There's a word for what's happening: fascism. And it is a distinctly made in the USA brand. Personal abdication of the citizens in political life, surrendering to a corporate oligarchy.

A shiny, happy, state, but fascism nonetheless.

And the States had such promise, but you've pissed it all away.

hey, if you don't like it why don't you go live up in cana....uh....never mind. ;-)

The link hound says: http://www.fcrailroader.com/Jason/index_reading.asp

Click on the title "The Case for Liberalism - George McGovern" and you can download or display a PDF document of the essay.

I have to believe it's not gone yet, Jim.

Our democracy is being tested, no doubt. But now many people, such as myself, are awaking from complacency and using democracy to steer things back toward common sense.

We may get the dream back yet. As long as he 2004 presidential election is not suspended (a crazy thing to consider, I know, but these are crazy times), I predict there will be much higher turnout. All we require is a candidate who can convince the nation that peace and security are the same thing.

We really are good people over here. We just got very, very lazy, because we had it so good for so long. Give us this one irrational reaction to that horrible act of terror we experienced, then see if we can't get ourselves on a more sensible course.

I agree with your reply for the most part Brian, but peace does not always indicate security. IMO, the "peace at any price" status quo of the past 12 years or so, the failure to effectively neutralize threats, the failure of the UN for example, to approve the serious consequences against those who would harm or threaten first the US, and the free world has led us to where we are today.

Rob,

When you say our policy was "peace at any price" for the past 12 years, what exactly do you mean by the "price"?

If your answer is "9-11," well, that's the problem I'm talking about. With regard to Saddam, that answer wouldn't make any sense, given the present state of the evidence. (I don't know if this is your answer, though.)

When the Bush announced the impending invasion of Iraq, the U.N. Security Council was clearly very close to approving a compromise measure that would have allowed bombing of specific sites if the inspectors were refused entry.

Reports of "progress" and "cooperation" from the inspectors. Hans Blix says he foresaw a definitive conclusion to the inspections in "weeks." A plan in place to strengthen the inspections with clear penalties (bombing). Growing support for a firm deadline of either one month or two weeks. That's "peace at any price"?

I don't think so, and neither did most of the rest of the world.

This is what Bush turned his back on. It wasn't a rejection of "peace at any price." For Bush, it was clearly "war at any price."

And the price will be very high.

San,

Thanks for the link. Updated the story.

To torture myself more and insure that my depression has a reliable fuel source, I've read "An Empire Wilderness" by Robert D. Kaplan.

He's an Atlantic editor who has travelled around the world (including Afghanistan) He spent late 1996-97 travelling through the States and presents a much more diverse and fractious portrayal than is permitted in the US media. That said, he tells of a three day visit to Vancouver which I know from personal experience is mostly local civic booster bullshit. However, it has some very interesting reportage.

On the US military and foreign policy at Fort Leavenworth:
"During another discussion a visiting Canadian officer said, "The biggest threat to Canada is that the United States will collapse on itself. Canada's problems are out in the open, but the degree of turmoil in the U.S. is not admitted." Canadians have always sneered at the "disorderly" United States, but I noticed that protests from the American officers to the Canadian's remarks were muted."

Also interesting is the widening gulf between the professional US Military and the whims of the political masters they have to serve.

(here's the sample page: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679776877/ref=lib_rd_next_16/102-5783851-6156951?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=16#reader-link)

Jim! Empire Wilderness is one of the books, like Cadillac Desert and the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, that I most frequently consult when making tough policy decisions, deciding my opinion on a point of view, or arguing with the silly old farts who dominate my little town about how to prepare for the future (their idea: everything's going to be just fine if we leave everything alone. My idea: accept the fact that the rest of the country doesn't want us cutting down trees in the national forest and find another way to have an economy. But I digress).

He did indeed capture the true diversity of opinion and belief that is out here in flyover country and in the Northwest. His look at post-urban pods is dead-on, his illustration of what a hog farm, say, brings to a community (pro and con) keeps me awake at night.

Interestingly enough, Kaplan is mostly a foreign correspondent, which I thought gave him a very interesting perspective on his travels into America's future.

But I'm straying from the point.

Brian and I have publicly disagreed about my posts about the war so far, but we're not that far apart really. I'm not thrilled at what I keep seeing on TV, at the pants-filling excitement of my cranky old men over our displays of armaments and our president's firey rhetoric, but I don't like the alternative of just leaving well enough alone either.

2004 is everybody's big chance to make real change. Finding good, respectable candidates to run for office at ALL levels, not just the Federal, and if they can't be found, stepping forward ourselves, is one way. The other is educating ourselves about those whose names do appear on the ballot and thinking seriously about what we're voting for, who we're voting for, and why we're voting.

Better than any puke-in or wine-dumping or Molotov cocktail chucking any day.

Kate,

"Finding good, respectable candidates to run for office at ALL levels, not just the Federal, and if they can't be found, stepping forward ourselves, is one way. The other is educating ourselves about those whose names do appear on the ballot and thinking seriously about what we're voting for, who we're voting for, and why we're voting.
Better than any puke-in or wine-dumping or Molotov cocktail chucking any day."

Hey, that gives me an idea for 2004. If I don't like certain candidates for office, I'm just going to show up at their rallies and puke on them. Brilliant!

(Note to Al Barger: Just kidding.)

Brian, I'll give you my campaign appearance schedule when I run for re-election in 2004 ^_^

But you have to promise that in exchange for getting to puke on me in front of my hometown crowd you arrange for a performance here of Batboy: The Musical.

Deal?

After checking out the pictorial of yours, Mr. Fleming, I make the same proposition for the 'pro war' people in your pictures that I do for anti war people who spend a lot of time with signs in the street: get a job and/or a life. Clearly, the degenerates in your piece with the 'kill em all' signs are blatently stupid. What are ya gonna do. But I do like how you tried to infer that if you're not a leftist peacenik, you must therefore be an illeterate thug. And by the way, the military is phasing out depleted uranium shells, at least they are with M1 Abrahms SABOT rounds. I happen to know that because I'm in the military, tanks to be specific. God bless.

Kate,

Bat Boy: The Musical? Did you say, Bat Boy: The Musical? I'd be delighted to arrange a performance of Bat Boy: The Musical.

Speaking of puke and Bat Boys, did you know that bats regurgitate food for their friends? So if Bat Boy pukes on you, it's not a political thing. Just so you know.

Rev Nick,

Sorry you got that out of the photo essay. I was specifically trying not to give that impression with the ending. When an anti-war liberal such as myself presents a well-spoken, dreadlocked, homeless-advocating African-American as a representative of the pro-war side, it's a bit of a concession.

Brian, here is a copy of the email I sent you last night. Perhaps advocates of peace could stop focusing so hard on trying to stop the war, and maybe think what they could do to diffuse the tension on the homefront. Anyone who says you have to be either totally pro-war or anti-war, is lost. Don't pay any attention to them. But people have mixed feelings. People have opinions that some of those people would think would contradict each other, but so what? life is full f contradictions. Put those "contradictive" sentements on a sign hold it up, and walk around. At least that's what I did "We support our troops, but not this war." Most people who were among the protesters got it. I didn't notice anyone driving by in their cars giving me the finger, and someone asked me about it, and I explained to her what it meant to me. If it makes a few people uncomfortable, they can either learn something from it, or they can bite it.

That's basically my attitude. Right now, that's what I have to say about the war, and I'm also standing up against this "You have to be on one side or the other" attitude. I don't want to distribute literture. I think that's a waste of time. The one artile I've actually read upon coming home from the one protest angered me because it was obviously an attempt to change my mind (I'm telling you they kept giving me the same article. You don't know how bad war is. Here. War is sooooo extremely bad, that you can't possibly "support" our troops. Look what the government trains them to do) Difference between the government and the people who are serving---GOD DAMMMIT! I didn't see any point in talking to them. I assumed their intent was to change my mind and get me to say "Oh! You mean military guys watch porn! I had no idea! Well...Give me a George Bush is the Devil Sign I guess." Everyone had a sign that said George Bush is the Devil. Everyone was communicating a message that, right or wrong is dividng this country. The love it or leave it, you're with us or against us, thinking of either side pro-war or anti-war. Stop it. Before someone gets hurt. Don't wage war on the homefront. Taking a stand for the middle ground.


On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 03:27 PM, Belchererin@aol.com wrote:

> I was at the Westwood Federal Building Protest, on March 20. I had
> been thinking about doing it, but in the end it was mostly a spur of
> the moment thing. I was on the way back from an appointment, and I had
> seen people gathering in front of the Federal Building on the way
> there. I ride the bus. The bus driver was making fun of the
> protesters, (unproffessional of her)saying, "They're protesting the
> war, but we're already at war!" I ignored her. I suppose her point
> being that we should only protest things that aren't happening
> (shrug) Wonder what her home life is like... On the way back, I got
> off the bus, and went to the first street corner I saw where a few
> people were standing with signs, and said "I want to protest. Where do
> I go?" and a guy said "Well about two blocks that way, there's about
> 400 people protesting" I thanked him, and went on my way.
>
> Let me take this time to outline why I oppose this war.
> Iraq has nothing to do with what happened at 9/11.
> There is no solid evidince that Saddaam is distributing weapons to
> other middle eastern countries.
> Iraq has never been a direct threat to the United States.
> The World has said no.
>
> How am I different from many of the thousand or so other people who
> were there. I also feel strongly that we should support our troops.
> I don't meen suuport what the government has ordered them to do. I
> mean know your protest history, and don't blindly lash out on the
> establishment, and abuse soldiers when they do return home like the
> Vietnam protesters did. I don't care how much you hate war, don't
> hate people because of it. I'm upset because three militant anti-war
> people shoved a flyer in my face telling me that troops are
> undeserving of our support because war is bad and it kills. Nope, it
> is they who have it backwards. The article is posted at rwor.org by
> revolutionary worker #1192. You don't attempt to sway people to hate
> an entire group of people because of the institution the work for, and
> the uniforms they wear. Because you don't like war. Yeah.
>
> I've got a real problem with this political climate where people say
> NO, there's no middle ground, either you completely agree with my
> agenda, or you're one of them. It's bullshit, and it's dangerous.
>
> I'd like to continue to protest the war, and I won't be intimidated
> into jumping onto a bandwagon. Because I haven't seen an antiwar
> bandwagon that looks like it's running properly and being driven by a
> sober and clear thinking person.
>
> I think some of the violence and chaos, that went on at March 20th's
> protest could have been preventent if it's leaders had not fed
> people's suspicions of cops and authority figures. The speaker, when
> I first got there announced that people had been arrested the day
> before. Then she said that the police arrested them on a charge of
> civil disobedience, then PLANTED drugs on them to make it a drug
> charge.
> Nothing would surprise me. I'm not a fan of the LAPD, however. This
> speaker has no way of knowing if drugs were planted, if the protesters
> had drugs on them, or if it's completely untrue. She could have been
> telling a bald-faced lie, for all anyone there listening knows.
> There's no way this allegation can be verified or proven. It only
> serves to arouse suspicion, mistrust, fear, or anger, when the
> presencer of the police officers looks intimidating enough. It's like
> she wanted a riot.
>
> I have to end this for now, but I could go on and on. It's important
> to stand up and speak out, but there's a right and a wrong way to do
> it, and I think a lot of people are just using the anti-war platform
> as an excuse to make asses of themselves.
>
> Erin Belcher
> Santa Monica

I see that i'm not the only one that had a multi-posting problem lol