To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Justin Podur's Blog » The morning after

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

72

Justin Podur's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/justinpodur
Bio: Justin Podur is a writer and editor for ZNet (www.zmag.org), part of Z Communications, an alternative media organization dedicated to political analysis and support for movements for social change.... (More)

All Podur Blogs

Recent Podur Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zvideo_icon ZStores

The morning after

By Justin Podur at Nov 03, 2004

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
Seems like it's basically over. The last time I spent a late night biting my nails watching an election, I was in Venezuela observing the referendum. Like the US elections of November 2, the outcome was important not only to the people who voted, but to the whole world. There were, however, some differences. In Venezuela, the voting machines were the same in every polling station. In Venezuela, the voting machines had a redundancy: voters used a touchscreen to pick YES or NO. The touchscreen then produced a printed ballot, which the voter could check, before folding the ballot and putting it in the ballot box. The manual counts could then be checked against the computer voting system. A simple, difficult-to-defraud system. In Venezuela, the side with the most votes won. But tonight it looks like even if the United States had the simple, elegant voting system of ‘authoritarian' Venezuela rather than the bizarre labyrinth of the ‘democratic' Electoral College, George W Bush would still be the winner. It looks like even if the United States electoral system was capable of expressing the people's choice, the people would choose George W Bush. It looks like voters in a dozen states decided to ban gay marriage, by huge margins, deciding to ruin other people's lives with no benefit to themselves. That means that it is time to admit something. The greatest divide in the world today is not between the US elite and its people, or the US elite and the people of the world. It is between the US people and the rest of the world. The first time around, George W Bush was not elected. When the United States planted cluster bombs all over Afghanistan, disrupted the aid effort there, killed thousands of people, and occupied the country, it could be interpreted as the actions of a rogue group who had stolen the elections and used terrorism as a pretext to wage war. When the United States invaded Iraq, killing 100,000 at the latest count, it could be argued that no one had really asked the American people about it and that the American people had been lied to. When the United States kidnapped Haiti's president and installed a paramilitary dictatorship, it could be argued that these were the actions of an unelected group with contempt for democracy. With this election, all of those actions have been retroactively justified by the majority of the American people. The first time around the Bush people acted without a mandate. Today, the only constituency that could have stopped them has given them a mandate to go beyond what they have done. In recent years, elections in every country have created media noise that drowned out radical voices. They were contests between weak liberalism gutted of most of its progressive economic and social content against hard reaction that promised to use every term in office to erode the institutions of liberal government and culture. Presented with such a stark choice, potentially radical progressives don't have much time for radical arguments. The hole is too deep, the potential losses too great, to gamble on radicalism. It seems that the liberals fought very hard this time. Radicals tried to tell Americans that the world was full of other people who were being devastated by America's policies. Liberals tried to tell Americans that they were being deceived, bamboozled, swindled, and sacrificed so that a small elite could rule and plunder. The radicals are silenced, the liberals are routed, and the field is clear for the fundamentalists. Who is left but bin Laden? “Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No. Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.” When Bush made his response, talking about terrorism and unity and enemies and intimidation, one could dismiss it as a fundamentalist reply to a fundamentalist threat. When Kerry did his own posturing, calling the terrorists barbarians and saying he'd stop at nothing to kill them, it was, perhaps, just cheap electioneering. But today the American people have answered as well. They lined up behind their killer leaders when they could have rejected them. That doesn't leave a lot of room for hope, other than about the key questions of how, what it will take, when they will (and whether they'll get a chance to) change their minds.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (20)

Person

Re: The morning after

By Organum, Baby at Nov 22, 2004 19:04 PM
There is the NEED to trust our written history. To come to grasp and sort it all. As a european i am all so a part of the amrican culture. A serious threat to the future of things good in my life , i feel is the masses of peopleout there that have non-corresponding wiews of history. No matter if they are evangelical fundamentalists or conspiracy-theory-arabians

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By Zaheen, Arza at Nov 06, 2004 04:34 AM
"On more serious matters, I think the misinformation thing is complex and that the solution isn't actually information. People are choosing information that fits their world view, values, and interests, and rejecting information that does not, it seems to me" Could the liberals at Z themselves be part of these "people"? What ARE the typical Z liberal's values and interests? Isn't it just a hodgepodge of anti-capitalist musings while living in a capitalist society, all the while resting on utopian idealism like Parecon? What are we fighting for really? How many people in the U.S. REALLY, I mean REALLY share these values of ours? Do we even know how to clearly illustrate what we REALLY believe in? Our moral values and the judgments that we base on them...where do they come from? What is the history of those values? Are they worth fighting for? Z liberals should be SUPER aware and knowledgable of the history of their ideals and ALSO Super efficient at explaining such ideals to their opponents/followers.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By Simonhl, Simonhl at Nov 05, 2004 21:02 PM
Did you see that Rick Salutin quoted "The Morning After" in the Globe and Mail...as written by "Greg Podur on the left-wing Z Net" Ha!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By Zap, Zap at Nov 05, 2004 17:30 PM
Actually, those figures support both conclusions. The fact that they believe those (completely untrue) things does not necessarily mean that they were simply duped. They may - and probably do - collaborate in their own ignorance. Denial is an amazing thing, and we're talking about FUNDAMENTALISTS here. These folks are the denial champs, and denial is not the same as ignorance. It requires active rejection of facts and concepts that threaten to unsettle your very settled life. Although there is certainly much truth to it, blaming someone else (the media, the politicians, the schools) for their ignorance ignores that they CHOOSE ignorance and then foist it on the rest of us as "values".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By M_porc, Mrporc at Nov 05, 2004 05:45 AM
Continued from before: - Plus, 55% believe, again incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. One in five believe Iraq was directly involved with the 9/11 attacks. - Just 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the United States having gone to war with Iraq. Fifty-one percent incorrectly assume Bush favors U.S. participation in the Kyoto treaty. Fifty-three percent believe he supports the International Criminal Court.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By M_porc, Mrporc at Nov 05, 2004 05:44 AM
Yo! If you guys can believe it, I've found that the results of this poll made before the election with people intending to vote for Bush can explain a lot of things (see: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000682675) - Asked whether we should have gone to war if Iraq was not making WMD or providing strong support to al-Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said no. - On WMDs : Even after the final report of chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD or a major program for developing them. - And 57% also believe, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points. - On the al-Qaeda link : 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has actually been found. continued.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By Reiner, Rewt2004 at Nov 05, 2004 05:33 AM
Continued from before: There is a fact that is encouraging and frustrating at the same time: In spite of the black southern Baptists' move to the right, 88% of the black vote was for Kerry, and most of those are not part of the middle class that everyone payed so much attention to. Why can the Democratic party not carry disenfranchised whites as well? All was about the glorious middle class, while the majority of people live like serfs. They didn't really give if enough a try to mobilize the disenfranchised because it would need a much more far-reaching economic program. In principle, even a guy like Kerry, coming from the elite of this country could do this - remember Robert Kennedy who was shot in California: He mobilized so many people just like Martin Luther King did: For social justice, which can be preached on the street and in the church. (All I know about him, as a foreigner, is a very moving documentary about him that was on PBS). I whish we had someone like that guy or like Martin Luther King. I'd go to church for that!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By Reiner, Rewt2004 at Nov 05, 2004 05:32 AM
It really sucks but it's not true that this slip to the right happened all of a sudden. It happened gradually and the big outpour of religious righteous knuckleheads is the thing that brought us over the edge. Many saw it come but didn't have a clue how to handle the Christian Taliban in this country. Now one was really prepared for this, but it's not the reason why we have bush again. Continued

Reply this comment

Person

By Jaspar2002us, Jaspar2002us at Nov 05, 2004 03:51 AM
November 3, 2004 Reality Check The Democrat wing of The One Party imagined Bu$h was running for a second term when actually he was running for a fourth term. What! Bu$h adopted FDR's maxim-- "Don't change horses in the middle of the stream" --and The Evil People loved it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By Zap, Zap at Nov 04, 2004 23:39 PM
Mick: "I don't think anyone will seriously be blaming the American population as a whole for the disaster that is Bush." You are in denial. The rest of the world officially does blame Americans as a whole as of today. And frankly speaking they have every right to do so. America is on a crusade, and we should not expect the world to share our unconvincing rationalizations for the reasons.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By Ivano, Ivano at Nov 04, 2004 15:22 PM
I don't agree that the divide is national, that it's the US public versus the rest of the world. Had the conditions of the election been transplanted onto Canada, Britain or any other part of the rich world where a majority are comfortable and content, the results wouldn't have been different. The problem is class and the comfort it brings, whether material or mental, mixed with an eroding sense of ethics. Deep down I think US citizens know Bush will do best to comfort them; they will be able to carry on with their guilt-free shopping, wave their flag proudly, work the most meaningless jobs and feel a sense of mission about it, etc. The Democrats, however mild, will only make them think that little bit more and will mean sacrifice. In Venezuela the same battle rages, but the difference is that the segment of people who are content and comfortable is vastly in the minority and most people are really struggling and want change. But the escualidos there are equally conservative and willing to back the most dumbed down strongmen. And they're as much to blaim as any American. Ditto for the comfort-seekers in Canada, Britain, etc.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By Dancehallvibes, Svoyk at Nov 04, 2004 09:11 AM
you know as an american i am sad. now living in america, i have some pretty low standards about what to expect (hell i've been to wal-mart). but even i am surprized with the bigotry and ignorance of this country. yes i know half of the people didn't vote for bush. but giving the benefit of the doubt that still makes every other person i see a moron. so yes ampdis i guess you can count me as one of the paranoid. because right now the right just made a rather impressive power consolidation. the next four years are going to be uncomfortable.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By S3344945, Mick at Nov 04, 2004 07:47 AM
I don't think anyone will seriously be blaming the American population as a whole for the disaster that is Bush. People ouside of America should also realise that unless they are from one of the very few countries which have in some form got a Government that is half decent that they shouldn't be too critical of the Americans, who have about the same choices when voting as we do. That is, to chose between a blatantly right wing ideolog or the pale imitation that calls itself the opposition. There is obvioulsy not a strong enough left prescence to couteract the rightwood pull in an ever more polarised and divided community.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By Paespo, Ampdis at Nov 04, 2004 05:31 AM
Please understand, while it may appear that the US has endorsed Bush's attrocities by re-electing him, it was only half of those who actually voted that endorsed him. The rest of us, including those of us voting for the very first time, were motivated to do so, at least, to remove Bush from office. Please do not judge all of us by some of US. I fear that a great section of America is very provincial and very paranoid.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By S3344945, Mick at Nov 04, 2004 05:21 AM
It may seem incomprhensible but it happened here as well, mainly because of our Labor parties exceptence of the parameters for the election debate and campaign and their inability to exhibit any difference, or create any reason for people to vote for them. We have to accept the utter bankruptcy of the 'social democratic' parties worldwide and build an alternative, one that is both activist based and has the interests of the working class not only as part of the party platform but as an integral part of its operation.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By S3344945, Mick at Nov 04, 2004 05:17 AM
We have just had a similar election result in Australia, probably the most ractionary government in Australias rcent history at least saw a 3% swing towards them. The first reaction of many is to blame the stupidity/selfishness of the people. But if they realistically have no choice and the agenda that is set for the election allows for no real analysis of Bush's many failures and criminal activities why would people chose any other way.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By Cexxx, (a).gif at Nov 04, 2004 02:17 AM
I get the impression that your saying the majority of the US citizens that voted this election have now justified the criminal policies Bush administration. And not only justified, but now endorse these and like policies for future use. If I'm correct in understanding you, I must disagree. How many of the right wing that came out in full force this election still believe the gross inaccuracies of the Bush admin. 70% of the population believed that the war against Iraq is a US national security response to Sept11. These same people still believe we have already found WMD's in Iraq, ect. I think the truth of the matter is that the majority of the right that put Bush back in power yesterday, excluding the wealthy, are factually decieved by the some of the most effective propaganda the nation has seen. They don't see the line forming behind killers. They are forming a line behind their savior.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By Zaheen, Arza at Nov 04, 2004 00:09 AM
I think it's pretty obvious the "z-left" is baffled at the result. It has completely failed to realize: *The whole American electorate has shifted sharply to the right. *The Democratic party doesn't support most of the values the leftists here at Z. *Books, websites and blogs may bring in donations and pocket money, but they will NEVER make a substantial change in the system. Because websites and blogs can never fight the power of the church, faith and youth apathy. The Z liberals need to stop supporting the incorrigible Democrats and unconditionally support a Leftist political party.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By M_porc, Mrporc at Nov 03, 2004 23:16 PM
Hello, Since few years now, I'm increasingly trying to "do something" to help out with the problems of our world. I also happend to live in the US since a couple years now (I'm french-canadian though). Anyways, the clear result of yesterday's election makes me think that there is something I clearly don't understand... Is it about the american people, about democracy,...? I'm not sure at all! But I'm obviously clueless about what the people really want, at least in the US. How is it possible to help out in this context? I'm very afraid that I could have acted blindly, like a fool, during the last months...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The morning after

By Murphy2, Ajbmurphy at Nov 03, 2004 19:00 PM
I watched the election unfolding from England. There is a substantial constituency of deeply reactionary opinion in America that is susceptible and open to right-wing political mobilization based on a rhetoric of anti-modernism. The so-called 'clash of civilizations' spouted by some as representing the Enlightened West versus the Fundamentalist terror is clearly an aberration. The clash of civilizations seems to be playing out within the US itself.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (20)

Loading_border