Three. Two. One. Time for Real Time! I'm not so privy to writing about pop culture and t.v., but this is one show you better not miss. As the Democrats in Washington squirm in their own slimy ineptitude, and us educated folks watch in utter disbelief, Bill Maher prepares to bring us back to Earth with his "so true" wit and intellectually diverse guest panelists. It is the most important show of our day because it asks the questions that the news will not and cuts deeper than the Daily Show could ever hope. Plus it makes me laugh.
It is fearless and cunning in its design and execution. No guest is taboo--watching Ron Paul, George Carlin, Gore Vidal, Joe Scarborough, Mike Gravel, Chris Rock, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Moyers, Larry King, and Ashton Kutcher chat on a panel has never been so much fun! Maher is an expert at bringing together lefties and righties and all the others in between, cutting past the personalities and ideology so that we may bear witness to an actual conversation about things that matter. Sure, Bill might be a pot-smoking liberal, but he's smart and doesn't allow the show to disintegrate into partisan hackery. Indeed, this entertainment show is of greater quality and information than any on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN.
If you have not checked it out, please do so. For in these times of political and societal insanity, we need someone who can level with us. To prove that it isn't just you going crazy. Plus, the show is hilarious. We all need a good laugh these days.
The new season premieres on HBO Friday, Feb 13 at 10!
This is great:
Showing posts with label Mike Gravel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mike Gravel. Show all posts
Monday, February 8, 2010
Monday, November 30, 2009
How to Change a Culture: Question of Imperialists
What is the U.S. military's goal in Afghanistan? This is a difficult question to answer. It ought to puzzle the most intellectual of minds because no single response could make sense entirely. The American Revolution was a conflict to break from the bondage of an empire. The Civil War was a battle for national identity and unity. World War II had a concrete objective: to defeat fascist aggressors in Europe, and end Japanese imperialism. These are wars with clear objective and victory.
Afghanistan on the other hand? We invaded to destroy Al Qaeda, but we remain to rebuild a nation. What could this possibly mean? No one knows, apparently. The fact that we support its shameful democracy is proof of our misdirected efforts. The U.S.-backed Karzai Administration casts an inescapable shadow of corruption over the entire government. Scandal and fraud have plagued his recent reelection, delegitimizing the very democracy we have set in place.
Corruption aside, this sham of a government does not seem to be a whole lot better than Taliban rule. A provision in legislation passed this April states: "...a wife is obliged to fulfill the sexual desires of her husband..." What this could mean I do not know, though some have said this law essentially condones rape. Mastermind of the law, Ayatollah Mohammed Asef Mohseni (yes, Ayatollah), defends the statute by refuting Western analysis, and claiming that married women do indeed have the right to refuse sex, though "If a woman says no, the man has the right not to feed her." Oh okay, cool. All cleared up. Thanks Asef!
But the perverted and broken government of Afghanistan are actually not my primary arguments against the war. No, my critique is one against the imperialist mind. We Americans are, after all, imperialists, plain and simple. Two countries we now occupy (facilitated by foreign mercenaries... ask me), with hundreds upon hundreds of military installations throughout the world... the aggressors in over 200 conflicts since 1945. We alone determine global economic policy.
Living in the Empire has many perks, I must say. I've had a privileged life (though not without my parents' comprehensive health insurance plan) and we are all blessed with relatively few foreign attacks (with two days of exception, of course). This country is somehow able to wage endless wars without the public even remembering! A miracle? Must be! "A million Iraqis died? Oh, hey did you see that new iPhone app? Pretty sweet, huh. Tiger Woods had an affair? What sport does he play again? Hey, pass the cocaine. And hand me that silly as shit magazine. Yeah, the one about nothing."
When I bring up Afghanistan in public, I most often get a "remember 9/11" line or some defensive variation of our "moral duty" to save those people over there. Who are they again? Also popular is the "we broke it, we bought it" line. These latter defenses seem silly to me, though they are common to the 'moral' imperialists. To address the 9/11-imperialists: Al Qaeda does not even need Afghanistan because they have such a wonderful home in Pakistan to conduct operations. Al Qaeda left long ago, and if they ever returned from over the Kush Mountains, they would not have nearly comparable resources as they had further East.
The 'moral' imperialists talk about some kind of higher responsibility to save these people. But really we should not be meddling in such drastic ways in foreign lands at all. It is just so imperial to believe in your state's sole right to wage devastating wars and heartless occupations in the name of Freedom. That is not Freedom, that is tyranny. President Washington would be ashamed. Jefferson too. Barack Obama says we are fighting for something just, but is it 'just' to impede on another's sovereignty? To be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands? What American cares about those people? Please, tell me if you do!
We are trying to change cultures. Cultures that are so unlike ours we cannot imagine. We do not understand--or even bother to understand--the Muslim world. Perhaps we never will. The West spent many centuries fighting its own religious wars, yet we seem to believe it is possible for a foreign occupation to end ideological feuds in a matter of years. It cannot be done, and thus we have no business in such affairs.
Afghanistan on the other hand? We invaded to destroy Al Qaeda, but we remain to rebuild a nation. What could this possibly mean? No one knows, apparently. The fact that we support its shameful democracy is proof of our misdirected efforts. The U.S.-backed Karzai Administration casts an inescapable shadow of corruption over the entire government. Scandal and fraud have plagued his recent reelection, delegitimizing the very democracy we have set in place.
Corruption aside, this sham of a government does not seem to be a whole lot better than Taliban rule. A provision in legislation passed this April states: "...a wife is obliged to fulfill the sexual desires of her husband..." What this could mean I do not know, though some have said this law essentially condones rape. Mastermind of the law, Ayatollah Mohammed Asef Mohseni (yes, Ayatollah), defends the statute by refuting Western analysis, and claiming that married women do indeed have the right to refuse sex, though "If a woman says no, the man has the right not to feed her." Oh okay, cool. All cleared up. Thanks Asef!
But the perverted and broken government of Afghanistan are actually not my primary arguments against the war. No, my critique is one against the imperialist mind. We Americans are, after all, imperialists, plain and simple. Two countries we now occupy (facilitated by foreign mercenaries... ask me), with hundreds upon hundreds of military installations throughout the world... the aggressors in over 200 conflicts since 1945. We alone determine global economic policy.
Living in the Empire has many perks, I must say. I've had a privileged life (though not without my parents' comprehensive health insurance plan) and we are all blessed with relatively few foreign attacks (with two days of exception, of course). This country is somehow able to wage endless wars without the public even remembering! A miracle? Must be! "A million Iraqis died? Oh, hey did you see that new iPhone app? Pretty sweet, huh. Tiger Woods had an affair? What sport does he play again? Hey, pass the cocaine. And hand me that silly as shit magazine. Yeah, the one about nothing."
When I bring up Afghanistan in public, I most often get a "remember 9/11" line or some defensive variation of our "moral duty" to save those people over there. Who are they again? Also popular is the "we broke it, we bought it" line. These latter defenses seem silly to me, though they are common to the 'moral' imperialists. To address the 9/11-imperialists: Al Qaeda does not even need Afghanistan because they have such a wonderful home in Pakistan to conduct operations. Al Qaeda left long ago, and if they ever returned from over the Kush Mountains, they would not have nearly comparable resources as they had further East.
The 'moral' imperialists talk about some kind of higher responsibility to save these people. But really we should not be meddling in such drastic ways in foreign lands at all. It is just so imperial to believe in your state's sole right to wage devastating wars and heartless occupations in the name of Freedom. That is not Freedom, that is tyranny. President Washington would be ashamed. Jefferson too. Barack Obama says we are fighting for something just, but is it 'just' to impede on another's sovereignty? To be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands? What American cares about those people? Please, tell me if you do!
We are trying to change cultures. Cultures that are so unlike ours we cannot imagine. We do not understand--or even bother to understand--the Muslim world. Perhaps we never will. The West spent many centuries fighting its own religious wars, yet we seem to believe it is possible for a foreign occupation to end ideological feuds in a matter of years. It cannot be done, and thus we have no business in such affairs.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Wondering Where Your Democracy Went?
When President Reagan gave his famous "City on a Hill" speech, he declared the United States the pinnacle of civilization--the city...on the hill. But when John Winthrop said those words he was talking about an America that ought to be. Not that is. Perhaps it is too hasty to assume that we have reached this ideal.
To the wide-eyed masses: you did not choose Barack Obama as president. To those who believe in the potential of liberty and democracy: your country has forsaken its highest ideals. In an age where the issues are not discussed and the candidates are interchangeable photogenics, you must question what it is you should be doing here. In this country. As a citizen.
In the election of 2008, this facade went on before our very eyes. Ron Paul raised over $6 million in a single day--the most of any candidate; he had millions of supporters and was leading a sort of movement. But he was, for some reason excluded from the later and more important debates. This was the sole Republican with truly unique views--and more conservative ones at that. He suggested to the people that U.S. imperialism is the cause of the terror--not our values and "freedom." Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, ran on a platform of peace. Mike Gravel ran to end U.S. militarization and establish a direct democracy. All were left out of the later debates.
Perhaps these candidates simply did not register enough votes in the early primaries, and were rightfully asked not to return. Maybe the media did its job. For the people. But then you look at who we ended up with. Hillary vs. Obama--two candidates with identical policy platforms. Debating. What I am saying is that maybe, just maybe there is something larger at work. Not a conspiracy, but a system rather. A system that has developed over the years and fuels a sham of a democracy. Corporate media, corporate candidates. There are powerful interests at stake and a lot of profits to be made. Be wary.
"The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return." - Gore Vidal
To the wide-eyed masses: you did not choose Barack Obama as president. To those who believe in the potential of liberty and democracy: your country has forsaken its highest ideals. In an age where the issues are not discussed and the candidates are interchangeable photogenics, you must question what it is you should be doing here. In this country. As a citizen.
In the election of 2008, this facade went on before our very eyes. Ron Paul raised over $6 million in a single day--the most of any candidate; he had millions of supporters and was leading a sort of movement. But he was, for some reason excluded from the later and more important debates. This was the sole Republican with truly unique views--and more conservative ones at that. He suggested to the people that U.S. imperialism is the cause of the terror--not our values and "freedom." Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, ran on a platform of peace. Mike Gravel ran to end U.S. militarization and establish a direct democracy. All were left out of the later debates.
Perhaps these candidates simply did not register enough votes in the early primaries, and were rightfully asked not to return. Maybe the media did its job. For the people. But then you look at who we ended up with. Hillary vs. Obama--two candidates with identical policy platforms. Debating. What I am saying is that maybe, just maybe there is something larger at work. Not a conspiracy, but a system rather. A system that has developed over the years and fuels a sham of a democracy. Corporate media, corporate candidates. There are powerful interests at stake and a lot of profits to be made. Be wary.
"The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return." - Gore Vidal
Monday, February 9, 2009
How Obama Could Fail
I know it's early in the term, but I want to get these ideas out there before they disappear. And maybe this will be a worthy assessment in the long-run.
As the title indicates, I believe there is a very high possibility that President Obama will not be able to accomplish his vision in the next 4 years or 8. His full vision has yet to be disclosed in its entirety, but to bring about the change I and many others believe in will take a lot of political power that I'm not so sure Obama will have for long.
You see, there is this thing called the "political establishment"-- an institution or set of institutions that have evolved over the years into the system that currently exists--which makes it really difficult to enact fundamental change (that is, change in the system itself). Congress, the Executive, and the courts are all a part of this establishment, and they have many rules--accumulated since the founding-- that determine HOW business is done. If you want to act effectively in this system, you must play by the rules.
What I am suggesting is that Barack Obama will be forced to play the game of Washington in order to get things done... and in the process he will discover that the establishment is far more powerful than any president-- and the hopeful masses will become tomorrow's cynics because the promises will fade to mere whispers. It is the nature of the beast.
And I've avoided an entire institution--perhaps the most crucial one of all-- that is, the media. As Glenn Greenwald and Jay Rosen suggest on Bill Moyers Journal (PBS), the mainstream media will protect the establishment of Washington, D.C. because they are a PART OF the establishment of Washington. Media commentators simply do not think to question the actual system of which they are so immersed.
If our basic institutions of democracy are in fact broken, and the media continues to insulate it from fundamental criticism, how exactly is the new president supposed to upset the system and restore government to the people?
I guess it all depends on how Obama can reconnect people with what is really going on... in a truly interactive and revolutionary way... via the internet. The question is: how do we utilize this remarkable tool in a way that changes the way people think about and learn about government? And affect government?
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Unity, Organization, HOPE
Two months ago, Ron Paul appeared alongside Ralph Nader on CNN to discuss their plans for a third party/independent presidential debate. The debate is irrelevant at this point, but I want to convey the united message that the two shared as a continuation of the message from my last post.
They agreed that immediate action must be taken on the following issues:
A.) Foreign Policy
-We do not want the empire!
-We cannot afford the empire!
-No more unjust wars!
-Cut the outrageous military budget!
-The President cannot declare war without congressional approval (see Constitution)!
-Bring our military home!
B.) Civil Rights
-No more torture!
C.) Federal Deficit ($56 trillion)
-Stop using the deficit for reckless government adventurism!
-Control the spending!
D.) Reform or Abolish the Federal Reserve
-It is funded and controlled by the banks!
-Totally out of control!
So these are 4 issues that are critical to the survival of our country, and activists on all sides need to come together to push them into the Obama agenda. Somehow the millions of activists around the country MUST come together for common cause. People need to be thinking about this and leaders must begin establishing the framework for grassroots organization. The Congress is only 535 people... they have lives and personalities just like you and me... they can be persuaded. Imagine the possibilities.
But this week we rest to admire the remarkable history that has been made. By electing a man whose ancestors we once called "slave," we have proven once again that the American Dream is real. The age of cynicism and fear has come to an end, and the world can once again look to the United States as a beacon of hope and leadership. We must remember that in no other place in the world could this have happened. It is like the French electing a citizen of Algerian descent to their highest office! Ce n'est pas possible!
Coming of age during perhaps the most cynical period of American history prevented me from recognizing why our country truly is special. It is because of this nation's ability to change that gives me newfound hope. Today let the world know that the United States can be better, and I believe will.
And to the Americans who have been disenchanted by our nation's failures and betrayals: I ask you to believe once more in the Dream that is our legacy, and in the government that we cherish so deeply. Do not let it fail.
Much work is ahead of us, but it can be done.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Next Steps: the November 5th Plan of Action!
November 4, 2008 is past, today is a new day with new challenges. If you think that electing Barack Obama was the ultimate goal, you are so wrong. Today ought to be a day of celebration, for history has been made. Yes, just 7 years after the attacks of 9/11, we have elected a black man with the middle-name of "Hussein" as President of the United States. What a monumental declaration! But the game board has only been reset... now we must change the game altogether.
With optimism and resolve.
The purge of the Republican extremists and the Neo-Con philosophy has nearly come full circle. No more Cheney. No more Rove. Bush will eventually be gone. Today the progressives of America must begin the massive organization that will be necessary to enact true change. For change is merely a political device if there is no pressure on the promises.
It is time for the millions who share common goals to unite and show how people can put democracy to action. Yes, I am calling out to the democratic idealists, the environmentalists, the peace advocates, and the anti-imperialists to rise up together! To the Ron Paul Revolutionaries and the Ralph Naderophiles, today is your day! To the consumer advocates who fight the abuses of corporate power, the time is now! To every single person who understands that our nation must radically reform our way of governing for there to be a future United States of America, it is time for your voices to be heard!!
What I am saying is that the energy of this amazing election must continue into a new era of populist activism. If Obama doesn't have the mandate and the external push for change, he will not succeed as we all want him to--as the country needs him to. Do not be fooled, readers of SkyeWire: there are very powerful forces that are against a new progressive era. They supported Barack Obama because he ran an extremely moderate campaign... he was a safe bet. But this must not stand. Barack Obama promised MAJOR CHANGE, but he cannot do it without the political capital. In other words, it is up to powerful and clever organization--based in grassroots--to come together on major issues and demand change. The country has given the Democrats one last sweeping leap of faith--to let them try, once last time, to make good on their failed promises of the past 40 years. Now we must hold them accountable.
So what to do? I have some preliminary proposals, but these will obviously develop in the coming months and years.
A.) Join the Revolution: yes, I am talking about Ron Paul's "Campaign for Liberty" ... You do not need to be a Libertarian to understand that the American Empire must come to an end, the tax system must be radically reformed, and civil liberty must take precedence! Ron Paul's dark horse campaign showed that millions (liberals, conservative, moderates, etc.) are dissatisfied with what our nation has become, and to support this cause is noble.
B.) Join the November 5th movement: The final presidential campaign of Ralph Nader has become a major advocacy group dedicated to urging the Congress to pursue a progressive agenda and to fight the corporate stranglehold. Based on the powerful idea of grassroots organization, November 5 calls upon citizens in the 435 congressional districts to fight for the next 100 days for major reform within the country's most powerful institution: the Congress.
C.) Be well informed: this does not mean CNN or FOX News This does not mean just CNN and FOX. I am talking about developing a broader understanding of issues, which means expanding from your primary sources. As citizens we must train ourselves to rely on solid and independent news sources in order to make sound judgements, while also keeping up on what the mainstream networks are saying. Readers will see that to the left of the page, I have listed some of my favorite news sources... independent, liberal, conservative, and moderate ones alike. The point is to have an open mind and not to dismiss certain sources based on bias.
D.) USE THE FRIGGIN INTERNET: Don't take my word for anything! Solid information and organization is available on the internet if you are will to seek it out. Connect with those who share your plight, communicate, and plan for action. If people use this revolutionary resource to its fullest potential, they will discover that there are millions of like-minded activists.
There will be more in the coming days, but the main idea is that we mustn't relent from this grand opportunity to change the country and determine our future. This thing ain't over! We can still take back our country...it is within reach! We now have an administration that is receptive to change... now we must follow through. The fight will be long. It will be demoralizing at times. No one said democracy is easy, but in the words of Winston Churchill:
Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense.
With optimism and resolve.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Why Obama? Answer: Ending the Empire
Those who know me, know that the presidential candidate whom I supported has long been out of the competition. I'd say that I now align mostly with Ralph Nader (on the ballot in 45 states, by the way), but despite my inner urges, I will not be voting for him come November.
First, however, allow me to give an overview of how broken our electoral system is. First of all, 2 presidential elections have gone against the popular vote--in other words, the minority electoral college decides who wins, not the people. But the most important aspect of any election is the visibility of the debates. When Jesse Ventura was polling in the single digits during the race for governorship of Minnesota, there didn't seem to be much hope for the former pro-wrestler. Then he got into the debates, and bingo! Ventura connected with voters and ultimately won the race. Why was Nader forbidden to be a part of the debates of 2000 and 2004? Because the Commission of Presidential Debates is run by former Party heads--the Dems and Republicans. If you get into the debates, you have a real shot at winning, and the 2 party monopoly is not going to allow that to happen.
Despite Nader's efforts, I am confident that he will not be speaking at the debates, which is why I turn to Barack. As his public platform currently stands, Obama will be another status quo president who sold out to the military-industrial complex, which Eisenhower warned us so direly to avoid. His plans to increase military spending, grow the armed forces, and revamp efforts to develop new military technology simply feed into the United States Empire, and will be our downfall.
It is my hope that Obama is lying that I will be voting for him. That sounds really sad, actually ... that we are in a situation where we vote in anticipation for deception. Watch this video from early on in the Obama campaign (before he started going "centrist"):
This is promising, but I don't hear that anymore. If you check out his website, you can read all about his imperial policies. But I get it. He has run with these kinds of policies. After all, candidates who try to appeal more to the left tend to lose elections (though I would argue this is not a 'left' issue). But I just pray that Obama has not lost himself in this campaign. That he won't be like the others, and will scale the empire back. The American people did not feel the Iraq War, but they are starting to. And they will feel the next one. If Obama is like the others (i.e., almost every president after WWII), I will be done with this sort of politics. I will not throw my vote away ever again, and I will go the other way.
First, however, allow me to give an overview of how broken our electoral system is. First of all, 2 presidential elections have gone against the popular vote--in other words, the minority electoral college decides who wins, not the people. But the most important aspect of any election is the visibility of the debates. When Jesse Ventura was polling in the single digits during the race for governorship of Minnesota, there didn't seem to be much hope for the former pro-wrestler. Then he got into the debates, and bingo! Ventura connected with voters and ultimately won the race. Why was Nader forbidden to be a part of the debates of 2000 and 2004? Because the Commission of Presidential Debates is run by former Party heads--the Dems and Republicans. If you get into the debates, you have a real shot at winning, and the 2 party monopoly is not going to allow that to happen.
Despite Nader's efforts, I am confident that he will not be speaking at the debates, which is why I turn to Barack. As his public platform currently stands, Obama will be another status quo president who sold out to the military-industrial complex, which Eisenhower warned us so direly to avoid. His plans to increase military spending, grow the armed forces, and revamp efforts to develop new military technology simply feed into the United States Empire, and will be our downfall.
It is my hope that Obama is lying that I will be voting for him. That sounds really sad, actually ... that we are in a situation where we vote in anticipation for deception. Watch this video from early on in the Obama campaign (before he started going "centrist"):
This is promising, but I don't hear that anymore. If you check out his website, you can read all about his imperial policies. But I get it. He has run with these kinds of policies. After all, candidates who try to appeal more to the left tend to lose elections (though I would argue this is not a 'left' issue). But I just pray that Obama has not lost himself in this campaign. That he won't be like the others, and will scale the empire back. The American people did not feel the Iraq War, but they are starting to. And they will feel the next one. If Obama is like the others (i.e., almost every president after WWII), I will be done with this sort of politics. I will not throw my vote away ever again, and I will go the other way.
Americans will start to get it eventually. The responsibility for change lies in government and the people. When government fails, the Founding Fathers charged the people with fixing it. Let me remind you:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
--The Declaration of Independence, 1776
Thursday, January 17, 2008
My Letter to the Chairman of the DNC
Well I just wrote a letter that I plan to send to Governor Howard Dean—Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The document essentially explains itself, but I encourage anyone interested to read into the matters I go over, and to delve deeper into the unraveling of our democracy. Check it out:
Dear Governor Dean,
I am an 18-year-old freshman at Denison University in Ohio, and have been following the latest presidential campaign very closely. I've had a particular attraction to the messages of both Senator Gravel and Congressman Kucinich—men who, despite their controversial nature, are proven leaders and patriots. By this time you must have learned of the historical acts by Mike Gravel (filibustering the Draft, releasing the Pentagon Papers, the Alaskan pipeline bill, etc), and of Dennis Kucinich's unwavering message of peace that permeates through his legislation in Congress. I am severely alarmed because both of these American leaders have been silenced by corporate media and alienated by their own Democratic Party—this suggests to me that these bodies of mega-power have lost sight of the freedom and democracy that this country is supposed to stand for.
In previous debates, Senator Gravel met the same polling qualifications as other candidates, but did not have enough money to be included. The indication here is that if you are not a millionaire, you cannot have a shot at the presidency. The loyalty oath imposed on Congressman Kucinich by the Texas Democratic Party was a clear violation of the First Amendment—this instance, as well as his exclusion from the latest televised debate on MSNBC have yet to be addressed by you, Governor. Don’t the American people deserve to hear their unique and important views? Where was the voice of Democratic leadership? Where was democracy?
Whether or not these men align with Party doctrine should not be a factor in evaluating them as viable candidates. The American public has the right to hear their messages—to witness them questioning the policies of the leading candidates. For democracy to succeed, there must be a true debate—after watching the last Democratic debate, I can see that this is not happening. When leading candidates seem to agree on almost every major issue, it becomes obvious that something has gone terribly wrong.
For how long can we put on the facade of the “greatest democracy in the world" when our leaders are carefully selected by elitist Wall Street boardrooms and two political parties? This path of corporate censorship and political corruption will only grow worse if left unaddressed. Ultimately it will be up to the people to decide whether or not they wish to survive as a democratic nation, but without the leadership, that will never happen.
It is with great moral conviction and severe urgency that I write this letter. Please consider this cry for help.
Sincerely,
Skye Wallin
If anyone would like to express their own views on this matter, or on any other issue you can send a quick message to the DNC Chair at this link.
Dear Governor Dean,
I am an 18-year-old freshman at Denison University in Ohio, and have been following the latest presidential campaign very closely. I've had a particular attraction to the messages of both Senator Gravel and Congressman Kucinich—men who, despite their controversial nature, are proven leaders and patriots. By this time you must have learned of the historical acts by Mike Gravel (filibustering the Draft, releasing the Pentagon Papers, the Alaskan pipeline bill, etc), and of Dennis Kucinich's unwavering message of peace that permeates through his legislation in Congress. I am severely alarmed because both of these American leaders have been silenced by corporate media and alienated by their own Democratic Party—this suggests to me that these bodies of mega-power have lost sight of the freedom and democracy that this country is supposed to stand for.
In previous debates, Senator Gravel met the same polling qualifications as other candidates, but did not have enough money to be included. The indication here is that if you are not a millionaire, you cannot have a shot at the presidency. The loyalty oath imposed on Congressman Kucinich by the Texas Democratic Party was a clear violation of the First Amendment—this instance, as well as his exclusion from the latest televised debate on MSNBC have yet to be addressed by you, Governor. Don’t the American people deserve to hear their unique and important views? Where was the voice of Democratic leadership? Where was democracy?
Whether or not these men align with Party doctrine should not be a factor in evaluating them as viable candidates. The American public has the right to hear their messages—to witness them questioning the policies of the leading candidates. For democracy to succeed, there must be a true debate—after watching the last Democratic debate, I can see that this is not happening. When leading candidates seem to agree on almost every major issue, it becomes obvious that something has gone terribly wrong.
For how long can we put on the facade of the “greatest democracy in the world" when our leaders are carefully selected by elitist Wall Street boardrooms and two political parties? This path of corporate censorship and political corruption will only grow worse if left unaddressed. Ultimately it will be up to the people to decide whether or not they wish to survive as a democratic nation, but without the leadership, that will never happen.
It is with great moral conviction and severe urgency that I write this letter. Please consider this cry for help.
Sincerely,
Skye Wallin
If anyone would like to express their own views on this matter, or on any other issue you can send a quick message to the DNC Chair at this link.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
We Must Listen to the Madman!
Today in my Modern East Asian history class, we analyzed a Chinese short story from 1918 written by Lu Hsun entitled “A Madman’s Diary.” It is a criticism of the traditional and feudal values of Chinese culture, and was a great influence among the citizenry—credited with being a main cause of the May Fourth Movement and the rise of the peasantry. The protagonist of the story looks at Chinese history and calls it a story of “people eating people”—a metaphor for the primitive and cannibalistic tradition of China that was destroying itself. People called him a “madman”—he was disregarded and ignored, even though he was right. Today a new “madman” has surfaced—in fact, he is a man running for the presidency of the United States of America.
His name is Mike Gravel (GRAH-vel), and has been labeled by the media as the “skunk of the pack” and the “crazy uncle” of the candidates. He is running for the Democratic nomination, yet he blasts Hillary and Obama for taking lobbyist money and not doin
g enough to stop the War in Iraq. He is fresh and energetic in the debates and has brought to light the hypocrisy and lies that come from his fellow running mates—he speaks truth and tells the American people how it is. But why has former Senator Mike Gravel remained one of the darkest of the dark-horse candidates?
The issues Gravel brings up today are nearly identical to the ones he brought up in the 70s as a Senator of Alaska. For those who are wondering who to thank for not being drafted into military service, you can thank Mike Gravel. In 1971, he led a one-man filibuster against the reinstatement of the Draft (a filibuster is a way to delay or completely prevent a vote on a piece of legislation). No one else stood up. Gravel kept the filibuster going day after day for 5 months, and the Draft was expired. Also in ’71, the rogue Senator put the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record. These were Top Secret government documents detailing the lies and deceit of U.S. foreign policy in South-East Asia—essentially confirming the immoral and unjust nature of the Vietnam War. Gravel could have gone to prison, but he exposed the documents nonetheless. Here is Gravel and his emotional response to the report:
Gravel exposed a corrupt foreign policy and ended the Draft—all against the will of most of his colleagues and his Party. He refused to let up, and he beat the system. They called him crazy. He was the “skunk” and the “nutty Senator from Alaska.” His own Party took away his nomination for re-election in 1981—they were concerned over his unwillingness to conform to Party ideology. Mike Gravel left politics that year—heartbroken and disgusted over a truly corrupt system. He left and didn’t look back. But now he has returned—this time to fix America for good.
The former Senator now finds himself in a strikingly familiar situation. There is a terrible war going on—a war that never had an honest purpose and has dragged on for far too long. Our leaders manipulate fear as an instrument to drive policy. Corruption and K-Street politics are rampant. Congress is crippled. Gravel wants to fix these things. He wants to use diplomacy. He wants to get us off the oil. He wants to empower the citizenry to pass laws and override Congress—a way to keep the system in check “by the People.”
Just like traditional China, the system of the United States has become a system of “people eating people.” Let us not accept politics as usual. Let us not forget that the people have the power in this country. Gravel was considered an outcast in the 70s just as he is now. But people look back at what Gravel did and applaud his accomplishments—they say, “Wow, that Gravel really had guts.” Today he is doing the same thing. Don’t let Mike Gravel get scurried under the rug by the media. Remember what he has done and listen to what he has to say. We must not ignore Mike Gravel—this time we must listen to the “madman.”
His name is Mike Gravel (GRAH-vel), and has been labeled by the media as the “skunk of the pack” and the “crazy uncle” of the candidates. He is running for the Democratic nomination, yet he blasts Hillary and Obama for taking lobbyist money and not doin
g enough to stop the War in Iraq. He is fresh and energetic in the debates and has brought to light the hypocrisy and lies that come from his fellow running mates—he speaks truth and tells the American people how it is. But why has former Senator Mike Gravel remained one of the darkest of the dark-horse candidates?The issues Gravel brings up today are nearly identical to the ones he brought up in the 70s as a Senator of Alaska. For those who are wondering who to thank for not being drafted into military service, you can thank Mike Gravel. In 1971, he led a one-man filibuster against the reinstatement of the Draft (a filibuster is a way to delay or completely prevent a vote on a piece of legislation). No one else stood up. Gravel kept the filibuster going day after day for 5 months, and the Draft was expired. Also in ’71, the rogue Senator put the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record. These were Top Secret government documents detailing the lies and deceit of U.S. foreign policy in South-East Asia—essentially confirming the immoral and unjust nature of the Vietnam War. Gravel could have gone to prison, but he exposed the documents nonetheless. Here is Gravel and his emotional response to the report:
Gravel exposed a corrupt foreign policy and ended the Draft—all against the will of most of his colleagues and his Party. He refused to let up, and he beat the system. They called him crazy. He was the “skunk” and the “nutty Senator from Alaska.” His own Party took away his nomination for re-election in 1981—they were concerned over his unwillingness to conform to Party ideology. Mike Gravel left politics that year—heartbroken and disgusted over a truly corrupt system. He left and didn’t look back. But now he has returned—this time to fix America for good.
The former Senator now finds himself in a strikingly familiar situation. There is a terrible war going on—a war that never had an honest purpose and has dragged on for far too long. Our leaders manipulate fear as an instrument to drive policy. Corruption and K-Street politics are rampant. Congress is crippled. Gravel wants to fix these things. He wants to use diplomacy. He wants to get us off the oil. He wants to empower the citizenry to pass laws and override Congress—a way to keep the system in check “by the People.”
Just like traditional China, the system of the United States has become a system of “people eating people.” Let us not accept politics as usual. Let us not forget that the people have the power in this country. Gravel was considered an outcast in the 70s just as he is now. But people look back at what Gravel did and applaud his accomplishments—they say, “Wow, that Gravel really had guts.” Today he is doing the same thing. Don’t let Mike Gravel get scurried under the rug by the media. Remember what he has done and listen to what he has to say. We must not ignore Mike Gravel—this time we must listen to the “madman.”
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
A Follow-up: Ahmadinejad & the '08 Hopefuls
I’ve been reading up on what the various 2008 Presidential candidates have had to say regarding the Ahmadinejad ordeal, and I think a follow-up to my original post is necessary.
Here are some of the statements made by the frontrunners giving their opinions of Ahmadinejad’s visit:
-Rudy Giuliani: "I know he seems somewhat silly to us but he's not silly to himself…He leaves that appearance at Columbia saying I got half the audience to applaud for me. It was a terrible mistake to allow him to speak."
-Mitt Romney: "We should be tightening our sanctions against Iran, not welcoming him to the world stage, and I've called on the Secretary-General of the United Nations to withdraw that invitation…What we should be doing is indicting Ahmadinejad under the Genocide Convention."
-John McCain: "A man who is directing the maiming and killing of Americans troops should not be given an invitation to speak at an American university…"
-Hillary Clinton: "If I were the president of a university, I would not have invited him, but I did not express an opinion about the decision made by Columbia... I was very much against his desire to go to ground zero. I thought that was absolutely out of bounds and unacceptable and thankfully it was not permitted."
-Barack Obama: Would not have invited Ahmadinejad to speak, but says that "One of the values we believe in is the value of academic freedom. He has a right to speak." He also has declared that he will speak with Ahmadinejad if elected—opening diplomatic relations with Iran.
-Also, Current President George Bush said: “[if Columbia] thinks it’s a good idea to have the leader from Iran come and talk to the students as an educational experience, I guess it’s OK with me."
Most of the ’08 candidates have voiced their opposition to Ahmadinejad’s proposed visit to Ground Zero (his permission was denied by the U.S. government), except for o
ne—former Senator Mike Gravel. Gravel establishes that he is very against the Iranian regime, but that the U.S. should not be “snubbing” the Iranian government—calling it “dangerous” for the future. He also points out that while the United States was giving economic aid to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (before 9/11 of course), Iran was funding the Taliban’s “bitterest enemies”—Iran had nothing to do with the orchestration of 9/11, and was in fact against those who carried out the attack.
Gravel brings up several issues dealing with the disingenuous behavior of the U.S. in Iran over the past 50 years (overthrowing its democratically elected government, supporting a corrupt dictator, etc.), but his main point is that our leaders must stop separating the world into parties of “good” and “evil.” This mode of thinking has never helped us, and will lead to the unthinkable—a war against a united Middle East. In Gravel’s words: “It's time to step away from the brink and begin finding common ground. Let Ahmadinejad go to Ground Zero and honor our dead. And together, let's all acknowledge that neither war nor terrorism will solve our problems.”
Please read Senator Gravel’s article in full for more insight.
Here are some of the statements made by the frontrunners giving their opinions of Ahmadinejad’s visit:
-Rudy Giuliani: "I know he seems somewhat silly to us but he's not silly to himself…He leaves that appearance at Columbia saying I got half the audience to applaud for me. It was a terrible mistake to allow him to speak."
-Mitt Romney: "We should be tightening our sanctions against Iran, not welcoming him to the world stage, and I've called on the Secretary-General of the United Nations to withdraw that invitation…What we should be doing is indicting Ahmadinejad under the Genocide Convention."
-John McCain: "A man who is directing the maiming and killing of Americans troops should not be given an invitation to speak at an American university…"
-Hillary Clinton: "If I were the president of a university, I would not have invited him, but I did not express an opinion about the decision made by Columbia... I was very much against his desire to go to ground zero. I thought that was absolutely out of bounds and unacceptable and thankfully it was not permitted."
-Barack Obama: Would not have invited Ahmadinejad to speak, but says that "One of the values we believe in is the value of academic freedom. He has a right to speak." He also has declared that he will speak with Ahmadinejad if elected—opening diplomatic relations with Iran.
-Also, Current President George Bush said: “[if Columbia] thinks it’s a good idea to have the leader from Iran come and talk to the students as an educational experience, I guess it’s OK with me."
Most of the ’08 candidates have voiced their opposition to Ahmadinejad’s proposed visit to Ground Zero (his permission was denied by the U.S. government), except for o
ne—former Senator Mike Gravel. Gravel establishes that he is very against the Iranian regime, but that the U.S. should not be “snubbing” the Iranian government—calling it “dangerous” for the future. He also points out that while the United States was giving economic aid to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (before 9/11 of course), Iran was funding the Taliban’s “bitterest enemies”—Iran had nothing to do with the orchestration of 9/11, and was in fact against those who carried out the attack.Gravel brings up several issues dealing with the disingenuous behavior of the U.S. in Iran over the past 50 years (overthrowing its democratically elected government, supporting a corrupt dictator, etc.), but his main point is that our leaders must stop separating the world into parties of “good” and “evil.” This mode of thinking has never helped us, and will lead to the unthinkable—a war against a united Middle East. In Gravel’s words: “It's time to step away from the brink and begin finding common ground. Let Ahmadinejad go to Ground Zero and honor our dead. And together, let's all acknowledge that neither war nor terrorism will solve our problems.”
Please read Senator Gravel’s article in full for more insight.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
