Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I would also suggest (without harmful intent or hostility) attempting to stage manage the voting patterns of elected official, save through elections, is a fool's errand.
That's interesting... "stage manag[ing] the voting patterns of elected official[s]" is exactly how our political system works. It is called "lobbying" and it is quite effective.
The practical outcome of what you are saying is that it's OK for AIPAC and General Dynamics to do it, but not bloggers.
Again, without harmful intent, sir: calling others "fools" when your own understanding of the political process is so limited has more than a whiff of self-pwnage to it.
because they don't exist.
I've lost count of the number of times I have read a variation of incredibly stupid ideas like that one should not critique Obama because he has not been inaugurated yet or that personnel have no influence over policy.
If those people aren't blind Obama supporters, I hope you're right that such don't exist because those are bad enough.
...the likelihood is quite slim of the US really changing its support for wars around the globe...
True enough.
But the particular wars and their motivations (and popular support or ambivalence) will change.
I'm curious too about whether you think a "Peace PAC" such as Prof Cole is promoting can significantly influence policy in the short term.
My perspective on what it takes and how long it takes is from experience (some of it bitter) trying to influence policy starting from the "outside," but on the lobbying track.
It wasn't until we had friends on the "inside" -- made through personal relationships, not specifically through policy advocacy, that we were able to make any headway at all. And by then, yes, the issues had changed. On the other hand, some of the issues hadn't budged for a generation.
The High and the Mighty keep themselves very well insulated from the pleadings of the masses and those who try to act on their behalf.
Street action can bring attention to the issues that need to be addressed, can demonstrate popular support for for those issues, and -- if they are disruptive -- can demonstrate how very inconvenient not addressing those issues will be.
So yes, direct action and massaging/persuading/lobbying/pressure are needed for many issues, and in the case of the Peace PAC project Prof Cole is outlining, I'd say both are essential.
http://cjr.org/full_court_press/
I said I hadn't read them.
A march needs to be massive and halt traffic during business hours.
I couldn't agree more. Pissing off people who are just trying to get home from their shitty job is a great way to build solidarity among the masses for change.
I meant six months for release. The conditions can be changed immediately, monitors let in immediately, or transfers to other prisons. They will need medical evaluations, and agreement with their country of origin. They could be treated worse by their own governments. Besides some of them may be a threat.
This gives the impression that he is going to simply close Guantanemo. He isn't. He said that he is immediately going to direct his administration to start trying to figure out how to close Guantanemo without letting actual bad guys out. That is going to be difficult. Obama wants to keep the left happy on this one, but he doesn't want to have to take the heat if one of the people released from Guantanamo actually does participate in an attack on the U.S. (a real possibility).
You could quit whining online and call or e-mail your House or Senate representatives on issues. It's called lobbying.
1. obligatory reference to "lefty loonies", check
2. blah, blah, blah, . . ., check
3. roundly slapped around for irrelevant inanity by Salonistas, check.
So how's that AG complaint coming along? Do they have a walk-in psychiatric clinic in your hood and did you avail yourself of its services as per GG's advice? Did they say, "this guys a certifiable loony!" Or was that a kindred soul and not you?
Here's a newsflash, the last 35 years of moronic rule (enabled by both parties) has this country teeting on the precipice of insolvency and more pointless wars because of flawed political ideology rooted in mass disseminated myth functionally enabled by nitwits like you. Generally we "left loonies" are neither "left" (whatever that means) nor loony, we simply deal in facts, reasoned to their necessary and valid conclusions and then act accordingly. The powerful and the nitwits act based on emotion, fear, and provincialism (oh and greed). Rarely a winning combination when it comes to governance meant to benefit the most.
Just wondering...
"It made it look better," Blumenthal says with drop-dead satirical rapier thrust.
Genius! "It made it look better"! LOL!
______________________________
Do I detect a Derbig Mooser influence on Blumenthal?
I'm guessin' MOTUS is Messiah of the U.S.
Surprisingly genteel in here today, from a quick read.
Anyone who thinks you can close Guantanamo immediately is a raving idiot. If Obama immediately states his intention to close it but on a time line that should be enough. I would think it would take a minimum of 6 months. Arrangements would have to be made with the country of origin if they release anyone or prepare a transfer to another prison it they are going to be charged. No one can speak to this with out knowing the security risks. This is more than a civil liberties issue.-- bernbart
Despite the inauspicious sentence at the beginning of your paragraph above, I'll attempt to explain something that perhaps you may have overlooked.
The thrust of the conversation here is that Obama NOT attempt to implement some kind of special court to try those now being held at Gitmo, but to utilize the existing court system, even though some of the evidence against a few of the prisoners may be tainted. If he were to do that, the prisoners would be transfered to a secure facility here in the States to await judication of their cases. I would suggest that there is ample room in our military stockades and brigs to accomodate these people safely in the interim.
Once, Obama decides to stick with the regular federal courts to try these people, moving them would take no longer than a couple of weeks. In order to close it that quickly, however, Obama must stick with the federal court system already in place for to construct some kind of "national security" court would not only take time, but it would dilute the importance of the 4th Amendment protections we have. Once that court is in place, the precedent is set and a future president, could easily declare your case to be of the "national security" category and you would then be subject to the Star Chamber.
Stop making excuses for him.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
