That is ridiculous military recruitment is everywhere. I am white and had to wait three months to get in the military due to the waiting list to get in (this was a few years ago). There are programs such as "MORE" Minority Oriented Recruiting Effort", which is an effort to create a military that is represented the same % to the general population. In other words if the populations in the United States is 60 % white 20 % black 10% Hispanic and 10% Asian then the military would try to recruit such in the same percentages.

Again it is a voluntary service nobody is forced to join. If a person joins from a poor upbringing and does a full twenty years in the military he will retire in the middle to upper middle class. I have been in the military for 17 years I enlisted and made my way up the ranks to Warrant Officer I now make over 60k a year, I have "Free Medical 100%" and when I retire I am eligible for 50% of my pay for the rest of my life. If I go 30 Years I get 75%.

If you join the Army or Marines and expect your going to sit at a desk for 20 years join another service. Air Force, Navy Coast Guard are all services that may also be deployed it is a part of the job. To say that "the military is targeting black youth as a form of racism" is racist and ignorant.

Sad to see Americans so blinded and so wanting a nanny state as pertaining to our govt.. As it goes the real problems with our govt. is that it has far surpassed the scope it was intended for. To long now have our so called representitives engaged in social enginerring of our society and sad to say it is our fault for letting it happen. The govt. main role is regulation of trade (international) and the defense of this country, and, the BIG ONE, DEFENSE OF OUR FREEDOMS! Anyone remember that??? We as a nation have been far to willing in giving up small parts here and there of these. If people in this country want to live in a socialist society move to Europe! Yes our govt. spends money on defense and yes I can say I do not agree with the waste of our money for foolish endeavours,but, if we as voters put our heads together and for about parties IE dems. and repub. change can be made! Sadly there are a lot of so called representitives that know how to divide the people of this country along racial and social economic lines and they are very effective! So instead of the knee jerk and emotional assumptions of tax policies and spending do some research these true records are avilable through the FOIA (freedom of information act)

The idea that a White majority doesn't want nationalized healthcare because they don't want to give it to an poor Black population is absurd. Here's why most Americans don't want nationalized healthcare. The Health and Human Services Department is the most expensive agency on the face of the earth; over $550 Billion annually, and the budget has never gone down. What does the HHSD provide? Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the very poor, emergency services and that‘s about it. In total, that half a trillion dollars provides for only a fraction of the population. Can you imagine how many trillions of dollars across-the-board healthcare for the entire population would cost? And even if it was affordable, I still wouldn't afford it, because as an advocate of alternative medicine, I realize that American pharmaceutical corporations basically churn out poison. Nationalized healthcare may work in France or Canada, but in the US, it would mean the state sanctioned poisoning of its population. If I believed every industry conducted itself as America's medical industry did, I might side with the Z-mag/Indymedia crowd, but I think I'd have to be pretty desperate.

As everyone will come to know - freedom only exists for those who can afford to pay for it. We in the US are not free. We only exist to be stolen from, by the ruling class that is allowed to steal from all others.

I think you're wrong about demonstrations, cryofan. Real people gathering in great numbers always have a considerable, and sometimes a decisive effect. For one, they create a sense of togetherness amongst participants, proportionately more exulting as the numbers grow. For another, masses of dissenting and non-violent civilians are an indomitable opponent. Even to armed police and security personnel. Get enough people angry and they wil get -part- of what they demand from government. I've seen it happen for real. Thing is, you need to get people worked up. Not violent, but angry about what is going on. Profoundly and concernedly angry. Angry about things that touch 'your' life, 'your' kids, 'your' future. So what about society makes you angry?

continued: Well, the most important states are Iowa and New Hampshire. No doubt the corporatist goons heading up the Democratic Party (the DNC) set Iowa as the first primary because it is mostly a rural state, and therefore mostly a conservative state. But I think enough voters could be convinced to go Leftist-economics if they are given the right information. But how can we do that? By going directly to the citizens of Iowa and NH via rural newspapers. Ad space in these papers is fairly cheap. So if a coalition of American leftists were to raise money and money ad space in these small newspapers, leftist-economics ideas could be disseminated widely in the years 2005-2007. That might warm up enough voters to leftist-economics by the year 2008 so that a economic-leftist candidate could win those primaries.

This is all offtopic with respect to the original post, but since Unfolding Apocalypse brought it up, I will give my ideas on this subject: Another method of opening America's eyes, with respect to what the Leftist economic narrative has to offer, is a rural newspaper strategy. One way to attack the problem may be via presidential electoral politics. Imagine if the 2004 presidential race had included 5 or 6 candidates like Dennis Kucinich, who is a genuine leftist when it comes to economics. The American public would have gotten a big fat dose of leftist economics ideas. There may be a way to enhance the chances of economic-leftist presidential candidates in the year 2008. If chances for economic-leftist candidates in the Democratic presidential primaries appear good by 2007, then perhaps more will run for President. So how can we enhance the chances of economic-leftist candidates in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries?

Unfolding Apoc, you are correct. Demostrations, etc, are an outmoded activity, a dinosaur from the unionized industrial cities that no longer works. I think you are on the right track with your ideas about communication. Besides the video documentary I have mentioned in other threads, another option is freeway bloggers. Ladies and Gents (mostly Gents), I give you the Leftist heroes for our times, the Freeway Bloggers: http://www.freewayblogger.com Unfortunately, the FBers are too caught up in Democrat vs Republican party politics and the minutaie of the 2004 presidential campaign. But the basic idea is intriguing!

Such an approach appears promising in light of these factors: 1) high impact, in your face presentation designed to grab attention and focus it, 2) low commitment level - with regard to passerby's time and money, 3) we appear less like "ominous radical/fringe/socialists" and more like "concerned educators" - the apolitical, uninformed tend to share negative misconceptions of radical/fringe/socialists that makes them more defensive and therefore less open to our ideas, 4) chance to "fit our flyer to our demographic" - we can create and continually improve a few different flyer versions: some for *poorer, politically marginalized areas; *richer, affluent areas, *general college students, *maybe religious students/citizens? Please tell me why we are not currently doing this.

For inclusions in the first category, we obviously have too many to choose from. But some that immediately come to mind include: *CIA trained Bin Laden; *U.S. (Rumsfeld) gave chem and bio weapons to Saddam; *run downs on tax allocation for military vs. social spending; *USA's UN voting record; *percent of presidents/leaders involved in masonry/skull and bones; *wealthiest corporations (Enron among countless others) frequently pay no or negative income tax; etc. For inclusions in the second category, we might focus on "what-if type scenarios," for instance: *what if all our military research funds were spent on production and distribution of food, clothing, and housing?, *what if all the stockpiled food were made immediately available to third world countries (i.e. how quickly could world hunger be solved?), *what if the massive surplus wealth owned by elites were directed into "productive investments" rather than speculation?, etc.

So what "truth" should we expose them to? Here, I hope we can brainstorm some good ideas. continued ... Here's my suggestion. Point out all the weaknesses you see. Tear it apart and rebuild a better version. Please. We should attempt a really high-impact, "in your face, look at this shit!, look at how crazy our country's policies are!, and look at how few people know!" approach. Our aim is to seize passerby attention and forcefully direct it towards our country's (just the USA, so it will really interest the narrow-viewed apolitical types) shockingly corrupt practices. The flyer might include two types of information: 1) little known, shocking details about our elected leaders, economy, military, and corporations, and 2) counterfactuals (things that could be true if circumstances were different) detailing how great the system could be if we tore it down and rebuilt it. continued

Here is my attempt to direct this dialogue into fruitful territory. In attempting to change these and similar atrocities, we might wonder where to start. Again, I believe that spreading the facts and analysis hidden by our media is the key. Indeed, I think "normal" activism: protests, marches, organizing, etc .. is mislead. These do little to affect mainstream politcal awareness. Simply, they can't compete with our mainstream media, the entertainment industry, and the public schools. This belief is based on the premise that most Americans are much too ignorant on subjects like history, politics, economics, and culture. This ignorance allows a widespread information monopoly to pervade into and dominate their minds and direct them towards egoism, racism, religion, and consumerism. The other premise is this: if we exposed them to the "truth," this would change the information their thinking is based on, and their habits would change appropriately.

what is a different kind of racism? i can only assume that means that through the war we are not acting racist toward blacks. but we are. where do you think the most military recruitment takes place? it takes place among, within, and throughout the major centers of the black population. it takes place by recruiters who deliberately choose the less priveleged malls to scout potentials (see Farhenheit 9/11 for a great example of this); military marketers who buy advertising time during the programs that target young blacks, billboard space in predominantly black demographic locations, and magazines that speak for the black community; and even in our "public" schools!!! there are no different types of racism, only differnt ways to express hate and fear.

Now, instead of focusing just on one race, suppose we were to consider all Americans of whatever race, and suppose we were to consider how the death toll over the last decade would have differed had our American politicians indeed "promoted the general welfare" and instituted a universal healthcare system funded by taxation, as most other western nations have done. I think that would show that our politicians, our "leaders," our public "servants" were indeed grossly negligent in their duties, even criminally hegligent, in my opinion. Furthermore, taking this kind of race-blind approach is more likely to win approval with America's white middle class, but it is also likely to demonstrate the true scope of the negligence of American leadership.