other hand, I'm not sure the people who are bothered understand the situation either.

All money is fiat money. Like practically everything in the world, it's an artefact of human classification. We say something is or isn't money, and voilá, it is or isn't money. Pieces of paper, gold, cowrie shells, wampum, yams,.... Out of that collection, the only one that has real as opposed to ascribed value are the yams: people can eat them and sustain their lives.

Kucinich's stand against privitization actually had a bigger payoff in staking his reputation and making political hay. He didn't lose anything, Mairead--it was just a temporary setback in establishing his progressive bones--especially in overcoming the obvious negatives--his position on abortion and his practice of using race as a wedge issue to attract other ethnic votes in his district. He is a politician and he has a record demonstrating his willingness to use the unsavory tricks of the trade to get his foot in the door. You can't now claim that it is a pitfall.

He is essentially a Democrat. The question now becomes is that a politics you want to continue to spin your wheels for? Do you want this place to be just another hangout for disgruntled Democrats or do you want to learn more about other possibilities? I'm here to listen and learn, I hope--rather than continuing to drag that old corpse around.

I'm probably worried about getting something going sooner because I've started to have nightmares about climate change. It's really got me spooked, because if we do go past the tipping point, absolutely nothing we do will make the slightest difference. It'll be like "On the Beach"--the most we'll be able to do is see that our loved ones enjoy quick and painless deaths. The very idea makes my tummy knot up. And the really nice thing about it is that we don't know where the damned tipping point is. All we know is that "things are closer than they appear" and it's got me spending more time than I like in the loo.


The tipping point has already been reached in my life. We lost the home we lovingly restored and lived in for over 40 years due to repetitive flooding. Floods now occuring every six months, and at the moment the region is under another flood watch.

over on his board and I wonder if it was a set up to his fanclub?

I think of him speaking at the George school, walking around the school auditorium in his tailored suit, passing the mike to the students, who wanted his perspective on I|P and he ducked. In fact, it was Susan Abulhawa, a close Palestinian of my mother's who pressed him. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Dec06/Jacobs12.htm
But he ducked--and these kids knew the score. He voted for Israel's invasion of Lebanon, and he and his trophy wife toured Lebanon and were horrified. May be for political survival, as Maireand claims, but someone needs to tell Congressman Kucinich the blood is on his hands. That is the price.

Kucinich's stand against privitization actually had a bigger payoff in staking his reputation and making political hay. He didn't lose anything, Mairead--it was just a temporary setback in establishing his progressive bones--especially in overcoming the obvious negatives--his position on abortion and his practice of using race as a wedge issue to attract other ethnic votes in his district. He is a politician and he has a record demonstrating his willingness to use the unsavory tricks of the trade to get his foot in the door. You can't now claim that it is a pitfall.

He is essentially a Democrat. The question now becomes is that a politics you want to continue to spin your wheels for? Do you want this place to be just another hangout for disgruntled Democrats or do you want to learn more about other possibilities? I'm here to listen and learn, I hope--rather than continuing to drag that old corpse around.

It's funny on some level (but very scary on others) that two people like you and I can be members of nominally the same culture, have nominally similar politics, look at the same data, and still react as though we live on different planets.

To me, the fifteen years Dennis spent on the shelf feels like a lot more than a "temporary setback". That might be because I never had "a career". I had jobs. And now that my paid working life is over I can (and do) look back and see that my life would have been much different had I been able to have a career instead of jobs. I could probably even have gone to work as a clerk at the post office and been better off now. Oh well.

I also don't pay a lot of attention to the ugly demagogic-type things he did early on. That might be because I didn't have the advantage of parents, so I had to make my own mistakes. And I did, some of them disgraceful and even ugly. Someone who wanted to trash me by pointing to those past mistakes would hardly have to aim. But they were mistakes I made, not a chosen way of life. I learned from them, understood that they were mistakes and why, and stopped doing them. So I'd rather look at who people are today, and, like Cynthia, Dennis seems unusually decent for a politician.

I don't want to "spin my wheels for" any politics, Raph, and certainly not for any party. But unless we do away with public office of any kind and go to ad-hoc committees to perform all public functions, won't we have to put someone into the various power-wielding public offices? So whom would you have us choose, and on what grounds? Should we demand that they be people who've never put a foot wrong? Some other criteria? That seems like a critically important question to me, how about you?

The tipping point has already been reached in my life. We lost the home we lovingly restored and lived in for over 40 years due to repetitive flooding. Floods now occuring every six months, and at the moment the region is under another flood watch.

That's dreadful, Raph. I'm so sorry. Where do you live?

I'm sorrier yet when I remember that your loss, massive tho it is, is only the teensiest foreshadowing of the losses that we'll all suffer if we pass the big tipping points.

looking down my street:

http://www.nbc10.com/video/9450385/index.html#

looking down my street:

http://www.nbc10.com/video/9450385/index.html#
I can never get videos to work, and I've no idea why. Even after a re-install they didn't work.

You didn't like Wellstone?
What are you harping at me for then? LOL

You didn't like Wellstone?
What are you harping at me for then? LOL
What? I'm not following. All I said about Wellstone is that I don't see him being the savior that woman Mike chatted to seems to do.

Would we be better off with a Congress full of Wellstones? Hell yes. But from what I know of Wellstone we'd be even more better off with a congressfull of Cynthias. Or Dennises. I could be wrong, but my impression is that Wellstone was channelling HHH. HHH was fine, I voted for him whenever I could. He was a great improvement on most of his successors in Minnesota. But he, much more (I think) than DK, Cynthia, Conyers, or several others, was a very conventional post-war liberal Dem: throw money at it, build up the nanny state. That seemed okay to me at the time, but I've grown older since then.

I'm sorry that you feel I'm "harping at" you. I've always thought it's a good idea to have defensible ideas, but maybe that's me. Would you like me to keep quiet instead? I will, if you like. I have other things I can do with my time. :)

are we talking about the same Wellstone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone


I have to admit he is more to my preference. Maybe Kucinich and his new age crap and history and cowardice and juvenile qualities just makes my skin crawl.

No harm done.

But unless we do away with public office of any kind and go to ad-hoc committees to perform all public functions, won't we have to put someone into the various power-wielding public offices? So whom would you have us choose, and on what grounds? Should we demand that they be people who've never put a foot wrong? Some other criteria? That seems like a critically important question to me, how about you?

KOBH posted on the 'from Newswolf' thread a link to an article about just these sorts of committees being set up throughout Venezuela - you might find it worth reading.

But unless we do away with public office of any kind and go to ad-hoc committees to perform all public functions, won't we have to put someone into the various power-wielding public offices? So whom would you have us choose, and on what grounds? Should we demand that they be people who've never put a foot wrong? Some other criteria? That seems like a critically important question to me, how about you?

KOBH posted on the 'from Newswolf' thread a link to an article about just these sorts of committees being set up throughout Venezuela - you might find it worth reading.
I was trying to find out where Raph wants to go. Being an anarchic socialist, I'm perfectly happy with the idea of doing away with Congress as an institution. But that doesn't seem to be Raph's stance. Nor have I been able to find out why Raph dislikes DK so much, which is worrisome. If even the best of us are willing to operate on the level of "just because, that's why", then is there any hope for the rest of us?

I'd rather hear about anarchic socialists.

The Kucinich thing is bone to a terrier.

Exactly what would have happened I don't know because there were several ways it could have gone, but I'm reasonably sure it wouldn't have gone as it did go with FDR in office

This is something conservatives are apeshit over, but lets not forget establishing the Federal Reserve and fiat currency in the ledger.

You can argue that has been much more devastating than the New Deal could ever hope to off-set. I won't do that because I don't have a clear grasp of the political goings-on of that era or all of its ramifications on today, but thats something that should nevertheless be pointed out.

I'm not completely sure I understand what bothers people about "fiat currency". On the other hand, I'm not sure the people who are bothered understand the situation either.

All money is fiat money. Like practically everything in the world, it's an artefact of human classification. We say something is or isn't money, and voilá, it is or isn't money. Pieces of paper, gold, cowrie shells, wampum, yams,.... Out of that collection, the only one that has real as opposed to ascribed value are the yams: people can eat them and sustain their lives.

Well, I'm not completey sure they know what 'fiat' currency means either. The thing is when you start manipulating those human-assigned values in a hidden, dishonest way things get nasty.

That is why people object to a totally private entity - Federal Reserve - being at the top of a banking con-job that easily represents on of the biggest heists of all time. I am not particularly versed in the history of it, but abrogating the gold standard opened the flood gates. They are now completely unbound in how much money they can print. Artefact of human classification indeed (read worthless piece of paper)

And, of course, where was the compensation for all of that gold being seized?

I'd rather hear about anarchic socialists.
Okay, wuttchu wanna know?

Well, I'm not completey sure they know what 'fiat' currency means either. The thing is when you start manipulating those human-assigned values in a hidden, dishonest way things get nasty.

That is why people object to a totally private entity - Federal Reserve - being at the top of a banking con-job that easily represents on of the biggest heists of all time. I am not particularly versed in the history of it, but abrogating the gold standard opened the flood gates. They are now completely unbound in how much money they can print. Artefact of human classification indeed (read worthless piece of paper)

And, of course, where was the compensation for all of that gold being seized?
I used to feel much the same way. I had a helluva time thinking about how money works, and I'm not convinced even now that I understand it well enough to talk about it. But now I don't mind so much that we've gone off the gold standard.

The reason I don't mind is that gold as such isn't significant. It was only used as a standard because there's supposedly not a lot of it, and everyone can therefore agree that it's valuable. But you can't use it to sustain life, so it doesn't have any real value, only ascribed value. Someone could in theory stumble across a vein of gold amounting to a trillion metric tons or something outrageous like that and then you wouldn't be able to give the stuff away. It'd be like after the first aluminum was refined from bauxite: the refiners threw a dinner party at which the important guests got to eat off of plates made of the newly refined aluminum while everyone else had to make do with gold plates. Aluminium was much more valuable than gold at that point.

But your point about an unaccountable private group having the right to control the supply of money is well taken. It's well enough when members of the group are tied to the country whose money they control, but it's no damned good when they're transnational bankers whose main allegience is to their own wealth and power.

Socialists don't advocate working through the Democratic party and maybe I reached that point. This just rings too true:

http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/5 ... side.shmtl (http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/540/540_08_InsideOutside.shmtl)

Where do we go from here?

Socialists don't advocate working through the Democratic party and maybe I reached that point.

Where do we go from here?
So who said they do, or should? It wouldn't surprise me to see ...I don't know what to call them... academic socialists? doctrinal socialists? people who get their socialism as received wisdom, anyway ...being okay with working in/thru/with the Dems.

But not real socialists. That'd be like working with the fascisti.

who jest cain't understand why I find Kucinich so bothersome. :twisted:

Anyway, interesting discussion at PFC. I imagine it would be shut down at PI:

http://www.peopleforchange.net/modules/ ... opic=31576 (http://www.peopleforchange.net/modules/Forums/index.php?showtopic=31576)

who jest cain't understand why I find Kucinich so bothersome.

Raph, Oskar Schindler was a Nazi. :wink:


Anyway, interesting discussion at PFC. I imagine it would be shut down at PI

Maybe so. I know that reading it made my teeth ache.

Arguing about personalities gets nowhere. The gal I was talking to was not saying that Wellstone is her guy. She was setting up a a framework within which to assess the political situation and by which to judge our public servants.

I don't know how to get around this. Kucinich is neither a dessert topping nor a floor wax.

Kucinich is not inspiring the sort of participation and enthusiasm that RFK was. He isn't. He won't. It won't happen. Even if he were, that would not be the answer, that would merely be an opportunity.

What does being for or against Kucinich mean – if that is what we are talking about - and what difference does it make?

I disagree that had Hoover been elected things would have been different. It works the other way around - had conditions been different Hoover would have been elected. Elections are more of an effect than they are a cause.

The way that we talk about candidates for elective office, you would think we were talking about selecting a dictator to install – as though we want the executive to have massive unilateral power over us.

Farming keeps it real. There is no way to avoid fundamental realities of life in farming. Connection to the environment, cycles of nature, hard work, independence, self-reliance, struggle, cooperation. It is the surburban lifestyle and all it's ostentatious conspicuous consumption and pretention that is removed from the human experience on earth--with bigger SUVs the priority over the young that go to war and die to provide such a frivolous, destructive lifestyle. Children and the elderly warehoused, no community interaction. And they are indoctrinated into a worldview that either extends false PC compassion of liberalism or blames the victim, but still is quite class conscious in the sense that they, consciously or not , make a point of acknowledging their station as seperate. Seperate from those "beneath" them who they give themselves license to bully or judge or feel better about being charitable towards--but never see them as equals.

Who does this connect with?

http://kucinich.us/node/578

Newswolf's commentary has depth and insight--but this is fluff.
Who does this appeal to other than a small niche group of self-indulged, superficial, sheltered new-age personalities?
Get real. That is why Kucinich won't ever connect.

Farming keeps it real. There is no way to avoid fundamental realities of life in farming. Connection to the environment, cycles of nature, hard work, independence, self-reliance, struggle, cooperation. It is the surburban lifestyle and all it's ostentatious conspicuous consumption and pretention that is removed from the human experience on earth--with bigger SUVs the priority over the young that go to war and die to provide such a frivolous, destructive lifestyle. Children and the elderly warehoused, no community interaction. And they are indoctrinated into a worldview that either extends false PC compassion of liberalism or blames the victim, but still is quite class conscious in the sense that they, consciously or not , make a point of acknowledging their station as seperate. Seperate from those "beneath" them who they give themselves license to bully or judge or feel better about being charitable towards--but never see them as equals.

Who does this connect with?

http://kucinich.us/node/578

Newswolf's commentary has depth and insight--but this is fluff.
Who does this appeal to other than a small niche group of self-indulged, superficial, sheltered new-age personalities?
Get real. That is why Kucinich won't ever connect.

I was in Barnes n Nobles yesterday and I swear to God they need to issue you barf bags at the door. In particular they have a whole stand plastered with the works of Eckhart Tolle

To wit:

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/d ... ype=search (http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=55728&mesg_id=55728&listing_type=search)

I'm not even 100% against some of that stuff in concept, but give it a fucking rest. I think partially the problem is all these hippies fried their brains 40 years ago and nobody ever told 'em.

Nothing new under the sun, I guess. What is it- another advocate to justify selfish, narcissitic worldviews without feeling guilty?

What is being in the moment anyway? Don't worry, be happy? Staying in the moment sounds like stagnation to me--I prefer thought processes that proceed from moment to moment. Creativity is a process not a moment locked in now.