It was the longest term yet given to a congressman.

2 Comments »

Peter Camejo’s Avocado Declaration details the role of the Democratic Party in first opposing social change then in co-opting it, trying to funnel it into the Democratic Party. They exist to preserve the status quo, not change it.

When social change begins, the Democratic Party always opposes it.

Since the Civil War, without exception, the Democratic Party has opposed all mass struggles for democracy and social justice. These include the struggle for ballot reform, for the right of African Americans to vote and against American apartheid (”Jim Crow”), for the right to form unions, for the right of women to vote, against the war in Vietnam, the struggle to make lynching illegal, the fight against the death penalty, the struggle for universal health care, the fight for gay and lesbian rights, and endless others. Many of these struggles were initiated by or helped by the existence of small third parties.

When they can’t kill it, they then support it in a watered-down form and try to co-opt it, pretending they were really for it all along..

When social justice, peace or civil rights movements become massive in scale, and threaten to become uncontrollable and begin to win over large numbers of people, the Democratic Party begins to shift and presents itself as a supposed ally. Its goal is always to co-opt the movement, demobilize its forces and block its development into an alternative, independent political force.

Here’s the crux, the real role of the Democratic Party.

[The Democratic Party acts] as a “broker” negotiating and selling influence among broad layers of the people to support the objectives of corporate rule. The Democratic Party’s core group of elected officials is rooted in careerists seeking self-promotion by offering to the corporate rulers their ability to control and deliver mass support. And to the people they offer some concessions, modifications on the platform of the Republican Party. One important value of the Democratic Party to the corporate world is that it makes the Republican Party possible through the maintenance of the stability that is essential for “business as usual.” It does this by preventing a genuine mass opposition from developing.

This is why liberals and progressives trying to work within a party dedicated to and complicit in maintaining the status quo - no matter if that means backing invasions based on lies or assenting to the use of torture - is an exercise in futility. The change won’t come from within the Democratic Party, it will come when they are either removed from power or forced to obey the will of the people.

But they’ll be happy to have you try to change them. As Camejo says, that’s precisely what their function is, to channel dissent into the party where it can be softened and neutralized.

No Comments »

Lefti on the News dissects how the only real change many of the luminaries in the liberal blogosphere want is change that puts them in control of the Democratic Party. Other than that, they’re mostly status quo, not to mention being elitist and downright dismissive of the workers they would claim to represent.

[Matt] Stoller says, “We have no interest in being anti-establishment. We’re going to be the establishment.”

A little later in the article, we learn that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid will be the keynote speaker at the annual conference of Daily Kos. How much revolution can I stand?

‘Stoller does not think that it’s important for blogs to reach a less-affluent audience: “Not everybody has to be part of that conversation. If someone wants to have access to those discussions, they should be able to do that. But for the most part, people–like that person working two shifts–will go on with their lives knowing that good people are making good decisions and policies on their behalf.”‘

Goodness Matt, we wouldn’t want you to taint yourself by associating with the commoners. Certainly someone working 12 hours a day to keep their family in food could have nothing of substance to say to an important chap like yourself. But tell me, how would this be different from current Congressional Democrats who spend their lives in plastic bubbles, carefully isolated and protected from the people? If you never associate with the voters, how can you claim you’ll represent them with ‘good decisions.’ How is this different from the bilge we hear now from Congress?

This country needs real change, not just a changing of the guard in the Democratic Party that will bring no substantive change, otherwise it’ll just be “Say hello to the new boss / same as the old boss.”

2 Comments »

Pentagon develops brain implants to turn sharks into military spies

Well, they’re trying to. It won’t work. Rational folks might say, hey, let’s use *people* as spies. But the US military seems determined to win by using super duper high-tech stuff that no one else has. This is what they thought in Vietnam, that they could win via bombing. Didn’t work. They thought they’d win in Iraq too, and charged in wearing 50 pounds of high-tech gear in 110 degree heat. That didn’t work either.

“A fool who persists in his folly will soon become wise” isn’t always true, is it?

5 Comments »

The paper trail seems so obvious it makes you wonder whether anyone ever worried about getting caught. When Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and his wife flew from Houston to a golf resort in Scotland in June 2000, the first-class airfare cost $14,001, a big-ticket item for a public servant. But someone else paid.

The American Express bills of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty to fraud charges in January, show he footed the bill for the tickets, in an apparent violation of House ethics rules.

DeLay isn’t real bright, is he? Especially since he claimed on Fox that his records were squeaky clean.

Sue, a forenic accountant, says “you always have a choice between ignorant and culpable, as in, ‘I was walking down the street minding my own business, thinking about Jesus, when suddenly his pocket was all around my hand’.”

Forensic accountants laugh at attempted sneakiness this stupid.

1 Comment »

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, will introduce new legislation today that would prohibit Internet network operators from charging companies for faster delivery of their content to consumers or favoring some content providers over others.The bill is meant to ease growing fears that open Internet access may be blocked or compromised by the Bell phone carriers and cable operators, which may create tiers of service for delivering content to consumers, much the way the post office charges more for overnight mail delivery than for regular delivery.

This is a bill worth supporting. The phone company doesn’t block phone calls from certain areas, rather they let all calls through. If “network nuetrality” is compromised then those who own Net cable will be able to do just that, block whoever they don’t like, and charge more for preferential service.

None of this is a problem elsewhere on the planet, just here in the US, home of predatory capitalism.

No Comments »