I heard a fantastic lecture he gave at the University of Utah yesterday. It will be posted at www.krcl.org under the show Radioactive- a locally produced progressive public affairs radio show.

I nthink my favorite part of his whole lecture, which was absolutely riveting, was a question posed to him afterwards: Are you satisfied with the democrats? "absolutely not" he stated. Some times he just wants to "push Barack Obama." He's sick of milk toast, soggy kneed, jelly spined democrats that won't stick up to Bush. He also was extremely critical of Cosby for good reason. He kept referring to him as the "jello in the middle pop" to remind us of the fact that Cosby bought into the whole corporate model of America and has sold out the poor. Seriously, criticizing ebonics and lowrider pants and tatoos?? Dyson pleads for a colorful America. I could not agree more. Michael Eric Dyson is telling it like it is in one of the most brilliant speakers I have ever heard.

The thing about Rove's propaganda is that it is so transparently inaccurate. His job is to marry truth and lie.

Take this sentence from karl Rove:

As Rove put it, "President Bush believes if al-Qaida is calling somebody in America, it is in our national-security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree. This is an issue worthy of a public debate."

Well, he's half right. President Bush did say, "[If Al Queda is calling you, we want to know]" But, democrats also agree with this. I never heard a democrat say that they did not want to know if someone in this country was chatting with the evil Osama. The oppostiton to the Bush party; republicans, democrats, libertarians, greens and so on just think it prudent to get a court clearance to do so. Is that so hard? Would we really be so stupid, Karl, to think that a court approval or FISA approval, is really standing in the way of worthwhile intelligence gathering. Go ahead spy on people communicating with Osama himself, just get a FISA recommendation. Simple, easy and it protects US from warrentless, meaningless, expensive spying.

The problem is, as Chalmers Johnson points out: The clinton administration, and all the democratic Presidential potentials, agree with the same middle east policy of the Bush administration. That is, they support military force in the construction of oil pipelines through the former soviet "stans".

If you democrats would tell your party that you will not support them if they support military intervention for supposed democracy building, or oil rights maybe life would not seem so frustrating for you. So, counterintuitive.

Democrats against the war need to take over their own party. Don't run another Kerry. Don't run Hilary. Don't run Obama.

Run Dennis Kucinich if you want an anti-war candidate. Until then, you can just roll over like usual. You let everyone convince you he could not win. That was stupid. Ever notice how democratic leaders are not strong against the war but their members want them to be?????

Public opinion is against the war, just like in 2004, but did you notice Kerry was not an anti war candidate? That's why he lost. There is no opposition party.

http://www.alternet.org/story/31109/

Ask you democratic representatives why they still support Bush on the war in Iraq. Jim Matheson of Utah, a spineless but handsome Congressman for Utah, writes in his political literature, "I support President Bush on Iraq." As a military guy, this makes perfect sense. Haven't you noticed all the democratic leadership, presidential potentials do? Stop beating your heads against the wall. The democrats and the republicans are really two heads of the same corporate snake.

Jacque Ellul (propaganda and the formation of men's attitudes) predicted in that the propaganda style of media (so pervasive in the US) ultimately leads to a two party system. And those two parties ultimately of the same ideologies.