I think M.R. raises a relevant point about educational adequacy and would add that American K-12 schooling is generally inadequate (and quite unequal) not just in the ways normally discussed --- pay, funding, facilities, teacher quality, etc. --- but also in moral and ideological ways suggested very well by sociologist James Lowen's well known critique of savage conservative bias in U.S. History textbooks, titled Lies My Teacher Me.  See also pages 78-87 186-190 in my stunning monograph Segregated Schools.

The day after the big Democratic victory I saw a local television news clip giving favorable coverage to a  second-grade class in some town in Iowa where the nice white female teacher was having all her kids send little American flag symbols to "the soldiers in Iraq."  The kids were instructed to write the following sorts of comments on the symbols: "Thank You for protecting our country;" "Thank you for keeping us safe from terrorism;" "Thank you for protecting my freedom." That kind of Orwellian bullshit my seem like kid's stuff  to college educated readers but something tells me it's criminal indoctrination that could end up costing some of those kids their lives (not to mention the lives of some Arab, Asian, or Latin American children) or their souls in the future.  I did a post a while back (having Internt connection issues at present - otherwise would link it) on the simply awful number of GIs (it was over 70 percent) in Iraq who believed their officers' propaganda claim that they were in Mesopotamia to "Avenge 9/11." Few troops have been encouraged by their often dullardly education-major teachers to develop the critical thinking or informational basis to counter that sort of powerful message.

This problem is also part of the argument against a so-called volunteer - that is, a mercenary - army and for a draft.  If you must have a military, then it should be a citizen's army (with no exemptions for the rich) and involve conscription.   

Regarding Public Agenda post, I welcome any and all openings to discuss foreign policy options for sure.  If this is an opening, and it may be, then...cool.  But we have to think critically about the questions we ask and the often terrible, narrow and ideologically selective (see Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's book Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of Mass Media) informational basis upon which Americans are forced to respond to pollsters and indeed to life and the world.  It's good that Americans want better intelligence but how many of them (have been permitted or encouraged to) know that Iraq was illegally invaded not so much on the basis of 'bad intelligence" as of cooked (made to order) intelligence.  It's good they want to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil but how many of them (have been permitted and encouraged to) know that imperial US foreign policy objectives and doctrine call for control of ME oil even if the U.S. was fully energy-autonomous ....this because of the critical leverage controlling that oil gives the U.S. over competitor states and regions who are considerably more dependent on ME oil than we are. 

 

 

 

Mariam, wait when they'll teach your kids to sale products that are inadequate...

Hi. It's interesting to consider the repercussion of this administrative change -- the American people are definitely thinking about it.

The real question, now that the Democrats have gained control of Congress by focusing on foreign policy, is "what now?" And that's going to be tough, because opinion surveys show the public doesn't have a lot of confidence in any of the strategies on the table. This Public Agenda survey found that only two options, better intelligence gathering and reducing dependence on foreign energy, get any real support from the public.

Check it out at:
http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/foreignpolicy_energy.htm

http://publicagenda.org

When are we going to have a serious discussion about an educational system that turns out people who do not know where Canada is, what a sec of state does, do not know what habeas corpus is so will not miss it, they think. These same people, with the attention span of a gnat, can give you a dissertation lasting an hour on what some sports team and it´s coaches did or did not do on Sunday....and it will be well thought out and very well presented.

It takes a plan and lots of effort to do this, because, while you cannot keep children from learning, you can direct their attention where you want it, and you can make sure they think anything else is too hard, or not fun, or not cool. My little great nieces in Ten were taken to the mall from kindergarten on to learn about shopping.......really.....I could not make that up.

So we have people who are immune to learning anything not sports, celebrity, or shopping.

Why have we tolerated it?     

HIGHLY recommended reading for right and left wingers of all persuasions..... Good posting and VERY appropriate to many of the problems faced by this world today.

Cyrano We are where we are. I might not like the Constitution, but I try to follow its spirit - it's all the people of the USA have. But I will be damned if I won't speak out against someone like Bush and the neocons who have trampled what rights we do have via that documment into the ground with a contempt that defies adequate overstatement. In the end, however, people are people wherever they hail from. And they deserve to be treated like human beings, US-citizens or not. That's what I have against those who trample the rights of the Palestinians - they don't treat them with the same respect that they would any other human. They are given a blanket classification of terrorist, and that's the end of that - they deserve whatever terrorists deserve. And I think that's disgusting.

hey Victor.. I value your legal opinion, I think its not safe for american citizens or even - non arabs and non muslim aliens.. this law is demented. as per your constitution, I don't know whats the fuzz about if your government does not even obey its principles nor does it trust its own legal system.. In my opinion there is difference between a simple citizen who does not like an unrespected constitution and a political leader whom outright violate it.. I wont mention the violation of alien rights for now..and i dont know what is more dangerous for the US at this moment, pseudo ennemies on the account of long standing grievances or the intelligence that is in pursuit of the control of oil.. heil laBush out your TV..

National Yawn as Our Rights Evaporate By Keith Olbermann MSNBC Countdown Wednesday 18 October 2006 New law redefines habeas corpus; law professor explains on "Countdown." On Tuesday, "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann talked to Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University about a new bill signed by President Bush that redefines the right of habeas corpus. Read the transcript below. History does not play well at this White House. Expressionless faces would probably greet references to how John Adams ended his political career by insisting he needed the Alien and Sedition Acts to silence his critics in the newspapers, or how Franklin D. Roosevelt's executive order to seize Japanese-Americans during World War II necessitated a formal presidential apology eight presidents later. But even so, somebody probably should have told President Bush that today was the exact 135th anniversary, to the day, that President Grant suspended habeas corpus in much of South Carolina for the noble and urgent purpose of dispersing the Ku Klux Klan and making sure the freed slaves had all their voting rights, neither of which has yet truly occurred. It is your principal defense against imprisonment without charge and trial without defense thrown away for no good reason, then and now. Our fifth story on "Countdown": President Bush, happy Habeas Corpus Day. First thing this morning, the president signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which does away with habeas corpus, the right of suspected terrorists or anybody else to know why they have been imprisoned, provided the president does not think it should apply to you and declares you an enemy combatant. Further, the bill allows the CIA to continue using interrogation techniques so long as they do not cause what is deemed, quote, "serious physical or mental pain." And it lets the president to ostensibly pick and choose which parts of the Geneva Convention to obey, though to hear him describe this, this repudiation of the freedoms for which all our soldiers have died is a good thing. President Bush: This bill spells out specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes in the handling of detainees, so that our men and women who question captured terrorists can perform their duties to the fullest extent of the law. And this bill complies with both the spirit and the letter of our international obligations. Olbermann: Leading Democrats view it differently, Senator Ted Kennedy calling this "seriously flawed," Senator Patrick Leahey saying it's, quote, "a sad day when the rubber-stamp Congress undercuts our freedoms," and Senator Russ Feingold adding that "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history." Outside the White House, a handful of individuals protested the law by dressing up as Abu Ghraib abuse victims and terror detainees. Several of them got themselves arrested, but they were apparently quickly released, despite being already dressed for Gitmo. To assess what this law will truly mean for us all, I'm joined by Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University. I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, "a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense." Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant? Johathan Turley, George Washington University Constitutional Law Professor: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant. And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death. So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he's going be putting on this board. Olbermann: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States? Turley: It does. And it's a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn't rely on their good motivations. Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values. It couldn't be more significant. And the strange thing is, we've become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. I mean, the Congress just gave the president despotic powers, and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to, you know, "Dancing with the Stars." I mean, it's otherworldly. Olbermann: Is there one defense against this, the legal challenges against particularly the suspension or elimination of habeas corpus from the equation? And where do they stand, and how likely are they to overturn this action today? Turley: Well, you know what? I think people are fooling themselves if they believe that the courts will once again stop this president from taking over - taking almost absolute power. It basically comes down to a single vote on the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy. And he indicated that if Congress gave the president these types of powers, that he might go along. And so we may have, in this country, some type of uber-president, some absolute ruler, and it'll be up to him who gets put away as an enemy combatant, held without trial. It's something that no one thought - certainly I didn't think - was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're going to change back anytime soon. Olbermann: And if Justice Kennedy tries to change us back, we can always call him an enemy combatant. The president reiterated today the United States does not torture. Does this law actually guarantee anything like that? Turley: That's actually when I turned off my TV set, because I couldn't believe it. You know, the United States has engaged in torture. And the whole world community has denounced the views of this administration, its early views that the president could order torture, could cause injury up to organ failure or death. The administration has already established that it has engaged in things like waterboarding, which is not just torture. We prosecuted people after World War II for waterboarding prisoners. We treated it as a war crime. And my God, what a change of fate, where we are now embracing the very thing that we once prosecuted people for. Who are we now? I know who we were then. But when the president said that we don't torture, that was, frankly, when I had to turn off my TV set. Olbermann: That same individual fell back on the same argument that he'd used about the war in Iraq to sanction this law. Let me play what he said and then ask you a question about it. President Bush: Yet with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few. Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat? Olbermann: Does he understand the irony of those words when taken out of the context of this particular passage or of what he perceives as the war against terror, and that, in fact, the threat we may be facing is the threat of President George W. Bush? Turley: Well, this is going to go down in history as one of our greatest self-inflicted wounds. And I think you can feel the judgment of history. It won't be kind to President Bush. But frankly, I don't think that it will be kind to the rest of us. I think that history will ask, Where were you? What did you do when this thing was signed into law? There were people that protested the Japanese concentration camps, there were people that protested these other acts. But we are strangely silent in this national yawn as our rights evaporate. Olbermann: Well, not to pat ourselves on the back too much, but I think we've done a little bit of what we could have done. I'll see you at Gitmo. As always, greatest thanks for your time, Jon. Turley: Thanks, Keith. ------- Olbermann Addresses the Military Commissions Act in a Special Comment By Keith Olbermann MSNBC Countdown Wednesday 18 October 2006 We have lived as if in a trance. We have lived as people in fear. And now - our rights and our freedoms in peril - we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid of the wrong thing. Therefore, tonight have we truly become the inheritors of our American legacy. For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering: A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from. We have been here before - and we have been here before led here - by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush. We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use those acts to jail newspaper editors. American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote about America. We have been here when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as "Hyphenated Americans," most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war. American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said about America. And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9066 was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that order to imprison and pauperize 110,000 Americans while his man in charge, General DeWitt, told Congress: "It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen - he is still a Japanese." American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did, but for the choices they or their ancestors had made about coming to America. Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons. And each was a betrayal of that for which the president who advocated them claimed to be fighting. Adams and his party were swept from office, and the Alien and Sedition Acts erased. Many of the very people Wilson silenced survived him, and one of them even ran to succeed him, and got 900,000 votes, though his presidential campaign was conducted entirely from his jail cell. And Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States to the citizens of the United States whose lives it ruined. The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons. In times of fright, we have been only human. We have let Roosevelt's "fear of fear itself" overtake us. We have listened to the little voice inside that has said, "the wolf is at the door; this will be temporary; this will be precise; this too shall pass." We have accepted that the only way to stop the terrorists is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists. Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets. Or substitute the Japanese. Or the Germans. Or the Socialists. Or the Anarchists. Or the Immigrants. Or the British. Or the Aliens. The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons. And, always, always wrong. "With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?" Wise words. And ironic ones, Mr. Bush. Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act. You spoke so much more than you know, Sir. Sadly - of course - the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously was you. We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." But even within this history we have not before codified the poisoning of habeas corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow. You, sir, have now befouled that spring. You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order. You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom. For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons. And - again, Mr. Bush - all of them, wrong. We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done to anything the terrorists have ever done. We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that "the United States does not torture. It's against our laws and it's against our values" and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him. We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens "unlawful enemy combatants" and ship them somewhere - anywhere - but may now, if he so decides, declare you an "unlawful enemy combatant" and ship you somewhere - anywhere. And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president. And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an "unlawful enemy combatant" - exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you? This President now has his blank check. He lied to get it. He lied as he received it. Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against? "These military commissions will provide a fair trial," you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush, "in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney and can hear all the evidence against them." "Presumed innocent," Mr. Bush? The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain "serious mental and physical trauma" in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense. "Access to an attorney," Mr. Bush? Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty. "Hearing all the evidence," Mr. Bush? The Military Commissions Act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense. Your words are lies, Sir. They are lies that imperil us all. "One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks," you told us yesterday, "said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America." That terrorist, sir, could only hope. Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought. Habeas corpus? Gone. The Geneva Conventions? Optional. The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out. These things you have done, Mr. Bush, they would be "the beginning of the end of America." And did it even occur to you once, sir - somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 - that with only a little further shift in this world we now know - just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died -- did it ever occur to you once that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future president and a "competent tribunal" of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of "unlawful enemy combatant" for - and convene a Military Commission to try - not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush? For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons. And doubtless, Sir, all of them - as always - wrong. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101906L.shtml

Habeas must exist for 1 and 2, yes. But not until 3. It WILL NOT apply to citizens during 3. And there is NO time limit on 3. As for the Constitution, I'm flattered that you remember what I said. But you must also remember the context. The ideals behind the Constitution are noble. But in fact it does little to protect the people against REAL power vested in the elite. For that, I can forgive neither the Constitution nor the founding fathers, who knew exactly what they were doing.

Three things must be present:

1. Alienage

2. Enemy combatant status

3. Properly determining 1. and 2.

 That means habeas may exist for one and two. This law DOES NOT apply to citizens. (Read the definition of enemy combatant.)

The Geneva Convensions ONLY applies between signatories.  Your notion of "human rights" does not apply.

 

I have a feeling that Congress not Bush, (learn how the system works) could have passed a law that said enemy combatants should be given roses and a box of chocolates and people would have complained simply because they "don't like" who's in the White House.  May I remind you Victor, a few weeks ago you stated you hated the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have read the document. Please refer to the following quote from that document: "SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS. (a) In General.--Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e): ``(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. ``(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.''." If you would like an interpretation of its meaning, I would direct your attention to (1) above, especially as it pertains not only to "aliens" properly detained as enemy combatants, OR is awaiting such determination. Legal experts much more clear eyed than myself have indicated that a person can be held without charge as long as the Government decides while awaiting this determination of their (1) "alieness", and (2) their status as enemy combatant. If you don't believe that a citizen of the United States cannot be picked up without probable cause, and held indefinitely while this "determination" is being made, then you, dude, are seriously mistaken. And to make it even scarier, in (2) above, the courts have no authority whatsoever to even review such a case while this "determination" is being made. There exists NO limit as to how long a person may be held while awaiting enemy combatant status. Theoretically, for the rest of your natural life. No one has to be told you were picked up. No one has to be told where you are being held. No one has to know when you are moved or transferred. No one has to be told how you are treated. No one has to be told when or even IF you will receive trial. No one has to be told the conditions of your confinement. Maybe, I mis-interpret. Or maybe Bushie or Dickie wouldn't really do anything like that to an American citizen. But this is now law. Can you say with comfort that a future Fuhrer wouldn't? Can you REALLY say that you are protected because you are an American citizen? And even if you aren't an American citizen, don't you think you should have basic human rights bestowed upon you by whatever country takes you into custody? And don't you think that as a citizen of SOME country, you should be able to avail yourself of the rights and protections of internationally agreed treaties, like the Geneva Conventions? You have a LOT more faith in the Empire than I do...dude.

Dude, read the Military Commissions Act again. It is S. 3930. (you can read it on Thomas, the Library of Congress website.)

 

Habeas Corpus is not denied in the manner that people are criticizing the bill for. Read the ENTIRE bill carefully.  

 

As for the Patriot Act, Clinton was pushing for many of those same reforms, and many of those reforms were already on the books.  They were just put together in one Act.  Again, read the ENTIRE bill and its history.  Go to Thomas. 

 

OK. The Dems won. But just what does that mean? The Reds are out, and the Blues in? Yes. Now if we could just find a way to get the Blues out as well. That aside, just who is it that the American people voted in, and why did they do it? Were they just plain fed-up with the Dark One and His minions? Probably. Were they fed up with the progress of the war in Viet...uh...Iraq? Yes, but I suspect not because they consider that an immoral war, but more because the Empire is losing. Do you really think the American people would vote a political party out for WINNING a war - ANY war? - THIS war? - An UNJUST war? - a genocidal war? - an oil war? Do you really think the American people would blink an eye over 2800 killed of their sons and daughters if they were winning this war? Do you really think the American people would give a damn about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis - men, women and children) - and the untold amount of vital Iraqi infrastructure destroyed if they were WINNING? Do you think the American people would give a fuck what the rest of the world thought if they were WINNING? Do you think the Democratic Party, the party representing those who think SOMEONE has to run in opposition (even if they are cardboard placeholders), would have won if Der Fuhrer and his obedient Reichstags was on a WINNING streak? Do you think the American people would give a shit if the economy of the Empire were being eaten out from the inside like the creature from Alien, if they were WINNING? Do you really think the American people would REALLY care if they were down to their very LAST "freedom" to defend, IF they were WINNING? No, my friends. George Bush and the Republicans lost for one reason, and ONE reason only. They made the fatal mistake of losing a war. And they voted into power the party that helped Mr. Bush do precisely that. - LOSE. And in the end, as it was before the election, as it is now, and God help us, as it will ever be, the REAL losers are the American people themselves. Poor, wretched, roundly fat from too many Twinkies and TV, SUV-driving, suburban, Bible-thumping, sports-centric, iPod-in-both-ears, Where-the hell-is-that-country-called-Africa, American bozos. We have met the enemy - and we is proud to say that we is it. Celebrate for a day. Even a little change is good for a moment's reflection. But at the end of this day as you kick back in front of the tube with that big grin on your little round face with your beer and Twinkies and that glazed look in your eyes and the drop of sweat trickling down your forehead from almost having borne a thought, remember something well - the REAL rulers of this Empire were not even touched. There is yet work to do. There is STRUCTURE to tear down and remove from our sight. And if we rely upon Tuesday's victory (for whom?) to somehow give us pride and hope for the future of this country, then I would remind you that the those voted in were the same ones who approved Bush's appointees, were the same ones who voted for the Patriot Act (TWICE!), for the Military Commissions Act that removed your right of Habeas Corpus, who helped create the giant Department of Fatherland (Homeland) "Security", who voted in tax breaks for the immensely rich, and who continue to support and FUND wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the countless murders and destruction in the wake of these immoral efforts. Celebrate. Indeed.

Eddie wrote : what ever happened to communists having faith in the masses? In my opinion, they were awarded the prestigious Order of Lenin and the beauty of it my dear Eddie, former communist ideologues are reforming to a more human form of socialism.. It be good demo-rep neo-fascists also become more human.. Eddie why does your country host genocidal presidents?

If only the electorate were as smart as the good people at Z-net...

 

Hey, what ever happened to communists having faith in the masses?

And wake them up to (really my main point here) the conservatism of the leading Democrats, who now feel dangerously rewarded for bascially having no progressive vision. They beat something awful with nothing wonderful. They got a winner-take-all windfall from the mass electoral tsunami of hatred against Darth Cheney, boy king Dubya (reduced to open blustering idiocy and pathetic childishness in today's horrifying press conference), and the now departed Donny Pentagon. Yes its just amazing and disconcerting to see people waking up to the supreme evil and danger of Team Bush six years after Terrible George's Supreme Court appointment to the most powerful office on earth. The signs were there for those who cared to look well before the initial presidential selection, itslef a horrifying episode.

chance that we can effect some reversals of the damage by pressure from the bottom. I do not have a lot of hope, mind you, but, after the last six years it seems almost like a rainbow.

Then, again, it may have to get much, much worse to actually wake up the people of the US to the real agenda of the conservatives. I thought these six years had been enough to make it crystal clear to anyone with an IQ above oysterhood, but the O´Reillys have done a better job than I thought possible.

So Bush is not that two-by-four between the eyes......

what will be?   

Keir: I was watching BBC's live coverage of US elections and the anchor was going off with some "expert" (an American academic with an over-obvious hair-piece) claiming that the Democratic Party was under left-wing direction. That's called not paying attention to basics. I think some good people overseas are just horrified by the Monumental War Criminal Bush and so are desparate to see signs of substantive change over here. I would imagine a number of European leftists would think that Obama is a progressive. And of course they don't have detailed knowledge of U.S. politics and how its set up to preserve corporate power and advance imperial domination at all costs. I'm often unimpressed by ostensibly intelligent European takes on the U.S.; many Europeans by my recollection had an inadequate sense of how conservative Clinton was for example. The horror of Bush has reinforced myopia regarding corporate-neoliberal Iraqi killer (through mass-murders "economic sanctions" primarily)Bill. Even I never say "no difference at all" between the parties (and I never heard it taken that far by Nader). But of course the spectrum of difference is so narrow as to be pathetic.

Right on Paul. I didn't vote -- similarly without illusion. But get this: the corporate media that has managed to convince millions of Americans that there is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans (failing, of course, to say what those differences might be) has even prevailed in convincing some otherwise lucid-thinking Europeans that California's actor/governor has "gone left". I'm looking forward to seeing how last night's massive "left" mandate is going to work out for these folks. Keir The Hague

Really had to hold my nose today (also see this article by Wallarstein http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/11/05/INGU6M3N2M1.DTL!) There was a green candidate for the local school board though. The only thing that makes this bearable (not nearly enough though) is that at least this (Virginia) race is close.

Nice job "Eddie (not verified)" ...way to be a complete Chicago dumbass: no substantive response to the numerous very specific and detailed aspects of my argument. Just call a reasoned critique "irrational communist propaganda" and pretend like you've exhibted one or two functioning gray cells in the flickering recesses of your narrow mind.

Too many of those Chicago hot dogs can slow the oxygen flow to the brain, Eddie.

Since you probably like Hizzonor da Mare (most white Chicago dummies do), take a look at more of my "irrational Communist propaganda" on ZNet's top page today. That ought to send you the fridge for another Old Style.

I'm no Stroger fan (and see what I say in the above Daley-Bush piece about inherited name recognition and politics) but something tells me the main thing you don't like about him and are going with a Republican (in Chicago) is that Stroger is black and Tony Peracia (who?) isn't. 

How about dem Bears?

How long did it take you to type that temper tantrum? 

What part of democracy do you not understand when the people don't support your irrational communist propaganda?

Speaking of Democrats, did you vote for Todd Stroger?