More Protesters Arrested in the Twin Cities

By: Jane Hamsher Saturday August 30, 2008 3:23 pm

We're now hearing that "snatch squads" are picking up random people off the streets in the Twin Cities, and someone from Democracy Now has been detained.

See Star Tribune Article here

See the link here for The Campaign Silo

The police are taking action against potential protesters of the Republican National Convention in a series of preemptive arrests and intimidation of protest groups by invading homes and residences and arrests on the streets.

On Saturday afternoon, law agents surrounded 951 Iglehart Av. in St. Paul where members of I-Witness Video, a New York-based group that monitors police conduct during protests, were staying. They were detained and handcuffed but eventually freed without charges.

I guess if they could do it at the Democratic Convention without any comments of concern by the democratic party leadership, it's okay to do preemptive arrests at the Republican Convention.

so it goes..

Illusions of Hope

Ira Chernus writes in Common Dreams: I had done all my thinking and decided that small steps forward are much better than a huge step backward. That's why I am doing my bit to get Obama elected, with no illusions.

But Ira is suffering from illusions, or a lack of clear vision as to what should be the minimum necessary values for a presidential candidate. It is not a step forward. Obama is a blindsided step backwards. Some people are hoping that it won't happen, just like some hope that the tide won't come in.

Not only does McCain fail the smell test, but so does Obama.

As long as Obama supporters continue to think that Obama's limitations are 'practical' (whatever that means) or they are being pragmatic, it means that the progressive positions have to be put on hold yet again.

We have to be practical and accept the lesser of two evils from now to infinity (or until the end of the human race, which is coming sooner and sooner with each 'winnable' candidate the country selects).

The democratic party, like any totalitarian party, doesn't want to hear dissent, will break any law or ethics (never mind plain common decency) not to hear it. Shoving dissent to free speech prisons is the new political response among the mainstream political parties.

Honest discussion requires that all sides of the argument are heard. The democratic party is not honest.

Vote Green Party, Vote Third Party. Don't throw away your vote on a corporate candidate.

Where's the Party?

I don't have a reasonable expectation that McKinney or Nader will win. The purpose of my vote for them is twofold: first, they support the policies and solutions to important issues that I share whereas the democratic party does not (Iraq war, impeachment, death penalty, universal health care, corporate corruption, military industrial complex etc).

Secondly, I would rather make my vote 'count' for something that I believe in. It is not just wishful thinking. It is moving in the direction that I want to go in. I'm not sure what percentage of people would have to vote third party for the democratic party to notice, but I'm going to add my voice to that process.

Why vote third party? Where do you go shopping? Do you go to the store that has rotten produce and spoiled meat; or do you go to the store that has fresh meat and organic produce. You are making a choice as to where you spend your dollar, and if you spend it in the store that has fresh meat you are supporting and allowing that store to remain in business.

But if you spend your dollar in the first store, even though you believe that the second store is better, you are going against your own interests by spending your money at the first store and keeping it in business while allowing the second store to fail. Some people might give you reasons to go to the first store like 'everyone goes there'; but that wouldn't make me go there.

Same thing applies to voting. If you vote for a candidate based on 'who is winnable' rather than the quality of the candidate, then you are working against your own best interests and it will come back to bite you in the ass.

so it goes

To Hope? The audacity...

An article regarding Mr. Obama, and his dependence upon 'hope' was published in the Black Agenda Report. Mr. Obama will be giving a major speech at the Democratic convention on what will be Martin Luther King's 45th anniversary of his 'I Have A Dream' speech.

Denver 2008: Hope is for the Weak

by BAR Managing Editor Bruce Dixon

You know you're addicted to a drug when you need it just to feel normal. By that standard, African Americans have been addicted to hope for a long, long time. Nothing wrong with that. As Robert Jensen of the University of Texas, from whom the title of this piece is borrowed points out, hope is seductive, it's attractive, and when times are hard, hope is absolutely necessary. We're all quite naturally attracted to those full of hope, while we pity or shun those without it. But if hope is much like a drug, it's also a lot like capital. Hope can be invested, wisely based on facts and a sober analysis of the forces in play, or it can be squandered foolishly, based on wishful thinking and outright lies. The air in Denver the last week of August will be full of hope. And full of lies.

Since hope is a limited thing, and sometimes all that we have, Jensen suggests that we ought to be realistic and tough-minded about where we invest it and how. The nomination of the Democratic party's first black candidate is an historic occasion, to be sure. But what is there in Denver to invest our hopes in?

[to read the complete article, click here]

My comments.

I value hope, but it ranks far below reasoned thought, hard work, not blindly accepting the status quo, standing up for principles, and the list goes on. And hope shouldn't be confused with wishful thinking.

Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate, has concrete actions to support her positions. She isn't just hoping for change, she is willing to be the change that she wants to see happen.

I'm also a Ralph Nader supporter, but will be voting Green Party this year to help the party become a viable alternative to the corporate democratic and republican parties.

I think that the highest priority is to support peace and justice that is inclusive of all people (basic human rights for all).

My desire is not to get the first black person or female elected, my goal is to get a candidate that supports peace and justice elected.

The word 'HOPE' is used to justify the lack of attention given to the most fragile of our society-- the underclass, the poor, the weak.

Halliburton doesn't use 'hope' to get the Iraq contracts. Nor do politicians say that the corporate structure should hope for more profits. They work diligently to make that happen. The poor get hope, the corporate elite get taxpaper supported bailouts.

My view of Obama is that he is just another corporate shill that will be used to justify the corporate elite's continued attack on the basic rights of the common people, but with a different color. Hillary would have been a different gender. But in either case, the corporate agenda would be unchallenged.

The status quo has got to go, and I can't support either of the corporate parties. This is the year to vote third party, the Green Party.

Don't support either of the two corporate parties if you value peace and justice. They don't.

What is the real Joke, Jon Stewart or Mainstream Media?

There was an article about Jon Stewart on Common Dreams, You Can’t Be Serious: How a Comedian Became the most Influential Voice in American Politics by Leonard Doyle

Jon Stewart, a TV celebrity with a faux news show, is known to be more forthcoming about reporting 'news' than the mainstream media, especially regarding the Iraq war and the presidential election..

As a reader of Common Dreams, I find that they have gone the path of Move-on, that other supposedly progressive organization that can't seem to support progressive candidates, claiming that they aren't 'viable,' so they support the democratic party leadership corporate candidate. First Gore, then Kerry, now Obama. Is there a corporate 'democratic' candidate that these supposed progressive organizations won't support? Especially when they are democratic in name only, not in policies they support.

The joke is that mainstream news is even more of a joke than Jon Stewart.

NPR? A joke.

Common Dreams? A joke. Did they publish articles supporting Kucinich or progressive issues in a serious manner? No. Another move-on type of organization ultimately supporting the democratic party leadership over progressive issues when push came to shove.

I’m not even going to mention the New York Times.

Many liberal democrats don’t even know about Mike Gravel, another progressive democrat who was shut out of the presidential debates. Did Common Dreams run a series of articles supporting the argument that Kucinich or Gravel be included in the debates? No.

I’m not talking about one or two throw away fluff pieces they published, I’m talking about in depth rational articles as to why the democratic process continues to be squashed by the democratic party.

The reason why third parties aren’t mainstream is because mainstream media and political parties work very hard at marginalizing third parties like the Green Party or Ralph Nader. Including Common Dreams. Including Jon Stewart.

Don’t get me wrong, Jon Stewart is very funny and probably the source of more information that never makes it into the mainstream media. But the news he does provide is just below anything that would actually make a change. Conservatives always get to plug their books on the show that makes them even more money atop of the atrocities that they support (like the Iraq War / Occupation).

Not that third parties are perfect, but closer to my goal when I use the same measuring stick that I use with Obama (or Hillary, Kerry, or Gore, or Bill Clinton). All of them sold out to corporate interests at the expense of public, all while they were in public office.

Wake up, how many more times will the people be taken in. I can’t think of a time more important than now to stop supporting the corporate elite and their parties, the democrats and republicans.

I’m voting green, I’m not holding my nose when I vote, and even if McCain wins, I hold the democratic party responsible for not impeaching the president; for excluding candidates from the debate; for excluding Ralph Nader’s issues; for not supporting universal health care; for not challenging corporate corruption; for not reeling in an out of control military policy; for not limiting a publicly armed, but privately controlled mercenary force (Blackwater etc); and the list goes on.

The biggest joke is going to be Obama’s vice presidential choice. It will be fun to see the Obama apologists explain that one away. I can’t wait.

A UTube video of a Ralph Nader supporter explaining why she supports Nader. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPbJY2rs0QI

http://www.NotOneMore.US

Why is Tom Hayden Surprised?

The Defunding of the Peace Movement -Grassroots ‘One Million Doors for Peace’ Push Begins Instead
by Tom Hayden [The Nation, August 15, 2008)
Last December I wrote an optimistic cover story for The Nation predicting that “peace advocates will likely have the best funded antiwar message in history” during the coming election year, as “tens of millions of dollars will be raised for voter education and registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns through the 527 committees which disseminate election messages independent of partisan candidates. ...”

...It was downhill from that point, for reasons that may never be explained.

Contrary to what Mr. Hayden may imply, it is obvious why money being sent to peace movements has fallen off. When people gave money to peace and social organizations that supposedly supported an end to the war, and when those organizations (like moveon and common dreams) turned that money over to support and promote the corporate democratic candidates without ever getting a concession, that is when I stopped supporting them. They never supported Kucinich, much less Nader or Green Party McKinney. Why is that? Are they beholden in some way to not upsetting the corporate status quo?

Has Tom Hayden ever supported a progressive candidate in the past 20 years, other than occasional lip service?

He never really gave Kucinich and Mike Gravel, much less Nader and Green Party McKinney, a voice. Those are the candidates that spoke on issues that the peace movement wanted to hear. And they were silenced and excluded from the debate. I didn’t see Hayden speak of the outrage of that action (or Obama or Hillary for that matter). Why? They don’t care about protecting the democratic process when it gets in the way of their victory.

Just think, if Tom Hayden has supported Kucinich (or Nader or McKinney) and allowed any of them to carry forward the peace message, there would have been a different conversation going on today. It would have given the peace movement an important step up in the pubic eye. It is not too late.

Tom Hayden, are you listening? Please support any true progressive candidate. Are you telling me that you can't find anyone among them who share the same important values as you? Can you tell me what values you share with Obama on the important issues? Other then you think he might be 'electable?' Oh, that is the main reason? Now I feel better.

"I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get it." Eugene Debs