Must Listen. (via)
Peaceful protest led to abolition? Really? Are we going to stretch reality that far to make a violkence-is-bad point? What about the founding fathers? I don't remember they winning with peace and light and magical butterflies.
No, peace works in some ages. Violence works in others. Thats reality.
The left is out of weapons. If we take to the streets in a peaceful demonstration, two things will happen: the police will come out in riot gear and gas and beat on the demonstrators (G20 Pittsburgh style), and the mainstream media will totally ignore the event (ditto).
If we get a few million people to go on strike (which I doubt seriously), they will be fired from their corporate jobs and probably there will be no press coverage either. With the economy in the tank, not too many people are going to risk their livelihoods to protest in vain for anything.
The economy is going to seriously tank - even further - in the next several months and the nutjobs will be grabbing their assault weapons and defending Amerika against the gays and feminazis and the socialists in Washington. We could have chaos instead of peaceful change, and the change we get could be the polar opposite of the change we need.
Three out of four Doctors recommend the Public Option.
(Remember all the commercials that started "Three out of four doctors recommend..." or "Four our of five Dentists recommend..."? Well, three out of four Doctors DO recommend the Public Option, so why haven't some of these 75 percent of doctors run a commercial stating their support for the Public Option? We trust Doctors when they make a medical diagnosis and prescribe, often-lifesaving, treatment and medication, so why are 75 percent of U.S. Doctors suddenly NOT trusted when they diagnose that our current healthcare system is ill, injured, needs repairing, needs reform? Why?)
i'm proud to say that "common security clubs" remind me of the progblogosphere 2.0, an idea we've been working on over at Corrente for some time. the simplest version i can come up with is: we've got to take care of each other, because no one else is going to do it for us, least of all "our" government.
really, i think the problem is a generational one. i'm kind of directly experiencing it myself, in the sense that my life is on hold because of older people who have control over it. the boomers are an incredibly powerful demographic, politically and economically speaking, and combined with the 'greatest generation' they represent a near immovable object when it comes to the issues we face today. (not all boomers and GGs, of course, are 'the problem,' just those with enough money and clout). but so many things are slow to change because of them, and they pressures they apply to keep extant models in place, when logic and common sense show that those models must be changed to reflect the realities of the 21st century.
when i am hopeful, i remember that things in this country will look very, very different, in just a few short year, demographically speaking. young people are pro-gay rights, they are truly integrationist, and not just cosby show style window dressers, they aren't crippled by memory of the 60s, they have little interest in imperial military adventure, they aren't fundies like the dominant fundies of today, and are more progressive on issues like the environment and health care and corporate regulation. ironically, they are this way because the older generations have effectively taken away all the rights and privs from the younger ones, mostly to pay for their comfortable retirement and ability to ignore all the pressing problems in those areas. "resentment" is going to be a watchword as we explain the sweeping changes that will occur once the under 40 set takes up the mantle of power that must eventually pass to them. i'm sorry the country is going to have to be destroyed before that happens, but i also recall that drastic change often can only occur when that has happened (WWII comes to mind).
I have mixed feelings on your comment, CD.
First, I also looked at the Commons material, with I hope enough foil, and it does look interesting (as long as it stays local. Tall poppies, and all...)
Second, as far as intergeneratioal resentment: I paid for my parent's Social Security, I paid for mine, and the only asset I have just dropped by about half its value. Cluestick: If I'm forced to sell, the odds are that ANOTHER generational transfer FROM me is going to take place. And if that's how the political battles of the coming decade get framed, guess who's going to win? Cluestick: The same banksters that are winning now. Let's remember who threw the apple of generational discord into the 2008 primaries: That's right, Bareback Andy, endorsing Obama.
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things To Do 'Til the Revolution
I'm not so sure I hold out the belief that all we have to do is change generations and we're good. The only issues where I think that works is gay rights and, arguably, integration. But that result isn't because of anything the new generation itself has done. It's because of its demographics and the world they grew up in that didn't have Jim Crow and did have Harvey Milk. They didn't create a more equal world, they're just benefitting from growing up in it.
However, the new generation is growing up in the world Reagan created and the big fight, IMO, is going to be over our corporate overlords. I've seen little evidence that the kids who've grown up in our current broken education system (critical thinking not required) and with our crappy media have any idea about how to shape and change government to serve the people. Look at Obama. More than any other Democratic candidate last year, he used Reagan's framing on tax cuts, markets, etc.,* and he attracted an awful lot of the young 'uns, particularly the college educated ones who are likely to be our next generation of political leaders.
The one exception and the thing that gives me hope is the influx of latin@s. Many of the recent successful union organization efforts have been spurred by those immigrants because they come from a place where that's more common.
* Sure, his anti-Iraq war message helped, too, but I think the anti-war stuff isn't generational. The Baby Boomers had an even healthier, stronger anti-war movement and they grew out of it. I think most generations do, unfortunately.
"...but too early to shoot the bastards."
no, it's not.
But we need to start with property. It's not that hard for a decent marksperson with a decent rifle and a good scope to knock a radio station off the air for a couple of days, for example.
Unfortunately, the left will wait until the Right starts shooting them.
Woody, you are so right - love your blogs by the way!
The right has guns but lacks good sense. The left is smart but unarmed. Historically the left doesn't fare well in that scenario.
The only hope I can latch on to (and it's weak) is that the economic collapse will bring people together and the 45% who don't participate in our political system at all will figure out who's screwing them and rise up to defeat the bastards without firing a shot. That may be more of a fantasy than a hope.
Charles, that is what the tea-parties were for--to shift blame to the left for the financial industry's con game. The only people rising up are the ones too dumb to understand what is happening.
My problem with predictions based on what's wrong with the American people is that the American people neither determine American government policy nor have any control over corporate power. The majority didn't want to invade Iraq, though they supported the army once it had started -- that helped Obama in the primaries. The overwhelming majority want expanded Medicare for All. The majority support civil liberties. And so on. For reasons that both Charles and BDBlue pointed out above, I don't see raised consciousness producing any ability in the people to bring about the change they want. This desire for "change", incidentally, is another thing that was manipulated into the Obama campaign.
I'm more inclined to see a Soviet Union style collapse coming, as more people conclude that the social/moral infrastructure exists only for the rich and quit acting in a way that enables a functioning society. What happens after that? I'd feel a lot better if we had some widely known, articulate speakers from the left ready to lay out a vision and ways to get to it. Obama's worst legacy may be to have poisoned that well.
Got a buck on ya?
I was tripping around the web and found this on The Political Carnival:
ATLANTA, Oct. 14 (UPI) -- Georgia will stop posting signs along highway construction projects funded by economic stimulus funds, because the signs cost too much money, officials said.
The signs were first considered a nice indication that stimulus funds were putting Georgians to work but they became a target for ridicule and criticism once it was determined that they cost $1,200 apiece, The New York Times reported Tuesday.
- and -
New York dropped the sign idea this summer when some contractors quoted prices above $4,000 for some of the larger signs.
hmmmmm. This sounds like an awful lot for a sign, although it says nothing about size, nor what material is used, nor any number of things that could account for such prices for... signs!?!
Now, I guess there is also a contractor markup to figure here. I think, however, I agree with Paddy at The Political Carnival:
"This is just stupid. I can go to any local Fast Signs and have one of those magnetic ones whipped up for under $100 and just keep reusing it. How the hell does a sign end up costing this kind of money?"
I couldn't really leave it here, though. So, I got curious and went to look at The Manual of Traffic Signs, which has a web presence. In it I found a listing on the price of traffic signs, which was five years old... but the most recent pricing I could find:
Sign panels:
• Regulatory/Warning/Marker: $15 to 18 / sq.ft.
• Large Guide Signs: $20 to 25 / sq.ft.
• Electronic Variable Message Sign: $50,000 to $150,000 each
Sign Posts:
• U-Channel: $125 to $200 each
• Square Tube (Telespar): $10 to $15 per foot
• Large Steel Breakaway Posts: $15 to $30 per foot
• Cantilever Sign: $15,000 to $20,000 each
• Sign Bridge: $30,000 to $60,000 each
Foundations:
• Square Tube: $150 - $250 each
• Breakaway Post: $250 to $750 each
• Cantilever / Bridge: $6,000 - $7,000 each
Interesting... these signs are pretty expensive as listed, and there is no information with Georgia's complaint as quoted as to the size of these signs and how they are suspended or mounted. But even a 4' x 8' steel sign should only cost $500.00 dollars or less (unless the costs have gone up 400% or so since 2003)... and even if it were suspended from a bridge, say, by a U-channel, the whole of a sign would cost $680.00.
So why do we get quotes at $1200 to $4000 for a small sign when a huge Highway sign goes for under $700.00? Is the contractor markup so high? And we aren't using a state agency to put them up... because?
Time to get a handle on costs of these
Commenting by HaloScan
