There was a post by … I think her name is terri (http://www.zcommunications.org/contents/187892), and she posted an article on firedoglake that was “You’ve Got to Stop Voting” by Mark E. Smith. This was posted on yesterday or the day before. I commented. And when I went back there to check up on it, it’s vanished: (http://my.firedoglake.com/terridi/2012/08/13/youve-got-to-stop-voting-by-mark-e-smith/).
So what happened to it? Why was it removed? Can anyone please explain this?
Any real info would be appreciated. And if any FDL staffer who knows what happened, can you please explain?
———————————————————————————————-
So, the original article is at http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1172.
I think it’s worth talking about. I believe it’s worth the discourse. You don’t have to feel the same way, but there’s no harm in reading it.
The most common activist strategies, such as street demonstrations, protests, etc., rarely seem to bring about any change in government. There is only one nonviolent tactic that has been proven to work. Recently I asked the new president of a local activist group that had banned me from speaking, if I would be allowed to speak under the new leadership. I explained that I’m an election boycott advocate. The reply I got was:
“So my question is – how does NOT voting change anything? I can see actually writing in someone you believe in – but not voting simply is giving up.”
I decided to answer the question as thoroughly as I could. Here’s what I wrote,
Next is info that I was not aware of and which I thought was interesting.
South Africa endured many years of violence under the Apartheid regime. Many people and countries worldwide boycotted Apartheid, but the US government insisted on supporting the Apartheid regime, saying that while the US abhorred Apartheid, the regime was the legitimate government of South Africa. Then the Apartheid regime held another election. No more than 7% of South Africans voted. Suddenly everything changed. No longer could the US or anyone else say that the Apartheid regime had the consent of the governed. That was when the regime began to make concessions. Suddenly the ANC, formerly considered to be a terrorist group trying to overthrow a legitimate government, became freedom fighters against an illegitimate government. It made all the difference in the world, something that decades more of violence could never have done.In Cuba, when Fidel Castro’s small, ragged, tired band were in the mountains, the dictator Batista held an election (at the suggestion of the US, by the way). Only 10% of the population voted. Realizing that he had lost the support of 90% of the country, Batista fled. Castro then, knowing that he had the support of 90% of the country, proceeded to bring about a true revolution.In Haiti, when the US and US-sponsored regimes removed the most popular party from the ballot, in many places only 3% voted. The US had to intervene militarily, kidnap Aristide, and withhold aid after the earthquake to continue to control Haiti, but nobody familiar with the situation thought that the US-backed Haitian government had the consent of the governed or was legitimate.Boycotting elections alone will not oust the oligarchy, but it is the only proven non-violent way to delegitimize a government.
Now this is interesting. At least to me. It does bring up interesting ideas of why not to vote and the effect it could have. And frankly, this may the only real way to de-legitimize this wholly corrupt government. Because I would not bet on any of the other ways that have been tried so far. Occupy only highlights the rampant corruption and destruction of civil liberties, but what change did it have? What substantial effect did it have, ie. did it make anything better? THe corruption is still fully entrenched and only getting worse.
The writer than goes on to discuss the common arguments to the idea of not voting and I believe this is also informative and worth pondering:
Here are some of the most common canards that political party operatives use to argue against not voting:1. Not voting is doing nothing.
2. If we don’t vote the bad guys will win.
3. If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.
4. It is a citizen’s responsibility and civic duty to vote.
5. Your vote is your voice in government.
6. Just because things didn’t work out the way we wanted last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, doesn’t mean that they won’t this time.
7. If we don’t vote, the Tea Party, the Breivik-types, and all the lunatics will, and they’ll run the country.
8. You don’t have the numbers to pull off an election boycott.
9. People who don’t vote are apathetic.
10. If you don’t vote, you’re helping the other party.
11. If we don’t vote, our votes will never be counted and we’ll have no leverage.
12. The choice is bullets or ballots, so it’s a no-brainer.
13. Evil people are spending millions of dollars on voter suppression to deny minorities the vote, and people have fought and died for the right to vote, so the vote must be valuable.
Each of these topics is covered in sufficient detail, and I hope people go read it fully.
I did like this comment (Obama is today’s King Leopold Submitted by folkie on 1 January 2012 – 12:23pm.) from the site:
The US government is fully owned by the big multinational private corporations that fund it, and no matter who is in office, will continue to do the bidding of the wealthy global elites intent on continuing to murder millions of innocents and polluting the entire planet for profit. The profits involved are so enormous that they are almost impossible to imagine, but those profits all go to the wealthy elites and their puppets, with ordinary people in Africa never seeing any benefit and ordinary people in the US being taxed to pay for the troops and mercenaries that are committing these genocides on behalf of private corporations.
Yes, we do need a new system. This one isn’t just broken, it is killing humanity and destroying the planet.
Many people in the US are afraid of change or afraid of different political parties or candidates because they believe that other systems were worse, so let’s compare our system to others:
The old Soviet Union, fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany are good systems for comparison. Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler were all elected, just like US presidents, and their elections were rigged, just as ours are. They all started or took part in wars of aggression just as the US does under every administration. They all denied basic human rights just as Obama does with his drone bombs and his assassination hit list, as Bush did with torture, and as previous US Presidents did by installing brutal dictators favorable to the US who tortured and murdered their own people with US training and support. They all spent more money on guns than on butter, just as this government does. They all governed for the benefit of private profits just as the US government does. They all made extensive use of prison or slave labor just as Obama does and previous US Presidents have done. None of them allowed public opinion to influence their policy decisions and neither does the US government.
That pretty much says it all.
Well I hope people read the original, because it’s definitely worth the read.



240 Comments

Personally I don’t think it would have the effect here it would have had years ago. Since TPB don’t really give a wet slap one way or the other. Voter turn out in this country has been low for quite some time.
And any kind of a mass spontaneous uprising here would be put down very harshly.
But I don’t want to say here what I believe would work for various reasons.
I asked Kit at his watercooler this morning, tambershall. He hasn’t been back to the post. I’d just typed a longish response, and found it when wayoutwest brought it up on my post of today.
Walkinboots also wanted the discussion, so I pasted in my comment. Too lazy to go grab the link, but a commenter at Naked Capitalism says there’s a similar call posted at Counterpunch. I want to say ___ Linh, but my memory is full of tricks and holes.
I believe it would have an effect and one that would speak volumes. IMO.
At this moment, I think it might be one of the only ways.
A mass uprising would be put down very harshly, one I also think it would wake more people up to what his country really is. If they can massacre a bunch of people exercising their rights, then they can massacre anyone. Anyone. People will start being very careful of letting their kids go out alone or anywhere near the police (basically we’ll all be “black” then).
I just don’t like it when posts disappear into the ether.
There’s letting the post live out its life and die, which happens to all posts. And then there’s removing it.
I’m just curious as to why.
Thanks for posting this Tam, i also would like to know why it was disappeared but will wait for a response before commenting.
FDL has posts every day about govs and state legislators, congress people and senators, presidents and local elected officials, We write about elections, legislative votes, filibusters, misleading campaign statements, money in politics, biased media influencing elections, voter suppression, accountabity, and related topics, all premised on the democratic process.
I don’t know how anyone could conclude that FDL would welcome a post urging people not to vote.
We are not going to promote not voting. People can do as they want, but FDL isn’t here to promote not voting.
What happened here is simple. We voted, and the post that ignores what we are about is gone.
I think it may have disappeared because of how much of it was copy and pasted. But something should have been said.
FAR too much is done here with no explanation give. It makes it look as though the administrators are doing things for arbitrary reasons.
Well i see we got an answer the gatekeepers have decided what is best for us to see and debate. I especially like the ” we voted” like there is some kind of democracy at work here.
You can go read anything you please, anywhere else. No one is restraining you. but FDL does not have an obligation to carry everything you’re looking for here. if you don’t agree with the values here, then you’re free to look elsewhere.
I expected this response and look forward to the invitations to leave that the thought patrol will patronise us with.
The illusion of free speech must be maintained while critical thinking is suppressed and you have the gall to call it values.
Instead of trying to understand, you chose to insult me and others here.
but no one is telling you what to think or read, and every blog has a right to decide what values it accepts,. We don’t allow racist posts, anti semitism, sexist posts, libel, hate speech, deceptive ads, personal attacks, and so on. If you don’t accept that, you can go somewhere else.. Would we exclude such posts? Yes.
I realize you disagree with our call. But I suggest you not insult me again.
Scarecrow, I have often read, commented, and applauded your diaries and comments.
But this comment that you voted, and it was disappeared is beyond reprehensible. Are you our 1%, deciding what can or can not happen, what we can and can not do, what we can and not think or talk about?
WTF?!?!?!?
BTW, I’m not entirely sure this is scarecrow so I apologize to the real scarecrow if this is the case. This sounds nothing like him.
” I don’t know how anyone could conclude that FDL would welcome a post urging people not to vote.
We are not going to promote not voting. People can do as they want, but FDL isn’t here to promote not voting.
What happened here is simple. We voted, and the post that ignores what we are about is gone.”
Can you please provide a list of what subjects are not permissible at FDL? I believe such a list would provide clarification for me and many here, including wayoutwest.
Are we not allowed to report on the military?
Are we not allowed to report on certain politicians?
I’m being serious, can you please let me know what subjects are verboten and thus able to be scrubbed. (BTW, if you deleted Smith’s piece, why in the name of the magical genie in the sky do you folks let me, tambershall, post anything? I don’t get it. My diaries have been much more inflammatory and divisive. There are a few people here who would love to see me banned (probably drawn and quartered too). And they can just argue that my removal is the exact same thing as Smith’s article’s removal.
You’re not going to promote not voting? What other things is FDL not “promoting”? The whole system is corrupt and this country is a joke with no rule of law. The criminals run the place. But DOG forbid we not vote in the holly corrupt system. Or even suggest it. Because then … well the whole world would fall apart? We have to be good little citizens and vote for those who are selling us out? Voting is not a legal requirement or a legal mandate. It’s a choice!
This is a piece about not voting as a protest. Basic 1st amendment stuff.
No one is advocating violence.
No one is advocating hate speech, lies, libel, or anything dangerous.
But somehow not voting is not a suitable subject?
And who voted?
What are their names? Their screennames? Did this include all due-paying memebers? (BTW, I’m not a due-paying member, it’s called poverty, get over it. Another reason for you folks to ban me. Heck, if I’m not paying then I’m just a leech right? Just a leech of all the producers. The productive members of society just drag me along, right? And ya, I take this personally. Because this place is supposed to be different. Just like America is supposed to be different. But a few rulers come along and now we’re told there are certain things we can’t talk about? WTF?)
The fact that you can’t see how disturbing this action by the few of you is, or maybe you just don’t care, is what really bothers me. You just came in, long stick in hand, dictator-pose, laying down the “law”. Your law, not mine. Laws that you make up on the spot or as you deem fit. Laws that you change at a whim. Disgusting behavior. Reprehensible. Abhorrent. You folks shouldn’t be deciding anything about anything. I wouldn’t trust you with picking up litter.
(P.S. This sounds nothing like the scarecrow I know and read. So this is not meant at him. This is meant for the base thing who wrote, “What happened here is simple. We voted, and the post that ignores what we are about is gone.” Well ain’t democracy grand. To bad the rest of us weren’t included in that decision. But I guess people like me don’t deserve to be included. We’re not worthy. Oh fuck it, maybe you’re right. Just ban me already.)
At first I thought it might have been a copyright infringement decision if the diarist hadn’t got permission to republish someone else’s work.
Now I wonder why The Board didn’t give readers an opportunity to hiss and boo the diarist (“Hey, it could happen!” — Judy Tenuta).
Are there any writers or investigative reporters at FDL who know why Patrick Fitzgerald resigned? And/or what’s up with Jesse Jackson, Jr., coincidentally now, of all times?
During the Health Care Reform period of discussion, after the proposed legislation did not include a ‘public option’, FDL readers were presented with a series of front-page posts suggesting it was best for the legislation to fail. For weeks on end, and the FDL leadership position was vehement. As if health care reform should not be voted on at all.
Obviously you don’t see a relationship between that FDL position of opposition and reverse-advocacy and a possible analogous position of opposing voting altogether, but it’s not altogether unlikely that the banished diary’s author thought the concepts were similar enough, or as a logical extension, to post at MyFDL.
I hope we all appreciate your candor if not your decision.
Well, now that the decision has spawned a “What Happened to That Diary” diary, there’s every chance it will call more attention to the original post than the post itself could ever have achieved or merited.
I rather agree that this was an odd call. One can reasonably argue that under our disgusting system a protest vote for Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein is the functional equivalent of sitting out the election. (I pause now to duck the flying saliva.) Accepting that premise for the moment, the post in question was just an extension of the protest vote sentiment, which has otherwise received wide latitude here. And although I only briefly scanned the post, it seemed free of typical banning-bait (e.g., rantings about the FDL front page being a nest of Obamabot vipers).
Still, I’m not going to get all lathered up over the fact that this blog — like any blog — is not a democracy.
However…. lather, rinse, repeat does get old after a while.
I’m the author of the original article, and it hurts to be censored. But I can understand that with big corporations spending billions of dollars to get out the vote (they usually donate in almost equal amounts to both major parties, as both serve them equally well), many websites feel obligated to help out.
The original article did get a couple hundred more reads because of this, so perhaps some readers aren’t interested in helping corporate rule once again gain the consent of the governed through the ballot box.
I was sorry to see the censorship again; but in a way glad to see that the person posting it hadn’t been banned (yet). However, she is an avowed Anarchist, and does advocate boycotting the Election. So it could be that nothing she writes will be considered acceptable here.
Personally, I would like to see Anarchism and Election boycott discussed at FDL; even though to me, like to most of you, not voting is anathema.
I know that in this post and in a previous one, the posting person terridi used all CAPs in her headlines. Strangely, a culture of contempt has sprung up against capitalization, and people get upset over it. I can see how/why an Anarchist might resist such rules.
I noticed that in this post one person, and in her previous post, two people stepped up to bully terridi over her politics. These two bullying commenters often attack Left-leaners and third-party advocates here at FireDogLake.
I suspect that one of those bullying commenters – the one whose comment showed up as the number one comment in the removed post – flagged the post: She once angrily declared in a comment to one of my articles that she uses the “Flag this comment…” button against people with whom that person disagrees politically.
If someone then looked at the flagged item, and saw that terridi had been warned about capitalization before, and had still done it again, that could have inflamed tensions.
I was very surprised when terridi’s first Anarchism/boycott post appeared, because it can be construed as outside the usual boundaries to which the rest of us confine ourselves.
As a fulltime activist sometimes in extreme quarters, I’ve met Anarchists for decades and had great discussions with them. I’m interested in hearing them out.
I am a Green, but I know that there are a lot more Anarchists in this country than there are Greens. I’d like to win them over.
I do think that we political partisans, if we indulge in constructive conversation with Anarchist/boycotters, can strengthen our resolve by having examined the logic behind our opinions.
I also see how such conversation could potentially convince Anarchists to vote – I’ve seen that happen. I also know that such exchange could convince a dedicated Leftist activist not to vote – I’ve seen that happen too.
ROFL Capitalists against capitalization–makes them see red. ;)
I guess we should all pay our taxes and shut up?
I like the rants tamber, it always is nice to know where the fences truly remain, and usually it’s our own personal beliefs of the world that get in our way.
Was it the Declaration of Independence that says something along the lines of, if the government in power isn’t working, then the people are free to replace it with a different one? How does one go about doing that? Seems like in this fenced world we rage around in, dealing with the founder’s words and abiding by the Constitution etc would be held in “most” courts around the nation no? Interested to see what those actions would look like…..heck they may even fall under “not voting” for rigged / corrupt members of a failed system?
It’s like “give peace a chance.” How many people immediately say “hell no, that can never work!!! Not in this rage / fear world we live in!!!” and then the second idea comes along…..”when has peace ever been given a chance?” And then the light shines and someone says……..”never……”
Irony abounds:
a. Posts about censorship at FDL are far more popular than most posts here;
b. These well-read posts and the site’s reactions to them have influenced our writers to tone it down;
c. The toned-down FDL does not attract as many readers as we did with our previous tone.
Yeah…because staying home worked out sooooooo well in 2010. Ya know, one definition of insanity is to try something over and over and expect a different result each time. I don’t know who Mark E Smith is but the person who posted the diary is well known for urging Progressives not to vote. Here’s the reality: Once terridi and Mark Smith are finished urging people not to vote, they are both going to go vote…for their Republican candidates. And you know what Tambershall? There is nothing preventing you starting your own blog where you and Mark Smith and the rest would be perfectly free to sell your brand of nihilism. Nothing of course except a lack of traffic that is. The reason you want to hijack this blog to spout your agenda is because you can’t get the readership on your own.
You’d be wrong. I never flagged that post, nor did I have anything to do with it being taken down. Bully, eh? Please provide citation for that remark that I “use the flag button against people with whom I disagree politically”. That is an out and out lie. My commenting history is only a click away, so put up or shut up. I’m just a commentator, just like you, I have zero influence with what gets published or taken down. If you want to get into a pissing contest, you’re going to have to do it by yourself. But I will demand that you stop lying through your teeth to score points.
Do you not remember bringing up the Flag button when arguing at me?
And if you say that you didn’t ever bring it up to me, then I must be mistaken, and stand corrected.
Again always dividing. When you stop and think about it, how did “we” humans get this far? Was it from dividing each other and segregating ourselves, fueling this “survival of the fittest” theme? Or was it through cooperation, where we helped one another?
And who cares, if this stuff really bothers you, then click somewhere else? The only reason you have a problem with it is because it holds something deep within you that you are having a rough time letting go of and admitting to yourself, or something. You’re feeding the very beast you despise.
You admit the system is flawed, that there is a huge problem, but you continue to support the old ways in which we got here, again using Einstein….doing the same old thing, and somehow, someway the same old is going to break you free of its own downfall…..ya ok, another Einstein quote that also fits this lovely piece:
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.”
When’s last time you got a huge…..a real hug??
Except I’m not “defending” anything. I’ve said over and over that the system is broken. Again, you’re just making up shit to score points like normanb. Again, citation for your claim is only a click away…or would be if there was any truth to it. It’s easy to imagine things, much harder to prove them. FDL has provided us with the commenting history tool to make that process much easier but again, it has to be, you know, true. For the record: I’ve always said that I don’t know what the answer is but I know what it isn’t. I can’t imagine why my statement that your comment about not ever having voted sorta destroys your credibility with me has got your underwear in such a bunch. What do you care if I find you credible or not? I use the scientific method in everything I do. If I try something and find it doesn’t work, I try something else. You want me to believe that not participating is the answer despite it’s having been debunked over and over. Sorry but if you want to be irrational, please don’t demand that I join you.
As for the hug comment: please don’t be patronizing. Thanks and have a wonderful Wednesday!
You say that but you want me to believe that what you advocate is going to work, despite the fact it’s NEVER worked. Riiiiiiight….
“I’m flagging everything by jbade until this troll who accuses everybody who doesn’t support Ron Paul of being complicit in slaughter gets banned from this blog or I do.”
– Margaret, in:
http://my.firedoglake.com/amghru/2012/01/02/the-real-ron-paul-in-his-own-words/
Margaret writes:
“Yeah…because staying home worked out sooooooo well in 2010.”
Enough people voted that it allowed the corporations to continue to claim the consent of the governed.
“Ya know, one definition of insanity is to try something over and over and expect a different result each time.”
Try something over and over, for hundreds of years, and expect a different result each time? That would be a description of voting.
“I don’t know who Mark E Smith is but the person who posted the diary is well known for urging Progressives not to vote.”
You might accomplish more by addressing the issues instead of the persons. For example, if you think people should cast uncounted, unverifiable ballots for representatives they can’t hold accountable, you could state why you think this might be effective.
“Here’s the reality: Once terridi and Mark Smith are finished urging people not to vote, they are both going to go vote…for their Republican candidates.”
I don’t know terridi, but I’m 72 years old, voted until 2006, and never once in my life voted for a Republican, not even in 2000 when huge numbers of Democrats voted for Ronald Reagan. However, since I am no longer a registered voter (it took me three years of fighting with the Registrar of Voters to force them to remove my name from their list, even though I hadn’t voted and they were supposed to have removed me two years earlier), and since I do not intend to register to get more electoral junk mail as I don’t believe that any of it is worth the trees it is printed on, I wouldn’t be allowed to vote if I wanted to, which I do not. Calling anyone who isn’t a Democrat, a Republican, is one of the oldest smears in the two-party-rulebook.
“And you know what Tambershall? There is nothing preventing you starting your own blog where you and Mark Smith and the rest would be perfectly free to sell your brand of nihilism. Nothing of course except a lack of traffic that is. The reason you want to hijack this blog to spout your agenda is because you can’t get the readership on your own.”
My little website http://fubarandgrill.org only has about a dozen regular readers and no more than two or three people who post. But this particular article has had 7,736 reads, which isn’t bad for a small website. Commercial websites go for quantity so that they can charge more for advertising. My site is totally noncommercial, so I go for quality and that’s pretty hard to find.
Today I spent hours chatting with one (1) dear friend I’ve known for almost thirty years. I much prefer that to conversing with a large number of people with whom I have nothing in common. I’m sure my site could get more viewers if I allowed topics that saturate the mainstream media, but then how could I call it alternative? The list of authors and investigative journalists who have granted me blanket permission to post their writings is larger than the site’s average readership. But every time I post one of their articles, it gets more views than we have regular readers. Some people want to talk about other people, and some want to discuss issues and ideas. The latter may be a peculiar and unusual preference, but it happens to be mine.
Ooops–replying to myself to correct a mistake. The “Reagan Democrat” phenomenon was in 1980, not 2000. Of course a “Reagan Democrat” is a Republican Democrat, which apparently, if the numbers were anywhere near correct, includes a whole lot of Democrats.
I do not appreciate having people who voted Republican, accuse me of being as irrational as them.
I said you’re always dividing, as in using the right left / blue vs. red etc. I don’t think I have to go through and provide references for your wonderful arguments.
And if I’m in it for the “points” what game are we playing and who keeps track of the points?
Your science as you call it is subjected to the same capitalist structure of corruption as your government. Maybe the same scientific methods used by NIST in their “flawless” scientific research on why building 7 collapsed. Excluding evidence that doesn’t prove what you want to prove isn’t science. I wonder if you’re able to drop all your preconceived notions of everything in order to do these studies you take part in? If something doesn’t work….doesn’t always mean that thing doesn’t work, but maybe the one utilizing the experiment is…..broken?
And I didn’t see your comment about me losing credibility….haaaa, because it got taken down by the front office. Wow, this is kinda like throwing out evidence that doesn’t support your world view, you’re too scared to venture to the unknown that you’re captive to defend at all costs this facade you continue to prop up in your mind. I think other views are refreshing and shouldn’t be dealt with by unfounded spewed heat from your end. That’s all I’m trying to convey, without credibility of course.
Yes have a wonderful Wednesday, just lay off the heat, I know it’s hot in Tejas, but seriously, there are ways to respect others, no matter what their view is, because we all haven’t walked in your shoes, whatever the hardships….
I don’t agree with your conclusion to not ‘vote’, but I respect your reasoning for arriving at that decision. Your right to freedom of speech, here and any other public place for political discourse, ought to be enshrined in a blog banner!
As long as you are respectful of the commenters here, why shouldn’t you have the right to post here?
As to your thesis about the effectiveness of not-voting, have you considered the power of a Social Strike first? Could we get people to show their demand to live in a free society using a Social Strike? (Like the social strikes the students are starting in Montreal)
Here’s a description of a Social Strike:
Montreal Day 110.
John, permitting a discussion about whether not voting might have value is NOT condoning that decision.
The question of whether a government is legitimate is NOT unreasonable.
If it is then I am numerous times guilty of being unreasonable.
Frankly, I must ask you this question. Do you, and the others who “voted” to remove this diary which you all, apparently, found to be so very offensive to democratic practice and behavior, consider your “position” of supporting voting, even if for a candidate whom you, yourself, consider to be making many “unforced errors”, whom the entire electorate is told is “the lesser evil”, do you find this “position” of yours to be so tenuous, so weak, and threatened that it can stand NO fundamental question?
Perhaps, I have badly misunderstood the “democratic” (with a small “d”) tradition? My understanding suggests that such a “tradition” abhors the dismissal of ANY rational and respectful discourse. That such a “tradition” must welcome, however warily, basic questions of itself and its essential rectitude.
In the body of HIS diary, tambershall, makes a very seriously good and salient point about a government, a process, and a “tradition”, which I would hope that ALL of us would honestly and seriously consider to not be legitimate … apartheid … a “philosophy” AND a governmental “form”, odious in “principle” and immoral in practice.
Is the current government of THIS nation, which permits massive criminal fraud against its people, at the tolerance and forbearance of that “lesser evil” mentioned above, that “out-sources” torture, again at the deliberate intention of a “lesser evil”, that permits its chief executive the “power” of killing anyone, anytime, and anywhere that it suits that chief executive, quite without due process of law, that has permitted a segment of the wealthy to off-shore this nation’s capacity to manufacture and create those things that it MUST have, and in the process robbing the people of meaningful and worthwhile endeavor, and as well has a military machine with bases in more than one hundred nations around the world and which makes use of a killing device that is morally akin to the Nazi use of the V-2 rocket against civilians aw well as “terrorist targets”, chosen and so designated by the equivalent of the dreaded Star Chamber.
Is such a government legitimate, is the flawed “process” which you have just described, leaving out only Supreme Court “decisions” which say that money is “speech”, that corporations are “people”, and that the wealthy are permitted to buy any election which they so desire.
You say that FDL favor voting, but the vast majority of FDL’s official “coverage” restricts itself to the two legacy parties which have BOTH clearly shown, for more than a little while, their allegiance to money and to a state secrecy designed to keep the people quite ignorant of what is done in their name …
If FDL were willing to extend its official support to voting for other candidates, for other options and other reasonable and rational possibilities, then it were much easier to understand your antipathy to someone who questions the worth of simply voting, in essence, for, always, “more of the same” …
Emma Goldman’s words, “If voting could change anything … then it would be illegal”, must resonate with our plight and “predicament”, today … other wise we embody that description of insanity which is almost as ubiquitous as the “lesser”, if “more effective” (as Black Agenda Reports has suggested) “evil” meme … you know, the one that goes, “doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting different results … is …”
I hope that you may take this comment in the manner in which it is intended?
If reasonable people cannot disagree reasonably … then we ARE quite lost and have only extinction to look forward to … assuming we shall be that lucky … and paying no attention to what shall happen in the meantime … for one must assume, given the “direction” in which things are tending, will be a VERY mean and unpleasant time, indeed.
DW
Wow.
Scarecrow, you’re a pretty thorough writer. Your posts are almost always detailed. Can you please reconcile for me, how you can think that voting means ANYTHING when defense contractors write, own, protect and certify the machines and software that make up the system, and everything is based on secrecy from the masses and even the government itself?
I’ve voted every year of my adult life, but this year I’m cosidering not voting simply because it is clearly a scam, from the non-choices available at the senate and presidential level, to the very system itself, which to any logical interpretation is not legitimate. It is a black box.
I consider myself part of the “we” here. I disagree with your interpretation that posting an opinion equates to “promoting” it.
Thanks
Thank you, DW. I, also, would like to have had the opportunity to have read the original post, and will follow the link and do just that.
I want to consider any non- violent means to avoid playing this fixed game and prerpetuating a system which I am increasingly convinced is broken beyond the means of the old methods to repair.
It seems this post is more about the original post being pulled than discussing the original DON’T VOTE diary, so I won’t stick in my slightly sideways counter-arguments.
But yes, the discussion is a worthy one, and attempts to shut it down are disappointing at best, imo.
Along similar lines, I saw at BAR this morning the announcement of a conference in Newark that the Black Is Back Coalition for Peace, Prosperity and Power is hosting starting Aug. 18. Given that conditions and issues that face blacks are even worse under the first black President, they want to ask (and hopefully answer) how efficacious voting is now for blacks, and what other civil movements might be more useful.
For people of conscience and goodwill for all, it seems that more people are starting to consider heterodox strategies, and in the marketplace of ideas, discussing, presenting arguments on both sides of these issues should be promoted.
My.fdl pages are clear that the opinions of the diarists are not those of Firedoglake.
George Carlin put it best, me thinks.
I didn’t know the ‘thought police’ had Scarecrow’s number.
I have followed the link and read the original post.
In my opinion, having actually read the post, I find it to be excellent, well-written, and very successful in raising numerous serious and salient issues.
l would like to take this opportunity of thanking the author, self-identified on this thread @ 17, as mymarkx, for daring to present such an important and well-considered perspective to the rest of us … a perspective which just happens to be about VERY much more than … “not voting”.
Until and unless, those who wish this essay, this post, to be excised and banned from FDL, have taken the time to read and honestly perceive what the author is actually saying, then the rest of us had best not harken to those voices of suppression and had best, for the sake of reason, tolerance, and understanding, read and decide for ourselves what we each consider to be the value and merit of what was written.
In other words, I recommend that every one at FDL have the courage and conscience to actually read this article.
If, having done so, people find it to still be objectionable, then so be it, that is their right … to have and to hold any opinion which they might so choose. It is wise, though, to base opinion upon actual evidence, else homage is paid to innuendo and the unexamined opinion of others … One cannot help but imagine the consequences of a society which has not the interest of its members in finding out the truth , for themselves. What might such a society look like, I wonder?
However, it is my opinion, that if the article were read and seriously considered, on its own clear and significant merits, that the vast majority of those who so read and actually consider will NOT find it objectionable nor worthy of being banned from this site.
Thank you, mymarkx … or Mark E. Smith, I look forward to whatever you have to say or write in future, for I hold that you have just made a most important contribution to the ongoing and NECESSARY discussion, the one that Jane Hamsher has said, very properly, is deliberately constrained and very much and too often limited … to those who are “approved”.
DW
So what we have is the Left constantly voting for people whom they believe are honest, righteous and have the peoples greater interests at heart. The Right voting for selfish, self-centered, ignorant and immature people that are exactly like themselves.
The Left is consistently disappointed. The Right rarely so.
Good morning Pups, i see that some people have spoken up about this act of censorship. It is strange to see Jane, through Occupy Supply, support an Anarchist movement but the mods here behave this way.
I wonder is it has something to do with Willard leading in the Gallup Poll and anything that might affect turnout is seen as a threat and must be suppressed.
The post in question didn’t appear to violate any site rules although scaresrow equated it with hate speech in his lame attempt to justify their action. I’m suprised he hasn’t returned to make more suggestions, to people who don’t agree, to go away and not question his Authorita.
Let’s put aside the comments insulting me. Here’s the tension that I see going on. There’s the concept of freedom of speech, in which except for very narrow exceptions, people can say/write anything they want. There’s the concept of freedom of the press, in which owners of news mechanisms, like newspapers or even blogs, can write/disseminate whatever they want. Newspapers decide whom to hire as reporters and columnists and whom to invite to submit guest articles/columns. It’s the owner’s call.
Newspapers also invite “letters to the editor.” But it’s not totally open. The editors decide whether to allow certain letters or preclude others, and that’s part of freedom of the press. You can view it as “censorship,” but no one says the newspaper doesn’t have the right to decide what is published or not.
MyFDL is not without limits; the site owners don’t allow posts it doesn’t want to promote. Every media does this.
People are free to criticize me for supporting/explaining the call about a post on not voting. There are good arguments I made the wrong call; btw, I did read the article. I understand people here disagreed with that call. But no one here has acknowledged that the site can determine what types of content it will allow and what not as a means of promoting the values it supports.
Instead, I get called names, like thought police and other insults, even though all of you are free to say and read whatever you want anywhere, but somehow the idea that a news media can decide what it wants to present to its readers is a new concept.
Those of you who think this is the wrong call can take the matter directly to the owner, who was not involved in this. If she determines I/we made the wrong call, then I accept that.
Seeing how this comment may well be numbered 40 or higher on this comments thread while the topic of this MyFDL diary — the summary removal of a earlier My FDL diary about for/against views and opinions of what Not Voting could/might bring about — only had when I last viewed it a total of 16 comments including the one I posted on that thread there is some irony to be seen here.
Liked your thoughtful comment wd and wanted to highlight it.
Some revealing declarations and site politics/policy assertions in the comments thread above. The summary removal of earlier MyFDL diary for having to do with Not Voting which this diary is largely orbiting around arrives with irony. Being the declared reason for previous diary being taken down and its comments wiped clean by FDL is posted again with more than twice as many comments.
I have no desire to contest this sites politics or policies and it is not my intention to try to violate knowable or known no-go povs or framings of matters to do with race,creed or sexual orientation.
I unfortunately take a interest in politics that after all so many years of posting these comments seems to be going nowhere not very fast. Some of my friends suggest it is a waste of my time and besides why write about stuff most people never will see,read or give a rodents ass about. After the 2000 WH election it was plain the rot had gone in very deep and 2004 only served to back up that observation. After the 2006 elections it was numbing to see Nancy Pelosi plainly betray two years of what she had been claiming would happen if the Ds won big in 2006. 2008? Won’t even get into it.
We know the Ds and Rs are spending hundreds of millions of $$ this WH election cycle and reportedly one billion $$ will be spent by Barack Obama’s Win The WH Team Again alone. So our votes are being bought by both parties while once the WH election is over with and the vote as been “counted” the POTUS as we saw post Jan.20,2009 just ignores the millions who worked,supported and voted for Obama and proceeded to give Bush and Cheney a nice sendoff while picking up where those two war criminals left off. Healthcare reform? please…
So Not Voting is really the killer politics app then here at FDL?
Not going to contest it as what is the point? Like did anyone note the Ds and Rs were not all abuzz hours after the Lets Not Vote diary was first posted here at FDL the other day? This diary likely now getting more attention than the original FDL diary did on same topic.
Again…thanks wd for the thoughtful comment above. You are someone whose flag I can follow here at FDL time after time after time.
With Not Voting now voted on and declared a forbidden topic for discussion and exposition here at FDL does this apply to bringing up for discussion the ethics and politics of Mahatma Gandhi as well?
I would like to know upfront as a matter of not wanting to violate boundaries or needlessly offend those who are empowered to vote and declare on these matters here at FDL. It is prudent to get a good bead on who one is walking along and talking with when it comes to politics and since the stakes are quite high one should ascertain with sooner being better what flag(s) is/are being flown on these politics sites. Not much to be gained if the flags being flown are false ones and the people holding them up are better not followed over the first hill.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. No one is entitled to deny or avoid what is fact and truth. No one is entitled to illegal/unlawful conduct or being agreed with or supported just because one claims to be a D or a R. No one is entitled to being voted for. Earn my vote.
I don’t advocate not voting, either, but I read the article and thought it contained some perfectly valid points. Nothing ban-worthy there in my view.
And a word about Margaret’s spiteful comments (in response to the post by terridi, and here as well): this is precisely why I gave up on the Huffington Post message boards and came here. The fact that someone disagrees with you about the most effective means of solving a problem doesn’t make him or her a Republican shill, Margaret. That was a nasty, vindictive, baseless cheap shot and you know it.
Blah, blah, blah. I remember watching the commenters going down this road before, and the train wreck that ensued (over a thousand comments)was most destructive to both the web site and the commenters.
But, damn the missive torpedoes from on high and once more dear friends into the breach.
Least we forget, this web site, valued for all of its positive attributes, and rightly so, is a for profit, let me repeat that, a for profit business entity.
Exactly where did you think the corrupting influence of money stopped?
Only at the door step of every elected official?
And they thought they were free.
Margaret, I did vote in 2010, but I did not vote for many offices on the ballot, discriminating between the candidates I felt were trying to be progressive and the ones I knew were not. If indeed there are no choices that a person would feel confident in supporting, a no vote IS a vote, as long as elections are being held.
You always imply that everything would have been peachy had Democrats been kept in their places. But it wasn’t peachy up to that point, people saw that, hence the no votes. Not strategic thinking, but straightforward thinking, and I support that. A very reasonable response to you is that out of those nonvotes, the energy expended in voting for Obama originally flowed into the Occupy movement, and I for one think that was a very good thing, much better than had the Democrats who so disappointed us stayed in power because young folk and others didn’t bother to think but just went ahead and voted for the lesser evil. Evil is evil.
I take polite exception to FDL’s policy while understanding that this is their site and they can do as they please to manage it. The readership or nonreadership then will reflect if they are destroying meaningful conversation thereby, and that ‘non vote’ by the readership is also a vote. I realize the argument of those physically supporting these dialogues is that you go with the politicians you have, not the ones you wish to have, but to my mind that is a debatable point, and it would serve the site well to have that debate.
There are not just the three alternatives: vote for Republican, vote for Democrat, or don’t vote. There are third parties! Jill Stein is on the ballot in enough states to be a very reasonable alternative, and I thank FDL for putting diaries about that fact on the board. The Green Party presidential ticket is a reasonable alternative.
I think the alternative to the duopoly is becoming such a strong alternative, in spite of the repression, that our vote and the ability to do so in November may have to be upstaged by war so that martial law is the ‘reasonable’ option. If we can’t promote that third option here, it will be promoted elsewhere, and it is becoming a very viable option in spite of, and perhaps because of, such difficulties. I am very motivated this time around as are growing numbers, and that you may be sure will be seen as a real threat to the PTB.
To those who see that as a very real possibility, it may seem best just to be quiet and let the big boys play, but we are in real danger of losing every liberty we have that way. We so do need to discuss and prepare, even as we are supervised and the attempts to manipulate us increase. We may indeed have very little time to get our thinking straight. For old and young this has become a very different country and our basic freedoms, the relative security we enjoy, (some of us, not all) are under very serious threat.
Scarecrow, on that subject, do look at the book salon presentation by the guest host. Some qualification added by FDL there would be helpful, since it began on a note not up to FDL’s standards. The author overcame that, but it was a jarring introduction for those of us not familiar with his book.
Now we are getting to the truth of the matter. This was a political/economic decision and had little to do with so called values.
BTW it was the thought patrol not police.
I appreciate that FDL is a dot-com but please don’t try to hide behind values when a post didn’t violate site rules.
You don’t seem to take criticism well so try to take this as constructive criticism.
- but this news media, is a collection of people with varied ideas. That variety is what makes it potent and attractive. Wrestling with difficult topics is what it’s all about, as opposed to say, how wonderful Shakira’s ass is.
I have a great deal of respect for you. It’s just surprising to see the legitimate opinion of someone in a DIARY disappeared because a moderator disagrees with it.
BTW, do you think the voting system isn’t manipulated? It should be incumbent on the government to prove its legitimacy, not us to prove that is phony.
I agree with part of that. There’s no question that the idea of not voting is a “legitimate” point of view that some may wish to discuss by devoting space to it here. But it doesn’t follow that any particular paper is required or would want to devote space to that topic. Papers preclude views all the time.
Look, there’s a disagreement about whether this topic should be something FDL should want people to discuss. It’s not obvious; since I supported the call — because I thought the whole idea was contrary to FDL’s values — I’ll take responsibility for making the call; and folks can encourage the owner to change the decision. If other staff want to overrule the decision, they’ll make their views known to her. It is, after all, her blog and so her call.
Of course the site can make whatever “calls” it wishes, John.
No one of us has denied that fact, that power, that “right”.
And those who actually insult you, if that is their intent, especially if deliberate, do owe you an honest and sincere apology.
To question your deecision, I hope you realize, is not, on the face of it, to insult you, in any way, shape, or fashion, to denigrate or to seek to lessen the respect which you have rightfully earned, by your actions and through the honesty and understanding contained in your words, words being what mostly all of us, here, share.
However, I am still unclear, given that “MyFDL” makes very clear, as wendy has stated @ 38, that the opinions of the writers are NOT the opinions, necessarily, of the management at FDL … why you felt the compelling need to step in and join with others in making the decision which you, collectively, made.
You suggest that we take this matter up with the owner.
I would hope that the owner might take up the matter of her own accord, for it has to do with principles and concerns with which and in which she has long held both interest and well-spoken support.
Again, I ask you directly, whether the post could conceivably be such a threat, based upon its subject and substance, which I hold to be considerable, to FDL’s “values” and “traditions” that you, on your own and with the consent of others, decided that allowing it to remain would, somehow, undermine the entire premise of FDL … which seems to be the underlying, if un-articulated, “reason” that justifies removing it from the sight of others and from the site.
As I said, above, the article is about MUCH MORE than not voting, it is a thorough and thoughtful analysis of our common plight, of the fundamental failures of our electoral process and built-in and deliberate shortcomings of that Constitutional process which permits the few to control and, if they so choose, to impoverish the many while making a mockery of “representative” government.
I would further like to consider that you might, after further reflection, come to the reasonable conclusion, as I consider that your action furthered the legitimate concerns of the diary’s author as those concerns relate to the manipulation of opinion and the suppression of reasoned discourse in the name of some higher or more noble purpose … a method often used by this nation’s governing class to stifle dissent and muddy the waters of reason, tolerance, and understanding.
You, John, have chose a path which has increased interest in the banned article and it may well turn out that you shall obtain “results” quite the opposite of what you might have, with good intent, and I continue hold, good will … intended and expected.
Again, I put it to you.
Firedoglake has the well-deserved and earned reputation of embracing best practice … not of practicing partisan or philosophic discrimination against rational and reasonable discussion. Your actions, today, might not reflect that best practice.
Consider, were you to have written your own response to this diary, and taken each premise of the diary, in question, to honest task … refuting or countering as best you saw fit, in the context of a larger justification FOR voting in ways which you might suggest to be meaningful, in a system, corrupted by money and manipulated by voting methods well open to serious question, the lack of a verifiable paper-trail among them, then you would demonstrate “best practice” in action.
Again, I hope that you may take what I am saying in the spirit and concern with which I say it?
DW
If I may add my 2¢ – from the MyFDL “About Us”
Refrain from calling out other site users, including commenters, in the diary title.
Our moderators reserve the right to take down any post or ban any user.
Please do not create diaries to complain about the moderators, editors or site operations. If you have a complaint, make it inside an open thread/watercooler post or email the MyFDL editor.
Seems like Scarecrow is actually allowing another venting opportunity even though this is a path that has been trod by many earlier.
How many times do folks need to be reminded of these rules anyway?
Obviously FDL can purge posts either because they violate site rules, or arbitrarily because the moderators dislike them — just as Daily Kos bans third-party supporters and scrubs any criticism of Barack Obama.
Kind of sad that FDL aspires to be Daily Kos, but there it is.
Thanks, Mom & Dad! (Just kidding–I don’t know DWBartoo and my parents left this mortal coil long ago.)
Accustomed as I am to personal attacks, to read such praise for my writing brings me great personal satisfaction–and a deep blush. Since I’m retired, I have the luxury of being able to offer my writing without copyright for anyone to repost anywhere, and I hope those who enjoy it will do just that, as terrydi did (again somebody I don’t know). Of course by doing so, they can expect to be vilified, censored, and sometimes banned, but there may also be the occasional compensation of finding kindred souls who appreciate alternative and controversial views. After all, if all we needed were mainstream and noncontroversial views, there would be no need for sites like FDL at all.
So exactly how is FDL pulling a post that advocates the stupid idea of giving up and not voting mean it “aspires to be Daily Kos?”
I read the original post in question and thought it should have been pulled since it was posted by someone who was NOT the original author.
Not voting is exactly what the voter suppression laws are trying to achieve. Why should I voluntarily do as they want? A post advocating not voting might just as well be written by the RNC.
I’m not sure I agree or disagree with the decision to take down this particular post, but I respect the reason given. I don’t think any website is obliged to provide a platform for any idea that anyone wants to promote, though in this case I think the discussion would have been worth having because I think it’s an idea worth refuting.
Bringing about real change requires hard work, local, regional, and national organizing, great courage, and powerful ideas that people care about. Right now such a movement for change is at best just beginning. If it turns out that not voting can be an effective tactic at some point in this movement for change, let’s talk about it then.
In the meantime, if people don’t think their vote will have any impact on the real lives of real people at least in the short term, or that their vote can be a building block for a third party movement, or that there is any utility at all in voting for or against a local ballot initiative, etc., and if they join the 10’s of millions of people who already don’t vote, that’s their choice.
But encouraging people to passively not do something, to surrender a right when all our rights are under attack, as if this will magically bring about change, is a squandering of energy and a distraction from the real work of bringing about change.
….ahhh, but for us American activists, it is our very repulsion and revulsion (at the idea of not voting) that brings us compulsion to hear the argument, and to understand the point.
I read the essay and while I don’t personally agree with its premise, I found the piece well written, cogent and thought provoking.
I find it being censored here baffling. Are we here so insecure in our own beliefs and views that we feel some sort of existential threat posed by the mere discussion of topics containing opinions that run counter to our own? Worse, the post violated no explicit rules or policies I am aware of, it was apparently censored by an ad hoc judgment based on nothing more than one or a few persons being uncomfortable with it for reasons that we members are not entitled to know. The whole thing reeks of capricious and arbitrary judgment, and the defense of it “If you don’t accept that, you can go somewhere else.” is practically a textbook example of condescension in action.
How about instead of taking the easy and intellectually lazy way out and preemptively shutting down discussions, we instead apply ourselves and refute whatever points we are in disagreement with? Particularly when the points made are in no way counter to stated site policy. And more so when censoring demonstrably actually draws more attention and eyeballs to the subject than simply letting the members discuss the topic as they will. Censorship should be held in reserve only for commercial spamming or the most odious and offensive stuff, not used to promote the staff’s viewpoint over others based on simple difference of opinion.
Suppose you were in my position (never mind what that means; dunno myself) and you are asked to decide this question:
1. You read a post which, on it’s own, reads as a well written serious argument about voting in the US. You’re smypathetic to some of it’s concerns.
2. You also know that every day, every morning, you have to help clean out trolls, ads, nutsoes, people who have been banned for various reasons but think they can return under new names, etc. You know that anyone can register and post a diary and will do so until some violation gets them removed. You know that the RNC regularly trolls here; that there are paid provocateurs, trolls, etc. You know there’s lots of money for this.
3. You know that many groups are working hard at voter suppression efforts, or misleading voters, or cynically telling them it doesn’t matter, even though they believe the opposite and are simply trying to manipulate the outcomes. You realize these people are not the same as the poster you have to decide about, but how do you differentiate?.
Knowing all this, how would you approach the question of deciding what is permitted or not? Would you say, anything goes? No limits? There were be some lines? And why should a personal blog allow that?
If there are limits, where would you draw the lines? do you believe they can be simple/hard/fast, or do you think they’d involved some ambiguity and this require some judgement, like, “okay, this is fine, but that’s not”? And how would you make the decision: one person? Get concurrence from others? From whom?
I don’t like having to do this. But I’m convinced someone has to make calls that aren’t always easy. Do you recognized this as an issue that needs to be thought through?
Sorry, I meant to say “Sunday Book Salon” – most of the others have excellent introductory pieces.
I noticed right away by the title that this diary could be in violation of that policy. I remember that Jane Hamsher stated it specifically not long ago, when similar questioning of an editorial decision happened.
And it brings up the possibility … would FDL want to launch a separate section perhaps more managed by community consensus and consent? A section where anxious debaters might jump at the chance to out-logic each other on subjects beyond our usual boundaries, while not needing to worry that they may argue or devil’s-advocate themselves out of digital existence.
Of course I appreciate your vote of confidence, shootthatarrow. I confess I needed to go upstream to read what I wrote that might have been noteworthy (brains now made of gingerbread). And I have to say, I’m a little disappointed in its academic tone. What I might have said instead was:
God’s teeth! We’re fighting for our lives, the lives of future generations, and that of our home planet! Some of are even fighting for our brothers and sisters around the globe, whose plight is authored by the same Feudal Masters who intend to plunder every peso of the fruits of labor, erode our ‘representative’ democracy, allow us to die from want of universal health care and hunger…all of which is utterly unnecessary, were not our government sold to the highest bidder.
We watch every day as the criminal banking class is allowed to function without prosecution, and are urged to find joy when regulators slap a few monetary sanctions on them as ‘settlements’. We know neither party intends to interrupt the for-profit prison system, nor end the laws that work toward criminalizing whole classes of our citizens for their behaviors, and locks away political dissidents on trumped-up charges, not to mention the entirely new class of charges our current President has authored.
We’re in agony at not only the expense of our empire and military budgets, but at the fact that its actions are sincerely making it *more likely* that our *enemies*, the ones we are *creating and augmenting* by night raids, drone killing, occupations, supporting corrupt governments…may one day react ever more violently on these shores to stop us.
We’re faced with so many emergency tipping points now that our heads swivel to learn about them all, write some of them up, and hope the stories get told out in the larger world beyond this site that hosts us. GMOs, clean water, nuclear power, mutated species, our civil rights to meet on The Commons, express our dissent, adhere to the Constitution, international laws in myriad sectors…all are either at, or past, critical points right now. I’ve started a post ‘If Not Now, Then When…and never finish it. Those who believe things will just deteriorate slowly through attrition are wrong, imo; it’s all happening so quickly now, and many of us are now pretty dispensable, and I resent the hell out of it, as I fear for the lives of my children and grandchildren.
Some of the tension here lately has, imo, been with the more conventional front-page commenters v. the rowdy and dissatisfied My.fdl diarists and commenters. Dunno how to parse the recent mention of decreased participation here, but I do have some guesses about it.
But holy hell, yeah; I wanted to have the conversation, even though I had some counter-arguments and other ideas…and wanted people to make their cases for where I was wrong.
Ooopsie; sorry, dear. Looks like I got carried away. But again, thank you.
And:
@Scarecrow: being an editor/moderator may be one of the worst jobs I can imagine. When the gods mean to punish you, they…make you a moderator. But please remember what dire emergencies we’re facing, and factor that in.
@Dakine: I did ask about the disappeared diary at Kit’s watercooler around noon (maybe?; hell, I don’t remember), but he apparently was busy with OccupyAustin events, and never answered.
I dunno what page you get when you click the Contact Us up in the righthand corner, but I get Page Not Found. (I do have the email address, but most probably don’t.)
Thank you for your kind, considerate responses here, Scarecrow.
Hugs from (no affiliation with staff or owner.)
I truly hope that the questioners will hear an answer in this comment.
Jane also said about any software/server innovation and change at firedoglake: “It would cost around $3000. Everything costs $3000″.
That may sound ideal from a free speech point of view, but I suspect no blog owner would ever accept the legal liability risks it would inevitably create. Not everyone plays by the principles you care about, and there will always be those participating in bad faith, just to create those risks. Every blog that allows comments, let alone diaries, has to have some monitoring system. I don’t know of any exceptions.
I read the “stop voting” post yesterday at its original site. This morning I read an article about a ballot initiative in California that calls for labeling Frankenfoods. And now I have an ongoing “to vote or not to vote” conversation in my head that probably won’t end until the last day of voter registration. (I haven’t voted since I cast my
optimisticdelusional vote for Obama, and I have moved so I’d have to re-register.)The ironies do abound. This conversation has me – an almost Anarchist who posts fairly inflammatory posts and comments without censorship here – reconsidering my ain’t gonna vote no more stance.
On a separate note, Scarecrow, I won’t argue with your explanation or your assertion that FDL can publish or not publish anything it wants. But your use of the word “promote” is new and slightly confusing to me. I know it is used in posts that are put on the MyFDL page but I always thought of it as meaning “moved to the top” or “put in a position of prominence” as opposed to something along the lines of endorsing the content of any particular post. I always imagined that the mods or whoever is responsible for “promoting” posts did so because they were interesting above all else – not necessarily because a mod agreed with the content or that it was in line with any particular philosophy.
It seems to me that many people are genuinely surprised when a post gets removed because we had not anticipated it, and we don’t feel like we can anticipate it in the future.
It is true that voter suppression tactics seem to indicate the importance voting still has within an obviously corrupted system where money is speech. And that is heartening, if it is as it seems. However, you cannot say that withholding one’s vote from this or that candidate is stupid if a person has lost faith in the system. This is a very reasonable circumstance given everything that has been happening to it since 2000.
It might make some feel that the voter suppression tactics are simply camouflage, the Republicans acting as Republicans always act, to present a worst case opposition and shoo folk into the chute like cattle. You can say that is paranoid, but it is definitely not stupid, and such an opinion doesn’t violate the rules but does expand the discussion. So long as people are polite in discussing whether or not that is true and support their opinion with facts, such a conversation is helpful.
I see the Republican choices for president as so obviously canted to the right in order to make Obama look better – and that’s why they made the vp choice they did – just as with Sarah Palin. Think tank psychology. Maybe I’m wrong. I’m plenty foolish enough to be wrong a lot of the time. Okay, discuss it. Show me where I am wrong, what I did not consider in coming to my conclusion.
Please realize that for some of us the power to vote or not vote is perhaps the last little bastion of hope for change. How we influence that is supremely important, even to those who decide not to vote because they are putting their remaining power as citizens into making that sort of statement. I don’t believe in it myself, because I want to vote for Jill Stein who represents my values. But I want them to have a say, because as someone said, it is a peaceful alternative, and I am all for making a statement for peace.
Now, dakine01, you are a person who has earned my respect, as has Scarecrow.
However, WHO violated specifically WHAT or WHICH rules?
And WHEN did these specific individuals do this violating?
Some of us suggest that the “rules” are, apparently, neither clear nor evident.
Specifically, then, WHAT rules did the author of the banned post violate?
And, if you postulate that NONE of us have any business asking questions about actions taken, such as pulling or banning a diary which did NOT violate ANY rules that I am aware of, then you are arguing for arbitrary and capricious power, supreme power that may not be questioned … and I do NOT imagine or think that such is actually your intent.
You have made an assertion of rules violations and it is now incumbent upon you to make clear WHAT the specific violations have been as well as identifying the specific individuals who you consider to have violated those rules.
Otherwise, you add to the already considerable confusion and dismiss the legitimate views and opinions of many others while offering neither evidence nor example of the specific offenses, thereby adding to the creation of a climate that chills honest debate and shared consideration.
That may seem a bit harsh, but so too has been, in my opinion, the response you have posted above.
Clarity matters, as does honesty, for both are necessary to trust.
And trust is part and parcel of what is concerning many who comment here, quite as much as respect.
DW
For any who don’t have the email addresses that others might want.
Here’s a link: http://firedoglake.com/staffpage/
Under About Us, there’s a section about Staff, which at the end of each bio, lists email addresses.
Hope this is helpful.
You’re correct about this rule and the problem with this post; it could have been taken down immediately, and I understand why that rule is needed. I ask the mod’s forebearance for a bit, because this is not an easy question and I want to explore whether folks here can help sort it out. It’s not just or prirmarily about the original post; it’s about a broader concern and how any rule gets structured and defined.
You are most welcome, mymarkx.
I consider that your presence here is a great benefit to this community, and that your thoughts will find the appreciation and respect of many.
DW
Click the little question mark in the upper right corner on the blue banner across the top of the page and it takes you to the “About Us” page, including FAQs and the bullet points including the “Ground Rules”
The stolen election? And the blogosphere explosion.
In fact the vote rigging with electronic machines dates from the 1980′s. It’s our awareness of it that happened too late.
I would say that someone OTHER than the original author posting a diary from elsewhere without any indication that it is approved violates the Copyright Terms of Service/Ground Rules. I didn’t memorize the complete diary but do not recall any indicator of this. The poster specified she was posting something written by another. I would say obvious exceptions are posts like those from RH Reality Check as an overall umbrella posting.
And if you note, the Ground Rules in the About Us section pretty much do say Mod/Editor decisions can be arbitrary.
I just personally do not see any value in allowing a post that flies diametrically opposite of what the site in general tries to accomplish. As I say, that post could easily have been written by the RNC
Wow. Comparing reasoned arguments for not voting to “racist posts, anti semitism, sexist posts, libel, hate speech, deceptive ads, personal attacks.” Just wow.
Scarecrow, you disappoint me more than I can express. It is a dark day for me at FDL.
What she said.
And even the most upset comments here are done with love for what this site represents or they wouldn’t be bothering. Love for the site, and wanting to influence the direction this country will go in future.
Desperately wanting to do that.
That is in tune with the Occupy movement, support for Bradley Manning and all the brave stands FDL has taken, as a site and individually.
Well, better at it than me have spoken; I will leave it at that.
*there’s a disturbance in the force.*
Of course not “anything” goes, John, and no one is suggesting that.
I am merely asking you to consider how this appears and whether you actually did think it through appropriately?
Do you dismiss out of hand my suggestion that you could have directly addressed your concerns TO the post in question, refuting or countering the points it raised, one by one?
Clearly, this is not an everyday occurrence, John, and I well realize that your time, like everyone’s, is not unlimited, yet a better “teaching moment” might well have obtained had you taken the post to specific task.
I note that you are saying that this diary is now potentially facing being disappeared and I sincerely hope that you will, instead, allow it to stand.
I must leave for a while, to take my daughter to get glasses, but hope that on my return this diary will still be here that further discussion, which I consider is helpful and necessary, may be availed.
I hope that you may know, John, that I value your sensibility and moral compass … and hope that you further consult them … as this issue will not, easily, if ever, go quietly away.
It is likely to return, again and again, unless none remain to ponder, to question, or to wonder.
Namaste
DW
Great point, julianaia, and in fact I just bailed out on my bread dough to come say something similar I’d meant to say. The whole planet is restless, and sooo many other organizations are working at societal movements for their human rights, the rights of the planet, and institutions that are ballasted by higher consciousness and moral/ethical principles.
Many of us believe that the Occupy Democracy revolution is one key way forward, and while it’s resting, studying, making plans and alternatives to corporate dominance of our lives, we should consider other unorthodox strategies as well. And yes; the comments are given in love and respect, if barbed here and there.
sorry, but my point was not to argue the post was the same as any of those; it was merely to point out that a blog can decide that certain topic are not accepted. Of course these are not the same.
The question is, what should/should not be okay for this particular blog, and the list of obvious problems I gave is not necessarily the complete list of topics that might be problematic for a given blog.
You didn’t answer any of my questions.
To that point, neither did you answer mine: How do explain your position that a voting system created, run, secured, and kept in secret from the people of this country by defense contractors is legitimate and worth paying homage to?
You attribute to me something that is not my position. I’ve not defended any of the corrupted versions.
Here’s the incongruency for me: virtually every post on this website reveals some facet of a very broken system. I remember a mod – maybe Scarecrow? saying that the Occupy diaries were some of the most popular posts at FDL, and obviously FDL has taken a very pro-Occupy stance. Even the tamest occupiers are not exactly out there manning the voter-registration booths. Jane and others routinely take elected officials to task for being lying, duplicitous scoundrels.
Being against voter-suppression tactics is not the same as being in favor of continuing to enable a broken system. Does FDL really expect that it can bring so many truths to light and then suddenly draw this sort of line? Choosing not to vote – especially at a national level – is a first step in recognizing the futility of participating in our Citizens United form of democracy. It is hardly anarchy or insurrection.
I don’t understand. You throw out a diary about not voting because it is a topic where the “idea was contrary to FDL’s values,” yet you share doubts about the legitimacy or efficacy of voting?
I’m scratching my head.
With all due respect, Scarecrow, this is a very disingenuous rhetorical game, unworthy of you. Cf. “I would not vote for Mitt Romney in the same way that I would not vote for baby rape. Of course, I’m not saying Mitt Romney is comparable to baby rape….”
Yeah, it’s complicated. Welcome to my world.
Okay — I see I’ve convinced no one, [almost] no one else seems to see there’s a tough issue here, and most think the call that I supported was a bad one. I accept the verdict.
I’m done here.
There’s a “Flag this comment as inappropriate” button icon on every comment. Did anyone flag any of your comments?
Voting is the most precious right there is in a democratic society, so the real question is whether or not this is a democratic society.
Voting alone is no indication of democracy. Stalin held (rigged) elections and Hitler was elected, but few would say that the USSR or Nazi Germany were democracies because people were allowed to vote. In fact, I’ve got a brief essay I wrote that some might enjoy:
The Value of Voting
Where voting constitutes a voice in government, I would no more oppose voting than I would oppose breathing, as voting is just as essential to a democratic form of government as breathing is to human life. The problem arises only when voting does not constitute a real voice in government, such as in places where votes are not counted, aren’t verifiable, or can be ignored, manipulated, or overruled so that the will of the people is no longer the deciding factor in government policy.
That’s kind of a cheap shot. Many people here came to your defense and many acknowledged that “your world” is complicated and that being a mod is not an easy job.
Historically (?) the US republic never intended to give just folks a voting say in any part of federal governance. The democratic feature of this republic resides in the US Congress and the state and local legislatures and councils or boards. Elected (?) officers determine who can run for office.
Originally only white male property owners could vote. The people have had to fight for what the rich whites of the 18th century sought to keep for themselves. The Republican (Regressive) Party wants to return to that rich whites only concept.
#94 meant for AitchD
I might add that the voter suppression laws being passed throughout the country are only one tactic to achieve that goal. Convincing people to not vote is another.
What happens when you touch the icon on the screen?
You get a nifty sticker that says “I Voted!”
My kindergarten teacher used to give me stars and happy faces to make me feel like I did the right thing.
Seriously, you give Wyle labs, or CACI or Diebold or whatever other non-governmental profit-generating contractor a tickle, but what else happens?
Rich people own the voting machines. I don’t know that they’re all rich white people any more, though, so I suppose we have made some progress in terms of the diversity of the oligarchy.
I can understand why Democratic moderators would want liberals to wait until after the elections to reassess our alliance… It’s the old lesser of two evils argument.
Although (presently) Jill Stein best represents my views, I left the following comment on the deleted OP.
_______________________________________________________________
“Nobody should be criticized for (not) voting on principle.
The new plutocratic kleptocracy isn’t worth the time.
The multinational oligarchs won’t allow a third party–
(not without buying it off first.)
This isn’t your parent’s government– we have a real turd on our hands. Rec’d”
_______________________________________________________________
This will remain my view until our government displays adequate reason and decency.
Having no solution to the country’s move to the right…
I’m not advocating anything other than the concept of acceptance…
(of our being screwed as a prerequisite for change.)
Not buying it. Recently in Illinois legislators and a governor elected by voters ended the death penalty, provided for civil unions, and instituted a small and imperfect tax increase to prevent even worse declines in public services. No one will convince me this wasn’t worth doing.
Do we now have justice, equality, and economic well-being for all in Illinois? We do not. But Illinois is also home to Occupy groups, Rainbow Push, groups that work with and advocate for the homeless, the hungry, immigrants, and the mentally and physically ill, labor unions, third party groups, environmental and sustainability activists, the Independent Voters of Illinois, chapters of the League of Women Voters, and the very coalition that worked to end the death penalty, just to name a few.
It will take the efforts of all of us, and more of us, to bring about the changes most of us would like to see. Refraining from voting contributes nothing to that effort.
In the meantime, I fully intend to stop by my polling place on election day this year, to do what little I can do there with my vote. Then maybe I’ll come home and send a few bucks to Occupy Supply or the ACLU. You should do the same.
The arguments for not participating in national elections are varied, as you well know. While abstaining always supports those who get the most votes, yet if hardly anyone votes will it matter, as pointed out here already, since it will undermine or destroy the government’s claim to the legitimacy it has always depended on.
In fact, the US voting turnout is roughly as shameful as the populace’s literacy. US citizens (?) watch more teevee than they do anything else except breathe.
You said While abstaining always supports those who get the most votes
I’m probably being obtuse again, but the way I see it, only those votes that are cast support the winner. How can abstinence from voting have an affect on who wins?
I have the impression that the hardcore issue being discussed is national elections for federal office.
I see a number of comments here that are dangerously close to violating the Carnac Rule:
In the post by Jane at that link, she discusses how progressive groups (LGBTs and DREAM activists in particular) have pushed Obama into action, by making him work for their votes. Her basic point, from the top of the post, is this:
Elections are when politicans are hungry. They are desperate. They are anxious and nervous and concerned. They want votes. Again from Jane:
The alternative is equally valid. Once a candidate knows your vote is lost to them, your ability to move them is also gone. This, too, is a political reality.
Things that diminish or suppress the progressive vote — whether heavy-handedly denying people a ballot through voter ID laws/poll taxes/literacy tests/etc. or less directly by convincing people to give up their vote without a fight (your vote won’t count/doesn’t matter/will only encourage “them”/etc) — go against just about everything Jane put in that post.
Scarecrow, you’ve got a helluva job, and you have my thanks for your willingness to do it. It may *feel* thankless at times, but I for one am grateful for your work.
Hi. If you’re in a group of ten where everyone can vote on a motion, and the tally without your vote is 5 for and 4 against the motion, your abstention lets the motion carry, but your vote against, making it 5-5 means it doesn’t carry.
I know what you’re thinking: the presiding officer can break the tie. But if the presiding officer is permitted to participate in the debate, rule on procedure, etc., he/she doesn’t get to vote at all (per Robert’s et al.). If he/she can vote, he/she can also create a tie and kill the motion. Hence ‘whipping the vote’.
A very dark day at Lake but the damage is done, lots of talk but the censorship remains. Life will go on here at FDL but somewhat diminished expectations now is the norm, respect must be earned not demanded.
Thanks, Peterr, but this case reminds me of the law school maxim: “bad cases make bad law.” This was probably not the right case to announce a position that surprised people and hadn’t been previously explained, so commenters here were right to flag the process. One problem was that the original post had yellow flags for other technical reasons, which just brought it to mod attention, and I was asked to take a look. But when I read it, the policy issue I saw jumped out at me.
In retrospect, I made a mistake in not letting the mods in charge fix the original post tech issues and just let it go with that. Turning this into something more was my call, and it was probably the wrong way to flag this issue. I think the issue that concerns me is still there, but that requires a longer conversation and less angst than I created.
There’s an important discussion to be had about how to make voting truly effective and democratic, and what you do when you feel it’s not. That’s a legitimate topic. How you do address that without raising the concerns I see is a hard problem, in my view.
Hmmm, thanks for the reply. I will have to think about this for a bit. At first glance, as much as I see what you’re saying, does the same affect happen when there are millions voting?
I have to add that I agree that telling people Not To Vote falls into the same category as voter suppression, including “caging”.
Well said.
So we can agree that assigning nefarious and unacknowledged electoral motives to someone by suggesting their criticism of a bogus “let them think they’re doing something, while we run the real show from the backroom” system is an invalid reason for disappearing her diary.
Get your own contradiction?
Your comments are always well thought, and solid, Solid As a Rock.
Peter, Rock.
I admire the honesty of everyone here.
That this happened right after the Ryan announcement and all, it’s no short jump of mind to wonder about the original post and the diarylink here, as to it’s liability, possible conflict with FDL policy, and so I think Scarecrow is also admirable.
All things considered.
What’s amusing is that in the past when Terridi posted that stuff over and over and over and over again, lots of people suggested that she was a troll working for the Koch brothers. But, when this post, which was very like the others, is removed, people scream censorship.
If for no other reason, Scarecrow was right for removing the post, because she’d simply copied and pasted it from another site where it was originally posted 4 months ago. Terridi ignored a lot of posting rules in the past as well, so this was long overdue.
Should have read;
So we can agree that assigning nefarious and unacknowledged electoral motives to someone by suggesting their criticism of a bogus “let them think they’re doing something, while we run the real show from the backroom” system is an example of manipulating people, is an invalid reason for disappearing her diary.
I said nothing about motives. I said nothing about people not criticizing the system.
What I said is that giving up on the system of voting appears to go against what Jane so eloquently stated in that post, and thus against the purpose for which she created and maintains this blog.
Proof? Surely you must be joking! ;-)
In theory, abstaining would also apply in large numbers like millions, but in practice (since there’s no efficient way to trust in so large a scale that every single vote has been accounted for) the threshold is lowered to something like ‘a clear majority (or plurality)’. So, automatic recounts kick in, or run-off elections follow, or the decision is sent to another body like the US House of Representatives in the presidential election.
http://youtu.be/Gz3Cc7wlfkI
Or to SCOTUS.
Speaking of voting, Rep. Cliff Stearns a Teabag General in the War Against Women, lost his primary election to an unknown. He lost by 600 votes.
Vote, and ask for a paper ballot. Then go get Meta-phoric if it makes you happy.
800
Wrong. You ascribed talking about not voting to the nefarious goal of suppressing progressive votes. That’s assigning a motive.
No one here can say the election system in the United States is legitimate, because no one has access to prove that it is, because it’s a secret. And that’s my point. By participating in such a system, as I have every election year of my life since I was old enough, I legitimize that system.
“Sure, we’ll give the ni**ers the vote. That’ll keep ‘em happy. But we’ll be counting them, so everybody’s a winner.”
You can call me stupid for seeing the system that way, and I can call you stupid for thinking you can trust Diebold, but according to the rule you just stated about devining motives, you’re a hypocrite.
It is interesting to see the responses to this radical concept, it scares the hell out of many. The idea is not to suppress voting it is to destroy the legitimacy of our Regime and to end its ability to rule.
Few in Amerika are ready to make that leap because they still believe in the system, however deluded that belief may be.
As we slide into depression and Third World Status i wonder how long it will take for enough of the voting public to join the 40% who don’t vote and how our rulers will justify their claim to legitimacy.
The majority swore to God it wasn’t and never should be a precedent. What SCOTUS ruled was that Florida was entitled to continue its outlaw and renegade pursuits.
If I may take this opportunity? The incredibly and unbelievably inestimable Front Pager Jon W told me I must be insane if I think the US Constitution does not require “a majority” vote for legislation to pass or fail — even though it doesn’t require a majority vote for passing legislation.
IOKIYAAFP.
The Republicans love it when lefties either don’t vote or vote third party. That’s why Republican operatives fund lefty third parties like the Greens.
As a long-time moderator and admin on discussion sites I can offer my perspective on how best and most effectively to perform that thankless task. The first and most ethically grounded principle of moderation is to facilitate an open and civil discourse within a clear set of rules. When moderation in the form of deleting content that is ambiguous within those rules is called for don’t simply delete the material without explaining very clearly and publicly why. Don’t worry about deleting content that is obviously commercial spam or rabidly uncivil; everyone understands that, it doesn’t require explanation. But also never delete civilly enunciated content because of simple disagreement. Doing so violates the principle of facilitating open and civil discourse and robs those participating of the ability to contribute to and develop the discussion. It also demeans the participants and evinces a lack of respect for them.
The best moderators do not use their position to advance their- or even the site’s- preferred viewpoint. What they do is, and I repeat, facilitate an open discourse within a clear set of rules. If you are ever tempted to use the moderator functions to shut down speech you disagree with, first honestly and dispassionately ask yourself, “Would doing so advance or hinder the discussion?” The answer should be instructive on how to proceed.
Please let’s not become like DailyKos et al where the entire discourse is tainted by the stench of the site in a censorious manner tirelessly trying to control the discussions to suit a particular viewpoint. That isn’t discussion worth having, it becomes vapid and intellectually stunted propagandizing with a big steaming side of fear of any non-conformity. Such sites are boring and in the end pointless as discussion sites.
The Democrats love it when we continue to vote for them no matter how many babies Obama kills or how many Bradley Mannings he tortures or how many lies he tells about Social Security and healthcare.
It doesn’t happen every day, Kurt, as I’m sure you are aware of.
Things get hinky. Stuff happens in the news. We figure out that we are all about to get washed with radioactivity from Japan.
For whatever reason, this kind of thing happens from time to time.
Well, that’s from my perview, anyway.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Really!?
What is so offensive that my comments need to be moderated?
Voting in a “managed democracy” is similar to voting for your favorite “American Idol” contestant.
Censorship on FDL, not surprising at this point.
The Greens don’t have any money.
I debated whether to flag the original post as inappropriate or respond to the substance.
I would listen to an argument about not voting based on a substantive alternative plan for change, but all I saw in yesterday’s post, and in terridi’s earlier input, is a magical notion that it will somehow delegitimize government (half the country doesn’t vote and huge numbers of those who vote are somewhere between skeptical and cynical, how legitimized is that?) and magically lead to change.
This leads to the dilemma – flag-as-deliberate-voter-suppression or dispute-as-innocent-but-pointless. I chose the latter, but I think it’s the same dilemma, writ small, that you faced. Not sure which direction I would have chosen if I were in your place, but I appreciate your work.
No, I did not, answer all of your questions, just the one that seemed most important. I shall try if you wish, to answer all of your questions, now that I have the time to do so.
However, I should point out that you never answered my question to you, which I posed @53 in reply to your comment, @44.
Let us first look at your list of points in your comment @ 61.
1. I agree. I am also sympathetic to some, in fact a number of its concerns.
2. While I am not charges with this responsibility, your approach and concerns seem reasonable to me.
3. I have no doubt that there are those who cynically seek to suppress voter participation … right here in Pennsylvania, today, Tom Corbett’s administration is doing precisely that, aided and abetted by the judiciary, yet there is NO evidence, none at all, that mymarkx was or is so doing, neither his post nor any of the comments he has made here support any contention that he is insisting that anyone agree with him, merely that they read and consider his reasonable concerns.
Knowing all that, what criteria might you share with the rest of us that specifically shows just what. or where, the banned diary presented any substantial risk to the well-being of FDL? and no, as I have said, not just “anything” should be allowed. For example, were I in a position to pass judgment I would NOT permit ad hominen attacks, nor would I look kindly upon false argument of any stripe.
However, if there are “subjects” to be banned, would it not be useful to publish a list of what is NOT permitted speech or which ideas will not be permitted to be discussed?
Doubtless, like pornography, that speech and those ideas might not be amenable to easy delineation, but may be recognized whenever they occur?
I certainly do not envy you the position of so deciding, but it is a power that ought be used most-sparingly and with great caution. One must weigh the relative merit and costs … and reaching conclusions, by oneself or with others cannot be easy, nor should it be, as I’m certain you will agree.
Nonetheless, you have said that it was a group decision, apparently a group NOT including Jane Hamsher, but a group comprised of certain people, unknown in that particular capacity to the rest of us. Now that brings up another question, which while you may have already pondered and answered it, should still be of concern. FDL permits those who make the behind the scene decision, like this one, to step from behind the “curtain” and participate just like everyone else, but they are NOT like everyone else, they have special poweers that may NOT be appealed.
You cannot fail to realize that it is precisely the possession and exercise of such powers that have had a VERY significant impact on the “situation” in which we now find ourselves … that is arbitrary powers, arbitrarily and seemingly capriciously used, CAN all too easily be misused.
Do you suppose, John, that I am unfamiliar with thinking about this topic, this reality, of NOT thinking through the complexity of issues involved AND the possible consequences, especially to trust, as I mentioned to dakine01?
Do you imagine that equally reasonable and thoughtful people cannot arrive at differing conclusions?
I have very carefully, and appropriately, I consider, not accused you of simple-mindedness or of not grasping complexity AND nuance.
I should hope that you would and will accord me the same respect.
We are both very much concerned with what is happening to this nation and civil society, and we are equally concerned with civility, itself.
I imagine we are also concerned with best practice, and to our respective abilities and capacity to encourage, appreciate, and consistently further its practice.
Now, I apologize for taking so very long to respond, and hope that you will do me the honor of responding to my thoughts that you might have handled things differently without assuming that I am incapable of understanding both the position in which you find yourself and the sincere efforts you have made to deal fairly, squarely, and honestly with a most difficult situation.
I only suggest that, had you handled it more directly, by refuting those aspects of it which which you disagree, that you would possibly have had a much different response …
Please understand, if I did not care about this site, about you and others here for whom I have the utmost respect, that I should not have bothered myself with the time and effort spent to seek to put that suggestion across.
Again, John, I most sincerely hope that you might take what I have said as evidence, not of disdain or disapproval, but of genuine and heartfelt concern and appreciation.
Namaste
DW
Hi Scarecrow and everyone. I haven’t read every comment, haven’t read the initial post, and I can’t stick around, but I’ve loved some things I read here in the comments, and even liked some things I disagreed with (talking to you, Scarecrow), so can I just jump in and out here with a few thoughts?
Peterr @103 refers to Jane’s Carnac post. I was referring back to Jane to in my mind too, wondering how this issue possibly violated her/FDL’s position, because I was going back to her DIY 2012 webinar when it seemed like we were trying every permutation possible to come out ahead in 2012. Game theory. Daniel Ellsberg, master game theorist, participated. Not voting seems like a permutation of that same communal lefty angst, so to see a post actually taken down for being an incorrect permutation is kind of a head scratcher for me.
DW, thank you for pointing out the weirdness of a hidden vote by a secret few determining whether all of us can see a post about voting. Love ya.
Wendy, hotflashcarol, love ya too, hazily now because I can’t remember exactly what you said here that confirmed it again. Oh hey, hfc, I can see #124 as I’m typing. There. That. What you said.
(I’m breaking up this comment here because it goes on too long.)
(…continuation of @132…)
Great idea I saw here that I’d like to promote is normanb’s @ 63:
Because what normanb also said @21 was true:
FDL now seems like a shade of what it used to be. I cannot tell you how many names I DON’T see here anymore and what a waste that seems like. But this post is alive and fun. Wildly divergent opinions, strong debate. Yeah!
Seems like this is a continuation of the argument that was going on in the monster thread where Robert Alexander Dumas got banned. In a way that’s been going on in my head ever since because I was working on a manifesto of a comment then and by the time I was ready to post it the comments were closed. Uh oh, it feels like it all wants to be written again. Down, manifesto, down!
Short manifesto is that FDL could try being the change we want to see in the rest of the world. Transparent, democratic, inclusive, self-governing. Competitive reasoning. Hello, what normanb suggested could be tried on the MyFDL section. We could self-govern and self-moderate simply by vote buttons on comments and posts. Expand the Recommend and Flag options. Dislike-but-I’ll-defend-to-the-death-your-right-to-say-it would be nice too sometimes. If hiding is so damned important to some of us, then put a hide button in. If not hiding is so damned important to some of us (me), then put a reveal button in. I’ll click it, you don’t have to, and I’ll read privately what y’all have hidden.
One thing I liked about Daily Kos was that you could rec comments. There are so many great comments I’ve read here that I wished I could rec. You got to see what got liked and hidden by who. Top Comments floated out to wider attention. You also got to recognize the wolf packs, which had interesting/dangerous implications. I am definitely more concerned about banning and hiding than I am about what the banned did or what the hidden said. It all speaks for itself and can damn itself just fine and most legitimately without any outside help.
I don’t deny it. I stand fully by that comment but it doesn’t translate into:
Not even in wingnutese. Very clearly I stated that I would continue to flag jbade because he kept accusing everybody of not being in love with Ron Paul of having “blood on their hands” and so forth. I couldn;t care less that he supportyed Paul and I stated more than once that it was his right to do so. What I objected to was his demanding everybody else sycophantically agree with him or else we were “murderers” and “tools”. Jbade was a bully by reflexively badmouthing people who didn’t agree with him. You may of course feel free to search for a more damning comment of mine to support your hypothesis that it was I doing the bullying or you may come up with another accusation. Wanna try again or would you like to at this point cut out the hyperbole and bullshit and discuss this rationally?
I have many, good, kind, giving, friends who never vote. Should i stop loving them for that? I vote but that’s my choice. The discussion for or against is one we should not be afraid of. Deal with this with a sigh and moment of clear mind. I for one wont not vote because someone thought it might bring about a change so much needed. I will listen to their argument tho.
Last thought, on the issue of not voting, as game theory.
Back two summers ago, BP, I suggested voting for a whale. It was like not voting, but more articulate:
P.S. Last month, Fatster’s Roundup linked to story about a town in Alaska that voted a cat for mayor: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/07/16/small_alaskan_town_has_a_cat_as_mayor.html
Entirely incorrect. I have said and I will repeat here, that “punishing the Democrats” in 2010 did not achieve the desired result and I have seen nothing yet to make me think doing the same thing in 2012 would work out better. Please point out any comment which could possibly be construed to mean that I think everything would have been “peachy”, (or any other metaphor meaning “good, wonderful, ideal, great, terrific, etc.”), if Democrats had maintained control of both Houses. “Better than things are now” doesn’t translate into “peachy” either btw. This is what gets me so wound up. Stop making things up and attributing them to me. I’m not like Rmoney and I know what I’ve said from one day to the next. I don’t want a fight but I will defend myself from infamous lies.
Sorry, that was for juliania@48.
Crap, another Simpson-Bowels candidate.
C’mon, people. Power corrupts. Everyone should pre-clear their topics and comments. Voluntarily, I might add. It just makes things run so much more smoothly. And that’s the goal here, isn’t it?
I have a last thought for this discussion too: I have said over and over that not voting is your right and your privilege but I’m going to call out bullshit when I see it, especially when it’s been so thoroughly discredited. I’m not trying to keep people from discussing anything, I’m not presuming to tell anybody what they should do and I’m not taking on the responsibility of others’ behavior. I call it the way I see it and when I’m mistaken I try to admit it. This is, after all, an opinion blog, though I’m not sure why me stating my opinion is “being a bully” and why somebody who got banned from this site from being an asshole toward everybody who didn’t sycophantically agree with everything he said was being “censored” or “silenced”. If I was as awful as some of you imagine, don’t you think I would have been long gone too? I’m just a commentator/participant and I have never had a diary featured on the main page, with the exception of my rotating PUAC role. Many of those who waste a lot of space lamenting not being front paged enough have far and away more front page posts than I ever will. I have exactly zero input as far as who stays and who goes, what stays up and what comes down, etc. I almost never flag posts, (unless they clearly violate the policy in a mean spirited way), and it’s been a long time indeed since I’ve used ad hominem attacks on people, (in fact I don’t think I’ve done so since I’ve been a regular at FDL).
Of course my detractors would love to make me out to be something I’m not and then the accusations remain, even when corrected and/or refuted and retracted. I’m not going to put up with it. I’m just not. Maybe some of you would like me to be a better person, who always thinks the best of people and gives them more benefit of the doubt than is ever forthcoming from them, despite clear provocation to a fight but that’s not who I am.
I didn’t change who I am at my parents’ demand and I sure as hell ain’t gonna do it for people I’ve never met. I’m not the most perfect person around and I do make mistakes and I sometimes get vehement but I’m here and I’m here to stay. I think friends should be able to disagree without winding up hating one another. Apparently I’m in a minority around here though.
I just want to give credit to Scarecrow for volunteering to babysit the bedlamites in these comments. The post “You’ve Got To Stop Voting” was probably deleted because too many of you took the post “You’ve Got To Stop Taking Your Meds” to heart.
If you’re not going to back up your accusation, then I invite you to retract it.
Yep. Huge props to Scarecrow who has infinitely more patience than I.
http://youtu.be/3jNlIGDRkvQ
“I just want to give credit to Scarecrow for volunteering to babysit the bedlamites in these comments. The post “You’ve Got To Stop Voting” was probably deleted because too many of you took the post “You’ve Got To Stop Taking Your Meds” to heart.”
This is exactly the sort of pointlessly mean spirited, contentless and derogatory posting that would be far more appropriate for deletion than the original diary that was deleted.
The following comment doesn’t factor in hacked voting machines, and it seems likely that down-ticket races and initiatives wouldn’t be hacked. Who knows? But:
I can see the logic of not voting if a huge block of voters chose to boycott a particular election, as in the cases you mentioned (Cuba, Haiti, South Africa…). But those were huge swathes of voters, so some major groundwork publicizing any ‘deligitimize the government by vote refusal’ must have been done ahead of time, no?
In your model, what percentage of ‘likely voters’ (they do keep track of that) would you guess would heed this call now? I’m guessing a pretty insignificant percentage given no groundwork, or probable groundswell is likely this close to election time. (Others can surely challenge that conclusion.)
I’d think a more useful statement against the Kleptocracy would be to get a ballot, turn it in, and be counted as a voter. If when you fill out your ballot, you choose NOT to vote for anyone running for federal office, or even just a Presidential candidate, when they tally the votes, and give the number of votes for each candidate for each office, then add them together and discover, compare them to the number of actual voters…uh, oh…X number of people chose, in effect, None of the Above. That could make some news, generate some great discussion, and change the conversation on voting.
I’m not convinced about this you say: “When you vote, you are granting your consent of the governed. That’s what voting’s all about…etc.’, but again, I’d listen to further argument.
But all of your arguments, if I’m reading correctly, are aimed toward the Presidency, but some of us may really want to cast a vote for down ticket candidates or initiatives. Marijuana legalization, for instance, will be on my CO ballot, and boy, howdy, do I want to vote for it. And even a potentially good DA.
I like the idea of demonstrating that the Emperor Has No Clothes, but I’m also hoping that the September Occupy events and other strikes may start making that case more apparent.
Oh, now that The Mgt has called everyone else here a hater and TBogg has taken time out from his assiduous Obamalingus responsibilities to call too many of us medicated psychotics, is it a bad time to bring up the civility issue for everyone else but them?
More of the same brand of petty nastiness that was the norm on HuffPo’s boards. I’m disappointed to see it here.
x2
But it won’t be because it has more truth in it than that idiotic Don’t Vote post and the frothing and petulant whining of commenters who think the world owes them a forum for their ravings and nutty conspiracy theories because, First Amendment, maaaan…
Ack! Nailed me; I Occupy!
wendydavis, what’s up with you trying to elevate the conversation? Can’t you see it has devolved to the point where the valkyries have been summoned? Don’t you have a rude ad hominem handy?
But seriously, I definitely take your point about down-ticket elections.
Regarding the censored post, we are talking about a non-violent, democratic proposal to delegitimize the current regime. Seems to me that one could have a discussion of such a proposal without it reflecting badly on anyone. No less so than “Caturday” or any of those other circle-jerk threads.
But it won’t be because it has more truth in it than thatidioticDon’t Vote post and thefrothing and petulant whiningerof commenterswho thinks the world owesthemhim a forum fortheirhis ravingsI apologize if I have jumped to an incorrect conclusion. (The inappropriate anger/bullying threw me off.)
Nice insult.
Well, I see that we’re all getting along now . . . or, we’re totally doomed.
I’m only here because some idiot from this thread is bugging me on twitter as if I had anything to do with deleting a MYFDL diary I wouldn’t even bother to read in the first place because life is too short to read and deal with dumbasses who have to fill up their empty lives with delusions of nutty conspiracies and spend their lives writing “manifestos” that will someday most likely be used as evidence in a competency hearing.
Would you like me to go on?
No, but I would like you to go. :)
How about we have a free fire zone until 6:45 p.m. Eastern. Everyone say whatever they want about me and TBogg, who is my twin brother, but don’t mention Jane, and then we close down the comments because we like to censor stuff.
I say doomed. This is a pattern I see repeated over and over and it gets to be really offensive and I often feel like a complete idiot for participating. I care about this place but I won’t stick around to be insulted by the likes of PBogg and PW. Most of us here were having a civil, rational conversation but they felt compelled to come in and start with the ridicule. Fuck that noise.
Nice thin skin.
TBogg, I meant to say.
So can we sum up where we are.Can we can allow strange views or not? Can we worship twenty dimensional reality contributors. Damn an i though we were just trying to make sense. Last i noticed shit flows down hill and payday is Friday,or every other month. Shit do i have to move to vote in my district? Is fuck you a valid candidate?
That is a completely uncalled for and totally unjustified insult, tongorad.
DW
How dare anyone continue to comment since the Mighty Bogg has bestowed his wit and wisdom upon the chattering masses.
SILENCE!
A lot thicker than you think but gratuitous insults strike me as quite juvenile.
Oh come on – I’m continually surprised to see what amounts to a facebook wall and I made a comment about it as it relates to this topic.
Why should friends trading details about their personal life be front-paged ad naseum, while a legitimate political topic such as the OP proposed be censored?
What specifically was my sin? Off-color language?
What the hell let it all fly.
Wow, you are one tough hombre. You just might be tougher than Tough Actin’ Tinactin. Also too, projecting. (
You can ask some of your “intellectual” family members what that word means.)[no attacks on family; it's me or TBogg, that's it -- ed.]
I see you’ve been paying a lot of attention. Caturday was front paged at MyFDL 3 times in 2 1/2 years, and those within the last 3 months.
You want an unregulated open forum at MyFDL but only for topics YOU approve of. I can only imagine what you may think of the food and art posts on the weekend, a time when a lot of people want to take a break from politics.
If you think Caturday was a circle-jerk diary I want to see you do a 10 hour live diary once a week for over 2 years. Then you may call what I’ve done a circle-jerk.
Well most of the commentary was mighty superfluous before I showed up so I can’t take all of the credit.
as to UCT1 in comment 171:
The difference is that I make money posting here.
I just wanted to bring up a few issues I had with the idea, and suggest some possible alternatives, lol. Been hangin’ onto that comment for some time now. The author had made a couple assertions I just couldn’t buy.
But heck, I tried to bring a spark of humor. Damn, I love that song! When she sang “we’re off our meds” it just knocked me out. What the world needs is more humor, imo, and less ‘taking ourselves so seriously’ (I do it all the time).
To call what I wrote a gratuitous insult is grandiose and way over the top. I’d like to know what you found so insulting. Certainly there is far worse language to be found elsewhere on this site.
In context, we’re talking about threads in which friends chat with each other about personal topics vs threads which contain political ideas that get censored.
IMO, one of those reflects poorly on the site.
I love that song too, and thank you so much for the humor. And for attempting to get us back on track; the discussion really is an important one.
I had no idea that you supported TBogg’s less than civil insults and derogatory statements, John.
If you do, then there is little point in suggesting that civility should be required of all who wish to participate here.
Perhaps some think his comments are cute?
Perhaps some consider those comments justified?
Clearly, I do not, and you may, in fact, well disappear these comments and this thread but the memory of it, and what IS tolerated, here, while respectful commentary and honest questions seem not to be valued Or respected, will long linger and, properly and rightly, be seen as a “measure” …
I have no doubt that you are more than a little vexed, yet I had hoped that you, like the thoughtful and circumspect being I have long held you to be, might take a moment and calm yourself, center yourself, and consider before praising TBogg’s unpleasantness and before issuing a threat to consign the many thoughtful and honest comments found on this thread, to the void.
You may think that I am attacking you, but I most sincerely am not, I am only urging you to to ponder the possible consequences of too hasty and too heavy-handed a response.
Regardless, you shall continue to have my respect, if not my blind or total support.
I urge you to consider whether true respect is not a two-way street, even if filled with pot-holes and rough pavement, at times …?
I have always considered that you were willing, when push comes to shove, to take the high-way, to seek to inhabit the moral high-ground.
I shall continue to think so … until there is evidence sufficient to compel me to conclude otherwise.
I say these things as I would to a dear and honored friend, John, not to hurt norto harm you, but because my own sense of honesty and respect for you … demands nothing less of me.
Namaste
DW
Speaking of, did you happen to notice posts #142 and #156?
Who pays you for your postings?
If there’s room for your facebook wall posts, there’s certainly room for political discussion on a political site, don’t you think?
BTW, never did I say your post should be censored, so where do you get off claiming that? I’m insulted.
I try to only address shit directed at me personally.
That was obviously an attack on TBogg, not his family. Unlike you, I know what other stupid things he’s said elsewhere.
Xin loi
I can fill a pie plate with whipped cream and splat myself in the face withit,but does that make all things good on the path to extinction we are on. I am alive and a part of the degradation of the world. As flawed i am also a part of the future.
Suggesting that Caturday was a “circle-jerk”, tongorad, is hardly the truth. It is a gratuitous insult to both Southern Dragon and the many people, many of whom are among those who have commented on this thread.
Such a comment is beneath you and hardly above honest reproach.
Frankly, I regard SD as a true leader in the very best and most important sense, that is, he leads by example … and I dare say that you have some very clear idea of what I am talking about.
SD has introduced important perspectives to many at this site that are central to the more sane, humane, and sustainable world we all seek to bring into being, among them being an appreciation of ALL life as well as the understanding that conscience and courage are the primary tools of those who will actually build a better society and a more just and compassionate nation.
DW
Well that was pretty pitiful, peo0le. We have a free fire zone and all we get is a few weak-ass, misdirected criticisms. I swear, we’ll loose the gold in insults. And the clock has run out.
I do agree that you will say and do what brings you the most money. In that, you and President Obama see eye to anus.
Shitstorm or tempest in a teapot, either way the whole thing was precipitated by a- let’s be charitable- questionable decision to delete a diary for breaking some unspecified… rule… or something. Best case scenario: a teaching moment on immoderate moderation and its predictable knock off effects; worst case scenario, no lesson learned.
Either way, it provided more evidence that some people are above the law, so to speak, and can say anything they want any time, no matter how offensive it might be. Good to know.
The clock has run out the door …
The bored are on the floor.
The watch can’t face it any more …
And the bloody wee spots are downright sore.
The ref has no clue as to what is the score …
And the whole damned government’s rotten to the core.
The rich have made off with the “wealth of the poor …
And reasonable behavior, thoughtful and considered, is held to be but foolish lore.
Perhaps, we should simply start over?
Possibly even vote on it?
DW
OK. I find such things boring, and don’t mind saying so. I reject your supercilious claim that I gratuitously insulted anyone.
I hope that isn’t it. I don’t really want us constrained by force of moderation into being civil to each other beyond extreme behavior. As any veteran internet warrior can tell you being uncivil is bad polemics and the ad hominem track only exposes the weakness of its users. In a well run and populated forum, these will only lead to becoming a chew toy for adepts.
Reject away, tongorad, reject away …
It matters me not … it simply “informs” …
It reveals …
Carry on.
Well said, Kurt.
DW
GROUCHO. I have here for sale a mounted and framed copy of the FDL posting rules, it costs only $45.
CHICO. How much for just the frame, Boss, without the rules?
GROUCHO. You couldn’t afford it.
If you don’t mind saying so you could have said so right off the bat. I would respect that.
Well, the Brit government is about to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy in London … to capture Julian Assange.
Go to Kevin’s post, if you are interested.
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/08/15/ecuador-foreign-minister-alleges-uk-has-threatened-to-storm-embassy-to-arrest-julian-assange/#comments
DW
I think I was pretty clear. Methinks you just don’t like criticism. I’d respect such an admission. Don’t be so sensitive, dude.
Been watching the rather rancourous debate and I am curious about one aspect.
Has any of you… ever been involved in a Non-Voting campaign or can any of you document the results of one for our edification?
Apologies, Margaret, you are correct and I phrased my comment badly. Thanks for refreshing my memory. What I should have said was that you equated not voting with punishing the Democrats, which I don’t think was the reason people did not vote for them. They did not vote for them because they did not feel they represented them – that’s different from punishment in my book, although I agree that the Democrats in question might have felt punished.
As to result, I do think a result came from that 2010 non vote, as I stated, and that result was Occupy. And I further stated that had folk held their noses and voted then, the demoralization of the public as they settled for the status quo might have had a negative effect on the enthusiasms generated by Occupy, by people already so alienated by the system that they simply did not vote in 2010. And that’s a pretty fine ‘result’ in my book.
It would be fun to take a poll of the participants in Occupy, just see who many were nonvoters in 2010 – I sure could be wrong, pure speculation on my part this is. But of course, I’d love to be right :)
“…how many”, sorry.
Are we debating something none of us has any experience in?
My question remains… Has any of you… ever been involved in a Non-Voting campaign or can any of you document the results of one for our edification or explain how it might work and what the benefits might be? Is there anything positive to be gained?
If you read the origonal post some examples were given, i believe South Africa was one.
As to what’s to be gained that’s simple, Regime Change.
And this is what I’m talking about.
Before, approx. the 150s, that some serious discourse. Rational, logical, and with different perspectives. Differing opinions. It was a beautiful sight.
I only wish scarecrow had entered with his comments of 61 an 106. Rational, logical, and views I can respect (even though I may disagree with them).
Kurt Sperry @123 knocks it out of the park. Bloody well put. Succinct and concise. I wish I’d written it.
DWB @131 and @177 are also spot on and incredibly well put.
Isn’t that what this is all about: a thoughtful and rational discourse on current topics?
Listen, I got no beef with anyone. Not with scarecrow, anybody else, or FDL. But if you want this level of discourse, then you shouldn’t just remove diaries.
Yes, you have a point, the diary could have been banned for posting the entire thing. But that’s not why it was banned. That’s an excuse. It was banned because some people felt “uncomfortable” by the topic.
I don’t blame anyone. I don’t blame scarecrow. I think he does a great job overall. But I’m going to question certain calls. No one has my blind allegiance. That’s not an insult. It’s constructive criticism. No where in this diary do I blame anyone or point fingers. I just wanted to know why.
And I’ve been reading all the comments over the last day, and I can say honestly that there is some solid-gold comments here.
If you disagree (you meaning anyone here), then that’s fine.
I disagree with the flatulence over the douche weeding (aka the “royal” douche wedding), or the flatulence over Steve Jobs (may that selfish sociopath burn in the deepest parts of hell, where all the other sociopathic Ayn Rand acolytes go), or … well there are others.
But I don’t ban them (sure I don’t have that power), or even suggest banning them. I don’t flag them to oblivion. I just disagree.
Let other people read it and make up their own mind.
This was a very thorough piece that I believed warranted attention. I believe that people are better off reading it, even if they disagree. This isn’t spam. It’s not even suggesting anything violent or crazy. Voting is a right. Thus I, me and me alone, can decide to vote, ie. to vote or not to vote.
Disagree? Fine. But that doesn’t make anyone, you or me, “wrong”. It’s just differing views (that in no way support violence).
I wish people here could see the value of such a differing opinion even if they disagree.
Now I’m getting back to reading about Assange. No way they’re storming the embassy.
I thank all those that wrote productive and thought-provoking comments. Even if I disagree, I was impressed by them.
Please, let’s no digress to name-calling, even when others do it first. (I know it’s complete hypocrisy and what they’re doing would get me banned in a second. But let’s be better than that. And really it doesn’t make us better or make the conversation productive. It’s petty. Let’s choose to better than that.
Scarecrow, I know you have a difficult job and I hope you take Kurt’s advice: “Best case scenario: a teaching moment on immoderate moderation and its predictable knock off effects; worst case scenario, no lesson learned.” Not for me, but for FDL. Peace brother.
Nicely pulled together summation tambershall. Thank you for putting up this MyFDL diary as the reason for doing so was hanging heavy in the air here at FDL. With comments having exceeded 200 in count now it plainly was a diary topic that many were willing and wanting to espend commenting on/about.
As the 2012 calendar based American elections unreel for the WH,Congress,State level,etc. it is plain to see many Americans are hurting in ways this current American Two Party regime we Americans are told gives us democracy is falling short addressing or responding to,failing early and often and is not doing much other than more of the same fails,misdirection and bad directions taken.
We Americans who comprise the other 99 Per Cent could use some of that “regime change” stuff we see WashingtonDC and the Two Party Regime that has full occupation of the WH and Capitol Hill doing to other lands and peoples so readily. Voting is a poltical act that largely in these United States and this so called American Democracy Of The People For The People has become a very gamed and hollow act.
Sites like FDL are about politics and wide ranging political views exchange and discussion is site appropriate. We often are told bottom up politics are better politics than top down. I would suggest the concept of expressing political no confidence via bottom up political acts/action is easily a component to be found with Not Voting. Mahatma Gandhi did not oppose by doing. Gandhi opposed by not doing. We Americans need a better political regime than the Two Party Regime seems able to undertake or willing to undertake.
At some point the consent of the governed not being granted brings/can bring to full relief a no longer legitimate status for a nations social,political,economic and governance regimes.For we Americans who are falling down these past 3,10,20 or 35 years it is no mystery that the falling down is taking place.
It has been stated more than a few times that POTUS Barack Obama requires a “make me do it ” political process. Based on POTUS Obama’s WH record since becoming POTUS on Jan.20,2009 Obama has done plenty for Bush/Chneny,the American militarists and M-I-C-C ,AHIP and Wall Street/MegaBanks. For me? Not so much? How about you? So the challenge has moved to Obama’s square or Mitt Romney’s square here in 2012. Make me vote for you. Persuade me to vote for you again or first time. Can not or will not? Don’t care whether I do or do not? That is political indifference. That is political arrogance. Indifference and arrogance should have real world consequences. We Americans are being told America is too poor to expand SS,to put in place Medicare For All. Not just by the Rs but by the Ds too. Only thing true in this being so is we Americans have some damn poor liars in the WH and Congress here in 2012.
Make me vote for you Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. Not seeing it.
Thanks tambershall for getting on point with this MyFDL diary. We got/get to see our fellow Lakers color choices and flags as a direct and real benefit to your having done so. Some Lakers demonstrate integrity that is admirable. Some display less worthy traits and inclinations.
We Americans have problems. We Americans need better politics.
I’m off the political and legal grid. By choice. I don’t recognize the legitimacy of the American electoral system. Or the US government, for that matter.
I agree with you Margaret. Not voting is a very poor idea. Although I do think terridi’s post should not be removed unless there is a copyright infringement issue, but I am encouraging people to vote. One of the worst outcomes of not voting is that it leaves one’s actions open to interpretation by a Democratic party corrupted by corporate money. The DNC is too eager to read not voting as Democratic voters becoming more conservative. The DNC will use anything as an excuse to move further to the right so they can appease their corporate donors. Likewise, writing in Mickey Mouse or leaving the space for president blank–the DNC will read that as a dsigruntled Blue Dog instead of as a disgruntled progressive. In politics and protest, the message has to be crystal clear. If people are disappointed in Obama, the. Write in the name of someone whose policies you really believe in–Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson…that way your message cannot be misread. The other bad outcome of not voting is that your voice will not be heard on ballot initiatives or down-ballot races. I would hate to see someone like Alan Grason lose because progressives thought they would send a message to Obama and the DNC by staying home.
I was just scrolling up through the comments on this post and noticed something that really got me thinking. This post resurrected by tambershall was originally posted by terridi. Although this post has received a lot of discussion and attention, terridi has not made any comment. Yet terridi did comment yesterday on a different article, re Biden’s comments on Social Security. The tone was basically the same, why bother voting, they’re all the same. I replied to terridi requesting some follow-up on this post and asking whether her views had changed on the issue of not voting. So far, no response. To me, this seems odd. I hate to shout, troll alert! That makes me think of the pathetic discussions on Daily Kos. But there are a whole lot of approaches to voter suppression. If progressives stay away from the polls, that would lead to defeats for folks like Alan Grayson etc. terridi could be a Republican. I just want to alert my fellow firepups–perhaps we are being had here and this entire discussion is creating much amusement at Republican headquarters.
Janet, the author of this article, Mark Smith, has commented here.
Your belief that this could be Republican voter suppression is a bit patronizing. Do you believe that Dems are so slow that they could be manipulated so easily?
You need to read the complete article to understand this radical concept. I doubt that this will have any effect on this election but that is not the point. We all know that both parties and the whole system is rotten to the core and that participating in this system gives it legitimacy.
It’s a bitter pill to swallow that our cherished right to vote is being used to justify mass murder abroad and the gutting of the constitution at home.
Thank you, wayoutwest. Those interested in down-ticket candidates might enjoy this article I wrote, based on large part on the experiences of Rep. John Conyers with regard to the Downing Street Memos, as a commentary when Cindy Sheehan was running for office:
The Fable of Lanova Messiah
It says much of what your comment says, in a bit more detail.
Please remember many voters are Independents, too. Can’t find national stats, but in CO, about a third of registered voters used to be unaffiliated.
I asked earlier if any of you had experience in a Non-Voting or Protest-Voting type campaign. My basis for asking was that it’s related to the discussion here and I am interested in learning more about the topic.
In 2010 I was involved in such a campaign here in Colorado, in the 2010 Democratic U.S. Senate Primary Nomination fight.
I say fight because it literally was. A Senate vacancy occurred in 2009 and the then Democratic Governor ignored all input from the Democratic rank and file to appoint Michael Bennet to the Senate, who was a protege of the state’s richest Republican Phil Anchutz.
Bennet political beliefs were completely unknown to rank and file Dems. He was appointed over Rep. Andrew Romanoff, a well known and liked former Speaker of the Colorado House. Romanoff supported Single Payer even though he was a DNC type. The rank and file really liked him and were angry that they were ignored. The Governor had even done an email/telephone suggestion program to get advice on who to appoint…most support was for Romanoff and Bennet was not mentioned even once.
The real fight started when Barack Obama inserted his influence into the race, coming to Colorado to raise $750,000+/- for Bennet and put the entire Colorado OFA/National Organizing for America & White House behind Bennet, which included a large Pro-Bennet telemarketing effort into Colorado from Washington, D.C.
Obama involvement split the Colorado Party and the debate became viscous and nasty, buy Bennet went on to win the primary nomination by about 15,000 votes out of a couple of million, but a hell of a lot of rank and file Colorado Democrats were still really angry at Obama’s involvement in the race.
In the opinion of many rank and file Colorado Dems, Obama Stole their 2010 Senate Primary Nomination for appointed Senator Michael Bennet.
A few of us, less than half a dozen, thought the theft was serious enough to warrant a protest vote in the general election.
I started publicising the Write-In Romanoff or Leave It Blank campaign and a few others joined in. We googled for any on-line story or blog about Michael Bennet and added our 2 cents and finished by asking Romanoff fans to Write-In Romanoff or Leave It Blank. We were vilified for it but we ignored them. I myself posted comments on Bennet stories across the Nation in hundreds of articles.
Bennet won the General Election by about 15,000 votes, which meant that our Write-In Romanoff or Leave It Blank Campaign
only lost by about 7,501 votes.
Adding up the totals that voted for the other major candidates we were able to deduce that our campaign had persuaded about 67.500 rank and file Colorado Democrats to Write-In Romanoff or Leave It Blank.
When was the last time that You can remember that less than a half dozen Lefties persuaded 67,500 progressives/liberals to vote against the Democratic National Committee wishes????
Our campaign nearly reversed Obama’s effort to Steal the Nomination. As Bennet only won by about 15,000 votes(and we only needed about 7,501 to win) we came close to stopping Obama’s Theft of our 2010 Democratic Senate nomination. The only reason we failed to stop Bennet/Obama was that we (in particular I) got discouraged in the last few weeks, and stopped believing we could do it, and took some time off from the effort…which probably caused our failure to stop Obama.
I am not sure that this type of protest vote campaign should be widely used (in a Tea Party way), but I do know that our Democratic candidates, once elected, no longer listen to the Democratic Base or much care about the issues in our state Platforms. Once they are in Washington D.C. they listen only to the House and Senate reelection committees and the Democratic heirarchy, and of course to the Rich and the Corporations.
As progressive radio talker Mario Solich-Marich said.
“if Bennet had not won, this effort would have been the leading National news story the day after the 2010 election”…. and that would have given the Democratic Left in Colorado and nationally far more Power within the Democratic Party.
If you cannot reason with the elites, make them afraid of you.
Our Protest-Vote Campaign scared Colorado Democratic elites and I believe it has a place as a weapon in the Lefty political quiver. What do you all think?
Having spent many years in the election integrity movement, John, I think that it is quite possible that you did win. Since the vote results are not verifiable, there is no way to know for sure if they are accurate.
An example of this is when Ralph Nader got a lot of votes in a district where he had very few supporters. He suspected that the central tabulators had taken votes away from the Democratic candidate and allocated those votes to him so as to ensure that the Republican would win without there appearing to have been an inexplicable increase in the number of Republican voters, and the total vote count would remain the same. Of course he had no way to prove it, and an attempt to get a recount failed. He was no friend of the Democrats, as they had fought hard to keep him off the ballot in many states, and I think his suspicions were rational.
When votes can’t be verified, they can be manipulated by the central tabulators so that not even elections officials are aware of it and nobody can prove it. Relying upon the announced results of faith-based elections is giving our electoral system much more credit than it deserves.
Nice to think we might have won, but only actually forcing elite Democrats to accept our will… is going to make change. We must upset their political plans and careers if we want their respect.
If we rank and file cannot make them listen to us and fight for the issues in our state platforms… what is the point of any of the democracy/voting charade?
Oops, error correction. I think the 67,500 number should be 57,500.
Excellent point, Wendy. For those who see the world in black and white, as a struggle between good (Democrats) and evil (Republicans), independent voters simply do not exist. Everyone is either a Democrat or a closet Republican because there are no other options.
For those who can see shades of gray, there exists an entire political spectrum which the dichotomists cannot see or acknowledge.
Thanks for the link Mark, i wonder how many people will go to Mapquest and try to find Exxonia.
Mark, thanks again for your article and comments. I hope you will return and post more controversial ideas, this pot needs stirring.
No wayoutwest, it is your response to me that is patronizing. I have read the entire article. And I do see that Mark Smith has commented. That changes nothing of what I said about an underhanded and manipulative attempt at voter suppression. My point still stands, and your reply fails to address it. Terridi, the blogger who copied and pasted Mark Smith’s article here, simply vanished after tambershall resurrected her post. And while there was great controversy about her post and over 200 comments, at the time of my comment above, terridi had not made any comment at all here, very odd behavior by my standards. And even more odd that terridi was commenting on other diaries at FDL while ignoring the discussion that she started. So, yes, I do think terridi could be a troll. I think trolls may sometimes copy and paste others’ work. And re your question, do I think Dems are so slow that they can be manipulated so easily? Hell yes! Certainly not as dimwitted as Rupublicans, but if you look at the Democratic party’s steady drift to the right over many years, eg running John Kerry instaed of Howard Dean as just one example, and I’m sure there are dozens of others. In the future wayoutwest, you are always welcome to reply to my comments, but please do not patronize me. And please read my comment in its enitrety beofre shooting aff a reply.
I try to avoid websites where there is a lot of name-calling. I suppose not wanting to be called names makes me one of the trolls in the eyes of the name-callers, but that simply illustrates why many thinking people are not likely to post to partisan websites. Global capitalist imperialism has taken millions of innocent lives and is destroying the planet, but it is perpetrated by the US government without regard to which political party may appear to be in power. The enemy, imho, is the state, not its puppets. Those who mistake the puppet show for reality, are not generally capable of broader vision. As you humorously noted, they’re looking at MapQuest to find Exxonia. ;)
Kurt, your comments were excellent and provided some really good guidelines on discussion. Thanks for posting them.
Thank you Janet.
Many thanks to tambershall, terridi, scarecrow, and to everyone who commented on this topic. It got more than 700 new views on my little website and I’m sure that it was also shared in private discussions, email, social networks, and other places. The best thing that can happen to an idea is for it to be discussed.
Six years ago, when I began posting about the idea of an election boycott, I was all alone. Many times I would be attacked by every single person who commented, without one ever agreeing with me or even thinking the idea worthy of consideration. Since then I’ve found others who also advocate not voting, for various reasons, some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t. One Egyptian revolutionary, whose writing I’ve posted in that topic’s comments on my website, exhibited even greater clarity of thinking than my own, and events bore him out.
When a government tells its citizens, as ours has for the past two administrations, one Republican and one Democratic, that it will not allow public opinion to influence policy decisions, that government is no longer representative of its people and no longer merits their consent. In any democratic form of government, public opinion not only influences policy decisions, but determines them. That’s what it means to say that power is vested in the hands of the people. Not merely to be allowed to cast uncounted, unverifiable votes for candidates who don’t listen to us, but to exercise our power through a real voice in government so as to force it to ensure our safety and happiness.
I think that government of, by, and for the people, is an idea whose time has finally come. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that only 17% of voters thought that the present Presidential contenders are the best that this country can do. To elect means to choose. Once we firmly reject “elections” in which we have no real choices, we will have the leverage with which to demand better choices. Even in a capitalist society, consumers are not supposed to be denied choices. If we’re willing to vote for people who won’t listen to us, we’ll never be listened to. We are the people and if our voice cannot be heard through the ballot box, we must find ways to make it heard. Sometimes when we make a lot of noise, somebody will call the cops, but if we whisper, they’ll lean closer, wiretap, and even spend billions of dollars setting up surveillance systems to find out what we’re saying. That’s what not voting does. It says we do not accept the choices offered, and if they want to find out what we want, they’re going to have to listen to us. Maybe they’ll even learn something. ;)
Hello! I am Terri and I am the person spearheading the Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election. And yes, I posted that article — and yes, it was removed.
Mark — you are not alone!
Mark, i believe that there is a need to discuss what could happen if there was a true boycott of a national election. I believe that it is more likely to happen through apathy than an organized effort since almost 40% don’t vote now.
What would the PTB do in such a situation where they no longer had the consent of the people to govern. I doubt they would allow people to organize and select true representatives and new elections. The only response i can see is for them to declare a national emergency and suspend the constitution or for there to be a military coup.
Sorry Janet, my intent was to enlighten not offend. I do see that you have a low opinion of your fellow citizens which may be justifiable.
Your concern about terridi not responding seems to be a knee jerk, kill the messanger response but that is just the opinion of a cranky old Radical.
Peace
The Call to Boycott the Presidential Election is a Direct Action — it is not a ‘call for apathy’.
I have responded but some of my posts have been rejected and/or held up in moderation.
A few things — most of the Boycott activity is occurring on Facebook.
Here:
Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election (group) https://www.facebook.com/TerriInc?ref=tn_tnmn#!/groups/251006394956027/
Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election (events page)
https://www.facebook.com/TerriInc?ref=tn_tnmn#!/events/179319712162048/
We now have numerous state organizing FB groups and several event scheduled and media page. The following STATE Presidential Election Boycott groups have been established:
NJ, NY, PA, CA, Nevada, IA, IL, OR, MAINE, NH ..and Des Moines
The Election Boycott is on TWITTER, here:
https://twitter.com/Boyctt2012Elect
The Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election has been endorsed by: Proletarian Center for Research, Education and Culture
LINK: http://prolecenter.wordpress.com/
COUNTERPUNCH recently ran this article:
Time to Boycott the Election:
Don’t Vote, Don’t Fight … Go on Strike!
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/14/time-to-boycott-the-election/
Ted Rall — fellow Presidential Election Boycotter, syndicated columnist and political cartoonist — is preparing a Ted Rall original on behalf of the Call to Boycott the Presidential Election! The ‘toon should be ready at the end of next week.
To support Ted and his efforts on behalf of the Boycott, donate to Ted here: http://www.rall.com/rallblog/donate
Ted’s own ELECTION BOYCOTT article here:
http://news.yahoo.com/boycott-2012-election-003206518.html
I have been interviewed numerous times on the Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election and those audios are here:
Bob Carson of Carson’s Corner
Part I:
Boycott the 2012 Election: Carson’s Corner Interviews Terri Lee
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/carsonscorner/2012/05/29/the-great-terri-lee
We here at Carson’s Corner in conjunction with Underground Progressive, 530 AM, have waited a long time to have online activist Terri Lee on the program. Followed and admired by thousands, Terri Lee has come to the forefront of progressives who are fed up with Obama and the Democrats. We see the two political parties as essentially indistinguishable; and we are not afraid to go against the establishment to ensure a better America.
http://prolecenter.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/boycott-the-2012-election-carsons-corner-interviews-terri-lee/
PART II:
“Going All The Way: Beyond Rejecting (JUST) the Two Parties in November”
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/carsonscorner/2012/08/07/carsons-corner-part-2-of-our-interview-with-terri-lee
And my Z Blog:
http://www.zcommunications.org/blog/TerriLee
And from our neighbor’s in the north, this!
Popular Power: “Fuck the Elections,” Night 101, Montreal Canada
By Cindy Milstein at Aug 03, 2012
http://www.zcommunications.org/popular-power-fuck-the-elections-night-101-montreal-re-night-100-by-cindy-milstein
Terri, i’m glad that you are responding here even if it was delayed. I hope you will be allowed to post here without censorship but i doubt it.
It’s great to hear that this action is being reported elswhere and the fact that it is being suppressed here is telling, it may have legs.
Even if you can’t post here you can lob a few thought grenades into the comment stream for effect.
Pete in NM
Wayoutwest, thanks for replying, apology accepted. Have a good weekend.
Thanks, Terri. I don’t have or want a Facebook account, but I’m now following @Boycott2012Elect on Twitter where I’m @fubarista
I’ve been in the process of editing my top five election boycott articles, but since you might find them useful they are now in one place at Consent to Tyranny: Voting in the USA – by Mark E. Smith and I’ll edit them as time allows.
I write for the sole purpose of communication, so, as you obviously noticed, my articles may be reproduced at will. It is good to know that I’m not alone. Of course I’ve known that approximately half the eligible electorate doesn’t vote. But as for that being due to apathy, a friend of mine once paid for a professional poll that took the unusual step of asking nonvoters why they didn’t vote instead of just hanging up on them as most political pollsters do. Most said that they didn’t vote because they didn’t believe that anyone on the ballot would represent their interests. That doesn’t sound like apathy to me. In fact, it is people who vote for candidates they know are not likely to represent their interests who are apathetic.
Pete, the first thing the PTB would do in the event of an election boycott, in my estimation, is to stuff the ballot boxes, which nowadays means programming the computers to count extra votes that weren’t cast (just as the central tabulators were programmed in the past to remove votes, only in reverse) and pretend that there had been the usual turnout. Since they’ve been switching to vote-by-mail as quickly as they can, so that nobody can see the lines at the polling places and there is no way to verify how many ballots were mailed in, it would be very easy for them to do. They’ve also eliminated exit polls, so even where polling places still exist, there is no way to prove the turnout. But the rejection would still be apparent to anyone watching the social media. And election integrity observers would eventually be able to match the number of votes cast to the number of registered voters, so if there was a large discrepancy, it might be obvious. On the other hand, since many people who won’t vote would still be registered, that could make it more difficult.
But I doubt if they’d declare martial law, as there would be no justification for it. They certainly cannot send troops with guns door to door to force people to vote, as even cops and military personnel would refuse to follow orders that insane. None of them want their peers holding guns on their elderly parents to force them to vote.
What people who are ignored usually do is throw a tantrum to get attention, but if you continue to ignore them, they usually stop after a while, as it isn’t getting the response they wish.
Boycotting elections is just one of several necessary forms of noncompliance. We need to create alternative economies and provide for ourselves all the things that the government cannot or will not provide. Most people will pay taxes to and join the military to fight for a legitimate government, but will not do so willingly for an illegitimate government. Our government is losing legitimacy on every front. It can’t win even the smallest wars against the weakest enemies no matter how many trillions of dollars it spends, it can’t create jobs, it can’t provide the basic necessities of life, food, clothing, and shelter, for more and more people, and it no longer can claim to be a Constitutional government, as it has shown total disregard even for a Constitution that established a plutocracy rather than a democracy.
As I said on Twitter a couple of weeks ago, voting is a nasty habit and hard to break, but I did it and you can too. The biggest benefit is that it frees our time and energy for more constructive things. As Scott Crow wrote in his book, Black Flags and Windmills, “I was sick of electoral politics and parted ways with it to focus on a radical culture shift.” The change we need isn’t within the government or even regime change, the change we need is within us. And more and more of us are becoming the change we want to see. That’s how real change comes about, one person at a time until the entire culture has changed. Those who wanted hope and change have begun to recognize that it isn’t something you ask for or elect somebody to do for you–hope and change are things you do for yourself. We don’t want to Occupy the White House, we want to Occupy ourselves and make centralized government as irrelevant and unnecessary as it really is. Somebody on Twitter was asked what his plan was to replace the government if we succeeded. He replied, “Why on earth would I want to replace it?”
We all got fooled and it was the biggest, most expensive boondoggle and con game in the history of humanity. But if we stop playing, the con game has to fold up and leave. It was a rigged game and it is time to cut our losses and create some better games–games that won’t cost us trillions of dollars, won’t kill millions of innocent people, won’t incarcerate millions of nonviolent offenders, won’t poison our food, won’t prescribe lethal pharmaceuticals for diseases it caused with industrial pollution, won’t gamble our lives on unsafe energy sources, and won’t steal from the poor to give to the rich. A government that rewards corporations for outsourcing our jobs isn’t a government of, by and for the people. It’s time for all those elected officials to stop getting taxpayer-funded welfare and find an honest way to survive. Even if we like them, they’ve made such bad decisions that we can’t afford them any more. They’re not good deciders, so we have to stop delegating to them the power to make our decisions for us. We can do better and we will. They couldn’t lead, they wouldn’t follow, so it is long past time for them to get the hell out of the way.
–Mark
Mark, i think it’s wishful thinking that the PTB would walk away from their hold on power if a boycott stripped them of their legitimacy. There is no law requiring voting to enforce and the military would be used to maintain control.
I’m not a utopian and i don’t believe we could survive as some kind of balkanized confederation.
There has to be a plan for installing some kind of true Peoples Government with direct democracy or there would be chaos.
This is a simple but powerful idea but there has to be more than blow it up and let the pieces fall where they may.
A radical cultural shift may be the ideal but that isn’t likely to happen a gradual evolution is the best we can hope for and that requires a structure to happen.
Come on Janet shouldn’t you apopogise to Terri for calling her a troll?
It appears that she tried to respond and was blocked by our mods.
That’s what happened in Cuba, Pete. When only 10% of the people voted, the dictator Batista got on a plane and left. All oligarchs keep most of their assets in offshore bank accounts, own homes in several foreign countries, and keep their bags packed and a chartered jet on call 24/7, just in case the peasants appear with pitchforks at the gates. They’re aware of history and no matter how much they militarize, they know that in a revolution their troops and cops can turn against them and side with the people. There are several countries where ousted oligarchs live happily in exile, in enclaves of ousted oligarchs just like themselves, and they really prefer to take their ill-gotten fortunes ande get out than to be held accountable for their crimes.
As for having a plan, that’s exactly what we don’t need. If we stop doing bad things, good things will happen automatically. Centralized government empowers the few at the expense of the many and power corrupts, so if we replicate it, it will turn on us again. Local rule isn’t chaos–the grocery cooperative where I shop just celebrated its 40th birthday and is better run than most supermarkets. The food is better, the workers have higher pay and more benefits, and the member/owners who shop there are happier. There’s no need to have an absentee capitalist owner taking most of the profits just because that’s the way most corporations are run.
A couple of years back the local daily news rag took a poll of what was the most important issue to voters. They’d expected people to say things like guns, gays, god, abortion, war, jobs, or other hot button issues, but the overwhelming majority of voters, left, right, center, and independent, said that their number one priority was getting the potholes fixed. That doesn’t sound like chaos to me. If nobody voted here and our local government was ignored, we’d be able to go out and fix the potholes. True, that isn’t very green or utopian, but it doesn’t scare me in the slightest. I could live with it, couldn’t you?
Without centralized government to protect big banks and big businesses and divert most revenues towards war, your “Balkanized” neighborhoods would be able to improve their schools, hospitals, air and water quality, and everything else we need. We could use vacant houses to house the homeless and instead of forcing supermarkets and restaurants to throw away perfectly good food if they can’t sell it, we can feed the hungry. We can convert military bases to parks and homes. We can start cleaning up the toxic waste sites that government has created. We can shut down dangerous nuclear power plants BEFORE they melt down, instead of having to run them as long as they are profitable to their capitalist owners no matter what the risk to millions of people who live nearby.
I didn’t get any apology for being called a troll and a Republican. Political partisans who make personal attacks are not, in my experience, generally capable of apologizing. After all, they’re just doing their job as they see it, attacking anyone who won’t vote for their brand of continuing corporate rule. People who vote for political parties and root for professional sports teams, make the 1% who own and control those parties and teams very happy. We need honest local elections where we can vote directly on issues and games where we have a real stake and can actually win without having everything sold out from beneath us.
Since their revolution about 14 years ago, Venezuela has eliminated illiteracy, eliminated almost all severe poverty, eliminated a great deal of foreign imports, and has gone from being a typical banana republic controlled by capitalist oligarchs, to being the 5th happiest country in the world. I have a friend, a US expatriate, who lives in Caracas, and he’s the happiest man I’ve ever met in my life. They do have a centralize government, but they have honest elections and the people get to vote directly not only on policy issues, but also on their Constitution. No constitutional conventions, just a direct vote put directly to the people. And when Hugo Chavez proposed an amendment and the people didn’t vote for it, he had to withdraw it or lose legitimacy. He withdrew it and let the people decide. That’s how things should be run and Venezuelans aren’t better or smarter than we are. We can do it too–all we need is to stop doing politics as usual and start doing what we need to do.
Janet, the reason that John Kerry was nominated instead of Howard Dean has nothing to do with a turn to the right. The reason super-delegates exist is to ensure that whoever can raise the most corporate money for a political party becomes the party’s nominee, which may not be the person the voters want. The political parties need corporate money in order to compete with each other. What are they competing for? Not the Presidency, as if that were the case they’d nominate the most popular candidate. They’re competing for corporate money, not for votes, which means that they will be beholden to corporate money, not to voters.
Before the 2008 election, all I had to do was look at the websites listing campaign donations to see that Obama had raised more corporate money than McCain and would therefore be the next President. In a capitalist system, electoral politics isn’t very complicated and has nothing to do with left or right, greater evil or lesser evil, or who tells the best campaign lies. Like Deep Throat said back in the Watergate days, all you have to do is follow the money.
Unfortunately for us, the candidate who can raise the most money may not be the best President. They might just be the candidate who is the least ethical or the most unscrupulous. Wealth is not an indicator of intelligence or even of sanity. Psychiatrists in ritzy neighborhoods charge hundreds of dollars an hour to provide therapy for wealthy lunatics and have no shortage of clientele.