Disqus - Latest Comments for alyoder

Re: In Defense of Populism

Political Heretic — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 04:23:49 -0000

Well the days when the Right said that the government should be small and take from nobody have long, long since passed. We haven't had that kind of right (at least not a Republican-right) in the last thirty years really. Perhaps they were still throwing around the slogans, but in reality their policy was all about taking from the poor to give to the rich, even before bailouts were required.

This is how Reaganomics gave is the decoupling of wages from productivity for the working class for the first time in the 20th century, and how the top percentiles of wealthy Americans exponentially expanded their wealth while real wages for the middle class stagnated (all through the 80s and on to today) or declined in the case of the working poor.

That's what I call big government (in the form of big corporate subsidizing government) and government that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

Unfortunately its likely that the GOP will successfully reinvent itself as the party of "small" government and fiscal frugality over the next decade, and we'll be back to the same cycle all over again.

Gotta get off of this merry go round.....

Re: Spotlight MSNBC: Bailed Out Corporations Buying Washington Politicians

Political Heretic — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:10:11 -0000

Well, historically that's what we see happening.

Consider for example the last FISA authorization, which granted telecom companies that broke the law immunity from prosecution. One the Republican side of the Senate isle, you have some who had ideological agreement with the main points of the bill to be sure. But setting them aside and focusing only on the Democrats, Democrats voting for the bill had two to three times the amount of money coming from the telecom industry as those who voted against it.

Money shouldn't be the deciding factor in the decisions of our representatives. But we all know (or I think most of us believe) that it is. And that's a huge problem.

Re: We are Losing America Right Before Our Blind Eyes

Political Heretic — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 06:40:04 -0000

Thanks for adding those stats! Much appreciated and clearly overlooked by me! :)

Re: EFCA – Day 2

Political Heretic — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 03:49:50 -0000

Hi John -

Couple mistakes to clear up. First of all, the Employee Free Choice Act is about exactly what it says it is about: choice. Under EFCA if a majority of employees (not the employer) wanted to have a secret ballot as the way to determine a vote for unionization, they could still do that. But EFCA provides another option for employees.

Employees sometimes need another option because the the process of getting to an actual secret ballot vote is often heavily manipulated by employers. If employees come to an employer and say they want a union, the employer then decides when to schedule a secret ballot vote. In the time leading up to that vote however, what we have seen often happens is that employers hire union busters and launch a full scale (and sometimes even illegal) campaign to intimidate and dissuade workers from unionizing.

Intimidation and manipulation should never be part of the process. As far as the ballot system goes, this is one choice open to employees. But it does not remove the option for secret ballot. Let me say that again, and please go read the bill yourself, since Washington republicans are lying about this: it does not remove the option for the secret ballot. It does not remove the option.

It's true that its always possible that some workers might be retaliated against. Pro-union workers might be retaliated against by anti-union workers just as much as anti-union workers might be retaliated against by pro-union workers. But because the secret ballot approach is so heavily tilted in favor of the employer by the way it is structured (an entire business has grown out of the job of union intimidation!) employees need more options.

The simple truth: EFCA makes it easier for employees to join unions. Plain and simple. That's why the GOP is ready to fight to their last man against it, and why the rest of us are for it.

Re: Obama Must Do Better

Political Heretic — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:33:20 -0000

Thank you for the kind words and for sharing your story. Your generous, compassionate attitude is going to be crucial in the difficult years to come.

We're all in this together!

Re: Bailout Fiasco Watch: Remember the Supposed Urgency of Passing the Only Plan Seriously Considered?

Political Heretic — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:44:19 -0000

Well said.

Re: The Shock Doctrine in Action

Political Heretic — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:36:50 -0000

Additionally, ordinary Americans should be seriously questioning how much of this crisis was purposefully exacerbated or manufactured as part of a way to fleece the taxpayers and turn over almost the entire power of the treasury to a small corporatoracy cabal.

The revolution will not be televised.

Re: The Shock Doctrine in Action

Political Heretic — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 07:58:11 -0000

Hey man!

I just wanted to mention that while I completely agree with the principle of
that email - the math happens to be wrong. If its divided correctly 85
billion (the price of the AIG bailout that happened before this 700 billion
dollar BS) into 200 million comes out to 475$ before taxes.

Re: More Americans Question Religion's Role In Politics

Political Heretic — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 05:03:21 -0000

I don't look at it as an either/or thing. As a person who's spiritual faith is very important to me, I am concerned about that way "religion" is wielded as a political tactic.

The people who speak most eloquently about this are my mother and father, both who feel that the blending of religion and politics is not a good thing. As my Mom said to me a week ago, "I don't want James Dobson speaking for me."

I don't want to get into a debate about the framers' intent. We both know that that too, was not an either or thing. For every quote one person can cite from a framer talking about the role of religion in government, you can quote another framer saying the exact opposite. There is no question that no framer envisioned a public or private life completely without religious belief of any kind. I'm not interested in eradicating all evidence that our country was founded largely by religious men. I'm not suggesting we remove God from the pledge or erase it from our money.

What I am suggesting that religion used as a political tool is a twisted mess. Focus on the Family doesn't represent me, nor my father, nor my mother. It may represent other people of Christian faith, and I respect that. But I don't want them taking the name "Christianity" and applying it to the political agenda.

It was Jesus himself who said render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is Gods. I tend to think that if Jesus wanted his followers to be more politically involved, he would have taught that. But he didn't. His teaching constantly focused on the compassionate meeting of the needs of the poor and the oppressed.

Historically speaking, people believed that the "Messiah" would in fact be involved in the politics of the day, raise a rebellion against the Romans and free Israel again. Was that what Jesus was about? Was that what he taught? No.

Please understand - this is not an anti-religious stance. Just ask my parents, who feel the same way. But we are of the opinion that the only religious theocracy that works is one where God himself is in charge. And we aren't there yet. Theocracies under human beings are historically the most violent and repressive regimes in human history - Christian and otherwise.

The attempts to mask political ambition in the name of religion is a dangerous, ugly thing. And its fortunate that the public is beginning to recognize that.

Re: Practical Vision Explained

Political Heretic — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:16:06 -0000

You sound like someone I might be able to have an honest discussion with. I will respond more later when I have more time.

Re: Practical Vision Explained

Political Heretic — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:29:18 -0000

You are confused - no application for membership is required to post here, and if you are referring to another discussion forum, no "rebuttal" was posted there. Anaxarcho's can respond to comments I made here anytime he wishes. I have no administrative control over other discussion boards.

I find it interesting that so far none of you have done anything but engage in illogical name calling. What I call practical is what is possible, not "allowable." When you present me with an explanation of a better way I can take present action to effect greater change, I will be thrilled to listen. Until then, I'll continue to do what I can, as opposed to nothing.

"Heretic," is in the eye of the beholder. Heretic has always only ever meant not conforming to a set of dogmas. In this case, it is your dogmatic attitude that I don't conform to. Odds are I would agree with you in all the institutional criticisms you would possibly make, but I don't accept the all-or-nothing attitude that justifies a failure to use the human resources of time and energy at your disposal to work to make a difference in actual human lives.

I often feel that the rhetoric of many self-proclaimed "radicals" is really just a cover to feel better about inaction and to shirk any responsibility to practically act to make the world a little better. The mantra of the faux-radical: "Since it cannot be immediately made perfect, I can therefore justify doing nothing for others, and instead bask in my glory in my ivory tower of pseudo-intellectual arrogance."

Oh and, I should point out, my attempts to register at your home site were rejected as well.

Re: Practical Vision Explained

Political Heretic — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:07:08 -0000

In the future, please don't spam my comment boards with massive cut and paste essays attributed to other authors not even responding to me. However, what you fail to appreciate about "anaxarcho's " comments, is that it may be excellent at argument against always voting for one Party, say the Democratic Party, but it has little to nothing to do with what I believe.

I don't believe a person should always vote "Democratic." I believe a person should vote for person who most represents the policies and positions he or she believes are most right AND WHO IS ALSO ELECTABLE. In a race with an electable candidate who is for a living wage, and pacifism and an end to corporate welfare and I will vote for that candidate, whether he or she has an (R) or a (D) or an (I) after the name.

However, what history repeatedly shows us, and anaxarchos would seem to agree by his given choice of examples, is that social revolutions don't suddenly appear out of nowhere, and they do not begin from the top down. They begin at the grassroots level, and they grow as power is built at each successive level. The Civil Rights movement didn't "begin" with the march on Washington. It began with the actions of a few individuals and their choices to organize. It grew from there.

You keep misunderstanding, and then misrepresenting my point. I wonder if it is deliberate. I agree with anaxarchos that every subsequent Democratic candidate has continued to generate "less" than the candidate before. I agree that the Democratic Party slips further and further from populism or truly liberal ideals. And I have never, in my entire life, been a Democratic Party loyalist. This was never my point.

My point was, when it comes to the Presidential election of 2008, you ought to support the electable candidate that is best of the electable as opposed to supporting an unelectable candidate - while at the same time, continuing to work in your local communities to BUILD the base necessary to support BETTER candidates in the future! It's really not that complicated.

So far YOU, sir, who do so much talking about change and everything that is wrong with the system, haven't done enough to create a political base of popular support that can sustain a better non-party presidential candidate. So while you work on doing that, you have the choice to either vote in support of the electable candidate that is best of the options, or vote for an unelectable candidate purely for symbolism and catharisis. The former choice does more to protect real people and meet real needs than the latter. And that is all that should matter.

As to the rest of your remarks, they're all silly personal attacks. You claim I'm ignorant of theory and/or history, but offer no examples for basis of the claim. So I have little else to say about them.