Either it has to be a  demand for trial of 9/11 or  opening the case for  Katirna criminal negligence, or  Pelosi recall, or  boycotting the recruitment centers or  boycotting all Dem candidates or calling for the Emergency Convention of all anti- Bush forces- ONE effort must be commissioned,l done, performed and result  obtained. Without it- there will be no oraganization. I would start with Katrina issue- there has to be a case opened against Bush, Chertoff and Brown on criminal negligence.  Forget all politics and even the Iraq war. Get the case opened.  Use all the force  necessary: talk about it and only about it 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If  it happens-  the rusty wheel still rotates. If not- you better prepare to endure darkness.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4103 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 9:08:54 AM

  (0+)

But I think that going after one of Bush's criminal acts (e.g. dismantling FEMA) would require that the news media (4th Estate) actually function correctly. That isn't going to happen, unfortunately.

I was thinking more about all the progressive web site's (KOS, OpEd, Truth-out, MoveOn, etc.) start coordinating not only with “daily talking points”, but with media and Congress action alerts. That would just be a small start, but it would bring progressives together as a more coherent political faction to be reckoned with.

This would mean that each web site would have a media and a Congressional point-person in charge of coordinating activities across web sites.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 9:28:24 AM

  (0+)

have a look at the www.antiwar.com. They are conservatives and they are anti-Bush. They   are openly  figthing- Buchanan on the line all the time.  Now, they also work with the foreigners. It is time to take their experience, open ONE project together and get it done.  The gentleman below also asks for one victory. One  would be enough.  Hey, ask for money from Michael Moore Sicko profits. I am sure he will donate those for Katrina suiing.  But  it has to be one voice.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4103 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 9:57:13 AM

  (0+)

stopping the SPP, the next steps they are taking to get total control with no barriers to their agenda.

 My comments to Rob's post wouldn't post YET .. working on that . but the anti SPP movement must be built in the US NOW.  The landlord is stealing YOUR apartment.

 Security and Prosperity for WHO ...?

is a kind of backwards rallying cry but that IS the rallying cry.

 Set up a committee in YOUR Town to investigate, a website in the US to tackle this AND get the artistic activists INVOLVED.

 Way over 50% of the population is against globalization and it will make "brave warriors" of us as we fight back.

links are NOT working on this site; so here is just the outliline of a recent email without the link. 

Virginia

Dear Friend,

Once in awhile there is some good news!

I just released a commentary which you will actually like to read...

Global (this is the missing link) 

There are a lot of people around the world who think just like you do! In fact, anti-globalization sentiment is the majority view.

On the U.S. front, Congressman Duncan Hunter (who is running for president, by the way) introduced an amendment that prohibits money to be spent on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) or the NAFTA Super Corridor.

The Hunter Amendment to H.R. 3074, Transportation Appropriations Act, passed with an overwhelming majority of 362-63.

Please pass on this good news to anyone and everyone in your sphere of influence.  

Regards,

Patrick Wood, Editor
The August Review

by ladybroadoak (39 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 394 comments) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 1:57:59 AM

  (0+)

John Moffett--Thank you for your article about the need for liberals to organize. I think we need to get one substantial victory under our belts, which could be the closing of the notorious School of the Americas (renamed WHISC). If you attend the annual vigil at Ft. Benning in November, you will see and hear the spirit of opposition to U.S. imperialism. Robert Thatch, Kansas City, MO

by KCBob (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 9:51:08 AM

  (0+)

I am one of those alienated. After more than 350 letters to editors, the president, oped pieces in newspapers and letters to editors, a novel, and hndreds of phone calls, more than 90 articles here and elsewhere, I am frustrated because I know the source, it is the mad funder-raising stratgey of Rahm Emanuel and his influence on N. Pelosi. Moreover, it is the BS, but perhaps my ranting about Pointing a Special Prosecutor is begining to gain listeners. BiPartisan Senators are discussing Appointing one to go after A. Gonzo. That would be a shot in the arm. Riught now the Approval polls stand at:

Cheney 12% , Bush 22-24% and DeM Congress 29%. If Emanuel hasn't paid any attnetion to my emails, if he thinks the DEM's can rally from 29%, the nso can Bush Rally from 23%. They need one solid uniting force and that is INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS, everywhere, snooping up and down the White House and their vigilanties.

Drop the impeachment charge and get on the bandwagon with me for Special Prosecutors for each crime. that will lead to impeachment and more. Gonzalez is now on the spot with the Senate. Let's hope they go to the SP. Then it will be only a matter of time.

I Nominate Elliot Spitzer!

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 12:04:48 PM

  (0+)

I agree. But I also think that all the work of progressives is starting to produce results. Turning an oil tanker around is a slow process. Momentum is hard to reverse.

I see signs that all of our cries for sanity, justice, and change are starting to reap results. Contempt charges against Miers and Bolton moving forward, possible perjury charges against Gonzalez, Murtha gaining some traction in the House, etc.

When discouragement grows, work harder and smarter.

What I would like to see is progressives and liberals all across the Internet to form an organized social network that coordinates all of its activities. This is exactly what the Republicans have done for decades (albeit without the Internet).

I would like to see progressive web sites coordinate their efforts. For example, if progressive websites all around the world coordinated their daily messages the way Republicans do it would improve their ability to get a particular message across to the audience.

As the second step, progressive websites could assign specific officers who would act as media, congressional and corporate point-persons in charge of coordinating activities and action alerts across the various web sites.

It is these types of organizing activities that I believe progressives lack. Republicans have been organized for decades, progressives barely know what the term organizing means. It means working together rather than squabbling.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 12:33:32 PM

  (0+)

for trying to initiate it. At the same time, however, you're implicitly trying to pre-determine the shape of the solution. Even in your article title, you're impatiently demanding a 'quickie' kind of solution. You're trying to force the whole matter to appear simpler than it really is. It's not really a "Sh*t or get off the pot" situation. It has much to do with the general level of political consciousness; one can't just assume that the requisite machinery is already in place, & that all we need to do is pick a candidate or issue, and march.

Some people will think that the task is simply to unite behind a Democrat. Some will think it's to unite behind a "progressive" Democrat. Some will insist that it's to unite behind a 3rd party candidate, or an antiwar candidate, or an explicitly socialist anti-imperialist candidate. It's an unfair trivialization of these differences to refer to them as "squabbling." They are immensely important differences, whose resolution (& unified acceptance by all) is essential to building a strong movement.

Your formulation implicitly demands a short timeframe for uniting behind some candidate or issue. You've expressed elsewhere your belief that "the (mainstream) Democrats are the only way forward," and here, you're explicitly requesting that responders refrain from critiques of Democrats. These are attempts to pre-determine the form of the solution.

Before you get too upset that I'm not responding in the way you specifically requested, let me toss you an answer more or less in your desired format. I would be willing to unite behind a program or candidate that included these seven points: 1) end the war   2) cut defense spending  3) universal single-payer health care access 4) a "Manhattan Project"-style all out commitment to convert to renewable energy sources & address climate change, & 5) a companion plan calling for rapid efficient mass transit. 6) Breaking up the media conglomerates 7) Extremely progressive taxation, intensely targeting the rich, including a full return of the estate tax.

By #1, I don't mean just pulling "combat" troops out of Iraq, I mean pulling ALL troops out of Iraq. I also mean an official public acknowledgement that the US government committed an immense crime in invading & occupying Iraq, and that it agrees to pay huge reparations to the Iraqi people. I also mean that not just the Iraq war be ended, I mean that the "War on Terror" be ended, and officially rejected as a basis for US policy. (This should accompany an acknowledgement that the "WoT" was simply a device to dominate the globe, & solve the US economy's energy problems by military aggression, because our rulers could see no other way of solving those problems, while maintaining the extravagant consumption required by our "lifestyle".)

Of course I'm well aware that no Democrat is going to say those things. Kucinich & Gravel could say some of them; the rest will say none of them. What I think important is developing the basis for a higher level of political consciousness than currently exists. People must start thinking in terms of the kind of policies I just outlined. Ultimately, those policies are not compatible with capitalism. Supporting Democrats actually means working to deny & defeat those kinds of ideas. Those who imagine that it's a simple matter of "Anyone But Bush," or "Anyone But Republicans," have already unknowingly made assumptions that are incompatible with longterm solutions.

What's needed is a movement based on a set of tenable ideas, such as those I've outlined. What's NOT needed is deluding ourselves that the current 2-party system is capable of producing longterm solutions -- specifically, that the Democrats can be any part of the solution.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 1:34:09 PM

  (0+)

I was hoping to hear from you. 

If you read my comments below the article, you may change your mind about my intentions.

Plus, I would add #8) a Manhattan project on biomedical research funding. At least 1/3 of what is spent on the military now would be put into curing disease (NIH funding, not pharmaceutical research). I would have quite a few more additions, including public financing of elections (no private funding whatsoever), a federal sunshine law, elimination of secret lobbying (the people’s business would actually be public) etc.

If you can get a third party candidate like Robert Redford on the ticket, I’ll vote for them over a DLC Democrat without hesitation. Can you? I’ll go for Al Gore too. How do you get him to run?

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 1:57:47 PM

  (0+)

I agree with you both for different reasons. I think that cowardice and a defeatist attitude has hit the Dems following unbelievable losses in 2000-2004 and now they are desperate and have turned in that desperation to the wrong person, any port in a storm sort of reaction. Because Emanuel is an outstanding money raiser, they are grasping at his slippery straw. He is not the answer. The answer was not the "Victory" last fall that was a reaction with a large moderate Republican crossover, not a Democratic surge and the result is now, of their "hands-off" impeachment, a 29% approval rating. Tan will not win any more seats. The moderate Republicans are gone, so are the Liberal Dems.

The only way to get them back, and it is a slim one is to take the sort of gambles the Republicans have taken, Get a few major investigations going, sack a few Neo-con asses into prison, Gonzo then Miers then Cheney before he unleashes a "terrorist" attack on a major Democratic City like Chicago or LA or Boston, or now even NYC.

I have successfully run campaigns, with a 5-0 record. Get a few convictions and the dike will burst and we will have another Watergate. 29% approval does not win elections against 24%; convictions and investigations win elections against fascism.

Forget the war, it is a hopelessly lost cause no one seems to care about the dead and suffering, so go after the living criminals. Strike now while the iron is hot, while REPUBS are in a mood bipartisan to nail Gonzo and make it up from there. Contempt of Congress with Him is a starting point.

Get Gonzo then go after Cheney, forget Bush he is impotent without Cheney. With Cheney gone he will do something very much stupider than he has already done and go to Jail forever

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 2:02:43 PM

  (0+)

The tortoise won the race, so I still take heart that contempt charges are going forward, even if exceeding slow.

Let's hope that the Dems have come to the same conclusion as you.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 2:14:42 PM

  (0+)

You have touched on the two great poverties of our age: our failure of imagination, and our passive subservience to the status quo. Combine this with the political famine of courage and ideas that blights our nation’s capital, and you’ve got the ingredients for a fascist state that, if not already existent, is laboring to be born.

Having said that, what I see as the greatest failing of the progressive movement in America, and liberals and progressives in general, is our self-injurious tendency to focus on dire consequences, and to frame our concerns in terms of doom and gloom.

Yes, things are dire, of that I need no convincing, nor do you. But most people wake up every day and try to reduce the number of things they have to worry about. Progressives and liberals try to increase them. The American electorate does not consist of 200 million policy wonks eager to digest the bleak news we have to deliver. Instead, we frighten them into inaction and cause them to be pessimistic about the possibility for real change.

We cannot win over the American people by daily presenting a laundry list of “facts” (“The Truth!”) and giving them “I have a nightmare” speeches. No quantity of books, articles, or rants about how bad things are will advance progressive power or grow progressive values in our culture.

The average citizen does not read policy papers, or subscribe to obscure journals. They don’t make decisions with a checklist of issues in their hands. That’s why Republican campaigns operate on a different level: Whom do you identify with? Whom can you trust? Who is strong, and who is weak? These questions transcend issues, which is why Republicans – who know that they are at a disadvantage on the issues – spend so much time talking about them.

Politics is not about issues. Politics is about identity. It’s about who you are, whether you stand up for your beliefs, take political risks, and don’t run scared and go invertebrate every time you get attacked by your opponents. The winners in politics are those who form a positive image in the public mind of who they are, and a negative image of who their opponents are.

Voters are looking for someone to say something courageous. There’s a hunger to be about big moral causes – causes bigger than our own self-interest. They want an end to partisan bickering. They want pragmatic solutions, and not ideological posturing.

Want evidence? Look no further than the public’s congressional approval rating of 29%, barely above that of Chimp McFlightsuit, though still well above that of Dick Vader. Are 71% of Americans dissatisfied with Congress because they’re not impeaching Bush, or because they’ve not succeeded in changing the nation’s course in Iraq? Largely, no. They’re unhappy that nothing seems to have changed since January. That the squabbling and bickering and posturing goes on just the same, regardless of which party holds power.

So I say to the Democrats: go after Gonzales, if he could possibly have committed perjury. Pass contempt of Congress citations against Bolten and Miers. Work furiously at bringing the troops – ALL the troops – home from Iraq. Continue the difficult and quite probably futile search for more co-sponsors to HR 333. Yes, all these things.

But these are all efforts (necessary ones, of course!) AGAINST something. We also need to be FOR something. And not many somethings. Just one or two BIG somethings. We need big, positive visionary solutions that solve multiple problems simultaneously while strengthening progressive and American values. We need to make issues fit into broad frameworks. We need a new philosophy that attempts to enlist citizens in large projects to which everyone contributes and from which every one benefits.

Though not so intelligent as others on this site to know “THE ANSWER”, I would offer one suggestion, something like “Healthcare and Energy Security For All Americans”. But the point is – finally! – that liberals and progressives do indeed need to stop squabbling, John, but not for its sake alone. We need to stop squabbling and work together to achieve common goals – large, comprehensive goals, and not just our usual grab-bag of small-bore proposals that bore Americans to tears and confirm their stereotype of liberal governance being little more than the million-little-pieces, interest groups approach to politics.

Whew, what a rant. If you’ve made it this far, you are to be congratulated, and thanked.

Keep up your good and provocative writing, John. Always a pleasure.

by Todd Huffman, M.D. (80 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 109 comments) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 3:21:36 PM

  (0+)

Let's break that down:

what is needed is cooperation, but even if everyone egrees that 'one thing' is worth participation from everyone that doesn't mean it has to be the only thing. And, in fact, it's not likely that everyone will work on 'project number one' -- and they don't all need to: just enough to get the thing accomplished. We don't have to be the Borg Collective to be effective.

You want Gonzales out? Good! Make a phone call today. OK -- that's 5 minutes -- what are you going to do for the rest of the day? (But if only a few people make the phone call then it's not going to help much.)

Look at things that organized in ways that work. You go the store -- the store works. Some people stock the shelves, some check you out, some do inventory and ordering, some do the accounting -- there's a division of labor, but it's all coordinated. All the employees of the store, however, smile at the customers and try to help when asked, they all report problems they see to the manager, they all (if they are part of a well-run store) look for ways to increase customer satisfaction, decrease waste, and increase profits -- even if not within their particular job descriptions. If a fire breaks out then everyone works on containing it, getting the customers out of danger, and so forth.

So, everyone does not have to do exactly the same things, but rather be a part of the overall effort and 'vision'. What is needed is a strategic plan. We need to list those specific things which need doing, come up with an overall statement of broad objectives which encompass those things, and then prioritize and make more specific plans, keeping in mind the time frames and critical paths.

Gonzales is a good thing to work on -- not because he is such a bum but because that has an effect on other things: getting people activated; restoring the rule of law and some civil rights; breaking the monopoly on power by the administration; opening up investigations which will expose corruption (if he can be replaced); hitting on torture, which he supported; exposing the voter fraud; giving congress a task they may be able to accomplish; improving the morale of the bureacrats, especially in the justice department; even helping to end the occupation by disrupting the corruption of the corporations and the myth of the legality of the invasion and the 'urinary executive'. And the timing for that is good -- it's a hot item. It touches on the environmental problems and corruption in all sorts of areas, so it's something that has a hook into the major concerns of many people.

There are other areas that need work, and could be centered, of course -- perhpas some are better. Impeachment comes to mind right off (but the Gonzo boob even helps with that). But people can STILL work on those other things, at the same time. Even those who may love Gonzales can work on issues which concern them -- such as proper care for veterans or re-establishing the industrial base and decent jobs.

Organizing doesn't mean everyone must do exactly the same thing, and only that thing. It means maximizing coordinated efforts and minimizing working on cross purposes. If someone is a dyed in the wool democrat, then let them work on reforming the party on the local level. I don't think it will much good at this point, but it MIGHT help, and it will keep them part of the overall movement, and a citizen in good standing, who is active. We do need to minimize active opposition to those doing something we don't think is important or helpful, as long as it isn't destructive to the overall goals and vision. Where there is disagreement on this, then we should try to work it out -- perhaps, for example -- by convincinging those who want to reform the Demcorats to work on the local level and not broadly defend all the Democrats do and attack those who criticize the party in any way.

There are lots of things to work out, of course, but we need to do systems thinking, in terms of overall goals and effective organization which can encompass -- and welcome -- diversity.

I think the environment is critically important, but I don't have the time and energy to even keep up with all what is happening there, much less put much effort into environmental activism: I can sign a petition or make a phone now and then, but my efforts are not concentrated there. Otheres are very involved with the environment, and I'd like them to sign a petition for impeachment or whatever, but I can't expect them to stop putting the bulk of their time in their own speciality -- and I wouldn't want them to. I don't think much about 9/11 either, but I'm glad there are people who do.

It's like a military -- not everyone is in the same place doing the same things -- but it's all one military, and hopefully working to win the same war.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 4:42:34 PM

  (0+)

You’re exactly right. One initial move that I would like to see is progressives working locally and nationwide to help figure out how to coordinate the message from the left across the alternative media spectrum. Progressive radio stations and major internet sites would need to have simple cross-communication networks set up to organize what priorities needed immediate attention, and to coordinate activities and message on a day by day basis.

Right now there is a very confusing message coming from the left. We need to keep up the diversity and intellectual depth of our message, but we must also strive to try and concentrate on specific themes that need urgent attention.

I agree that pushing hard on the Gonzales perjury issue, which looks like it is moving more quickly now, is a very critical tipping point. If this goes badly for Bush, and does so with obvious public support and attention, I think it will make step 2, impeachment of Cheney, much easier to proceed with.

It is a shame that none of this will help the troops in Iraq right now. Bush has sealed their fate for at least the next several months.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 5:59:49 PM

  (0+)

Mark, Robert, Pete, John, Rich and Blue,

     All such good points.  All sort of different.  All coming from liberals.  They all really work.  I have friends who work almost exclusively on the School of the Americas shutdown.  They also show up at many other liberal events.  I know one woman who made at least two trips to New Orleans to help rescue pets.  Rich, your list of issues of the perfect candidate would be one I think ALL of us would support.  But, I am thrilled to see the strength that Ron Paul is showing here in Greenville, SC.  Not that he is my candidate, but he is sure stirring up the republican pot and by damn he doesn't mince words which can be nothing but good for politics.  I am behind my candidate, Dennis Kucinich.  Pete,  I agree special prosecutor for Gonzo.  May not work.  Watched C-Span earlier, consensus of the faceless voice was that the Bush DOJ will never allow it.  I, too think Gonzo and Cheney are the lynch pins.  But, charge them all.  Congress is trying.   Blue Pilgrim is right, we are all working on a lot of different goals and I don't think they are at odds.  The problem and the advantage at the same time is that there are so many corrupt targets at which to shoot. We need a shotgun of approaches. 

     I have promises from eager people here in Greenville to go with me to Congressman Bob Inglis'office to seriously press the case for impeaching Dick Cheney.  I just need to make his office give me that appointment.  We will just make it happen.  Inglis will NEVER co-sponsor that resolution, but when we get through, he will know the particulars of the charges and be aware of the growing support for impeachment AND he will know that a goodly number of his constitutents are better informed than he is.  Can't hurt.  So, while I am all for pressuring all investigating House and Senate Committees to subpoena, charge, appoint special prosecutors, whatever they need to do, there is only so much that can be done once they do that and they seem to be doing that.

     One other thing, and I am in the midst of writing an article to post on the subject, is the statement from Conyers to the effect that he favors impeachment, would like to co-sponsor HRes333, but is afraid of Fox.  What the hell kind of situation is that?  A congressman is afraid to take action on something that 54% of the people want done because Rupert Murdoch might take him out?!?  The media is democracy's other enemy.  It is not the fourth estate but the fourth arm of the government.  I was up into the wee hours of the morning trying to perfect that article.  I am going to finish it now and post it with my suggestion as to what people who visit websites like this one might want to do about this particular example of the dictatorship of the Foxes. 

Thanks for a thought-provoking article.  Maybe it is possible to herd cats.  Or at least to get them all after the same rat. 

by Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 133 comments) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 6:16:35 PM

  (0+)

Keep up the great work. Even if your congressperson is not going to co-sign or vote for impeachment, they will know that they will never get reelected if they put up too much of a fuss over it. I’m going to be working on Chris Van Hollen, my congressperson who is also the new chairman of the DCCC.

And you are exactly right, to heard cats, you just need to point them all toward a rat. 

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 6:06:11 AM

  (0+)

I will keep everyone posted as to how my efforts to see and talk to Bob Inglis work out.  I may be able to get to see him.  I actually obtained an hour interview with him when I was working with a group trying to make a go of a liberal weekly newspaper way back when he served his first three terms in congress.  I just called and asked for an hour of his time and got it.  Back then he had pledged to limit his terms to three, resigned after three and ran against Fritz Hollings for the Senate and lost.  Now he's back, having learned his term limit lesson.  He may have learned his lesson about granting lengthy interviews also.  We'll see.

by Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 133 comments) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 9:00:53 PM

  (0+)

Talked to Inglis' appointment guy in DC today.  Told him I and a number of my friends needed an appointment with the congressman to discuss the issue of impeachment.  We did not need to see him immediately but it was important that we see him.  Aide is going to see if he can arrange an appointment on a Monday in September.

by Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 133 comments) on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 4:43:01 PM

  (0+)

at http://www.ilcpj.org/actions/ 

This is a matrix of which illinois groups support what actions, and to what extent -- and they can support (or  not) more than one. You can see at a glance how much support each idea has -- the key is at the bottom of the page. This should be a source of ideas, not just for actions, but a model for organizing even on an individual or area level -- or by regular members of a web site.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 7:50:16 PM

  (0+)

I agree with you.  First post here.  Kinda intimidated by all the eggheadish arguments being bandied about.  All very interesting, well conceived and eloquently written.

But, alas, time is not on our side.  Deadeye dick could pull the trigger on Iran's "Gulf of Tonkin" moment any day.   Then it's hello WW3 and their long wet dreamed of police state.

HR 333 is the key.  Kucinich has 15 signed on now.  A few more and MSM will no longer be able to ignore the 54% who want dick castrated from the white house and free society.  We must all do what we can NOW to get a few more brave Reps. to bite the bullet, Fox be damned.

I respect all the wisdom and organizational accumen demonstrated but time is not on our side.   Today is not a day to wax philosophic about how to get alternative media to use the same talking points or any of that.

                             TOADAY  IS FOR ACTION.....by yourself if need be.  I am going to Elijah Cummings office in Ellicott City MD, not expecting an audience, but for sure gonna stay until many people know about HR 333...folks in his office and people in the street where I plan to picket with a sign that says "Not signing 333=Complicity"

               When the worm turns and war crimes trials are underway, those cowards who tremble at the thought of up holding their oath to the Constitution for fear of what Baba O'Reilly will say may just have to take their turns in the docket.

                         ACT  NOW           Philosophize when the criminals are behind bars or swinging from a rope(treason in a time of war is a CAPITAL offense)

by CamusRebel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 9:11:48 PM

  (0+)

Ask people to contact their politicians. Put a name at the top like you are an organization, and see if you find a place to meet -- and a time if possible. And start up a website or yahoo group with that name, and print the URL on the flyer. Then announce an organizational meeting if you don't have a date yet.

That's maybe not today, but a few days -- but it's much better to have numbers of people. Even if you only get a few, recruiting is always a good item for the agenda. Maybe in a month or so you will be able to have large group to take action. Figure out what to do, as a group, as you go.

Or maybe there is already a group in or near your area you can join with, or coordinate with -- doesn't even have to be a 'peace' or 'action' group -- any group who might be willing to get more involved. It could even be a veterans' group. See what resources you have in your area, and figure out how to engage them. Just a bit of kick-start may well be all that people need.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 9:42:11 PM

  (0+)

Camus,

     Call Cummings office for an appointment.  Does he have town hall meetings or get togethers where he speaks one-on-one with constituents?  If so, go, sit near the front and as soon as the last introductory syllable leaves his mouth have your hand up.  Ask him a well prepared questions to which he will make predictable answers and be ready with rebuttals.  Do it fairly politely but forcefully.  Go to all of his meetings and he will begin to know who you are.  Watch Helen Thomas.

by Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 133 comments) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:15:41 PM

  (0+)

Building an Anti-Slavery Movement (right here on OpEd News)

This is just the latest of several articles I have posted here in the last couple weeks from Blacks seeking solidarity with White progressives.

An exerpt:

As long as racist attitudes prevail, there is no chance of creating an egalitarian movement and society. Black people, especially poor, “ghetto” black folk, are the most oppressed, reviled, attacked, imprisoned, degraded and feared people in the country.

Because black poor and working people have the clearest vision about the enemy, the most revolutionary potential, and the least to lose, other working and oppressed people need to look to them for leadership in the common struggle, to unite with them, and to consciously and overtly oppose racism. When that happens, and only when it happens, the slave masters will truly be in dire straits and our people will finally have real hope."

I hope everyone reading this thread gets over there and reads this paper.

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 9:54:24 PM

  (0+)

I’ve been a member of the ANSWER Coalition for some time. They would be an integral part of any coordinated movement on the left.

http://answer.pephost.org/  

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 7:22:46 AM

  (0+)

into the great discussion taking place on this thread.

My personal vision is to build solidarity among people, period.

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 7:17:55 AM

  (0+)

A lot of good ideas, but what is missing is how to organize. The problem generally has been that we hear from individuals, some of whom have good ideas, some who are full of crap, but none with much influence. I have written many letters to editors, to our senators and representative, and, yes, to Bush and Cheney. Does anyone listen? Forget it. To have any influence, you need numbers. I have a lot of experience in small group training and community involvement, and know it could be done. What I would propose is that we mobilize concerned persons throughout the country to organize groups (study groups, political action groups, whatever you want to call them), to identify, analyze, and prioritize the problems we face and generate possible solutions, which would then be examined for feasibility and consequences. The internet provides the means for managing and coordinating such an activity. I would suggest community groups, regional compilation, and national organization and dissemination. This would allow us to come up with meaningful recommendations to submit, and the numbers behind them to make people listen. We could also involve the media, because whatever we came up with would be news. I would not limit participation to Democrats but would invite Independents and Republicans who were genuinely interested in finding meaningful solutions to problems as opposed to maintaining power and control. We need to do away with negative partisan politics.

We might go after initial funding from George Soros or someone with the resources who shares our concerns. Once we demonstrated the efficacy of the movement, it might be self-sustaining through private donations, or we could form a nonprofit foundation.

Al Wight

by Albert Wight (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:02:30 PM

  (0+)

I've collected some stuff on organizing the intermindcollective yahoo group (there should be URLs in the link section too); there's lots out on the web; there are books on clubs, organizing, activism; and there people around who not only know how but are good at it -- or some part of it.

Some of it is real common sense, like keeping track of comes to a meeting, or expresses some interest at a demonstration. Name tags, greeters at the door, coffee and refreshments, well planned meetings, inviting people to come to a meeting with you, and asking members to invite others, getting speakers in for a meeting, keeping people informed and involved, asking people to do specific jobs, and some stuff that's fun -- this is standard stuff in any group, from a church to a bridge club -- or a political action group. Some of it is like a old sales pep meeting. And, of course, doing things which matter and make people satisfied in taking part. Think about what sort of experience YOU would want when first contacting a group. what if you went to a meeting and someone said 'hello' and no one ever said anything else, asked how to contact you, or kept you informed -- no one ever tried to 'bring you along' or give you something useful to do so you felt going was making a difference.

It' amazing how often just this simple stuff never happens, and how often people show up for just one meeting and are never seen again.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:24:54 PM

  (0+)

I agree that meetings with no purpose or direction don't work. Structuring the meeting is important. It should have a purpose and direction, but not a structure that predetermines what the outcome is to be. A lot of work has been done on this over the years. If people want to do it, we can do it. We need general guidance from somewhere, ideally from the center of whatever this turned out to be. If a given community group did not like the structure, they would be free to come up with their own and communicate this to the center.

 Al Wight

by Albert Wight (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 12:11:16 AM

  (0+)

Yes, but unlike the Republicans, our “central message organizer” should not be the DLC, DCCC or DSC. It should be somewhere more attuned to the liberal/progressive base, such as Air America Radio or maybe the Daily KOS. What we would want to do is to have dedicated liaisons. For example, Bluepilgrim, you could be the contact person between Daily KOS, OpEd, and other designated web sites. OldVet could be the contact person between Air America Radio and BluePilgrim, which would allow cross connections between the internet and radio outlets.

That is the kind of grass roots organizing I think would make the progressive movement both more cohesive, and more powerful in shaping the debate. We would want to have a liaison between Media Matters and various corporate media outlets like CNN, to make sure that they know we are watching, and are ready to jump in with advertiser boycotts if necessary.

It’s all a matter of setting up the organizational infrastructure.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 7:06:48 AM

  (0+)

I agree - we need to stick together. But do you really mean it? Will you stick with us? Will you get behind the many progressives who are demanding that the impeachment process be started?

Or do you mean that we have to stick together in support of what you say you want, or perhaps what pelosi wants?

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm sticking to my principles and I'm demanding that the democrats do what I voted them in for and what they promised they would do. If they won't, then I will find someone who will and that is who I will vote for and support.

On a related note, why should I continue to support tired worn out old tactics that are proven futile or not sufficiently effective - when I could put my time, effort, and resources into other more effective and perhaps new "tactics"?

And you may not admit it or even completely realize it, but what you are doing here is standing guard for the democrat PTB and standing guard over many worn-out and worthless "Tactics".

You say you want to better organize to come up with better strategies and actions, then I say, you should start by allowing the input of all progressives - even those who disagree - AND furthermore, if you are not willing to accept any change, then your not really asking for ideas and input - you are asking for followers.

Now please notice that I did not put anything that can reasonably construed as personal in my comments. And so I assume that (if you respond) you will respond with respect, fully addressing my points and acknowledging both the positive and the negative that you see in them.

Ok, I'm out. Thanks and have a great day

P.S. I was going to stop there but a certain FACT just came to mind. Since you were comparing how repubs stick together, I would remind you that bush has done an awful lot to pander to his base (i.e. the fanatical Christian right), and often to the disappointment of the rest of his followers - oops, I mean supporters. 

Anyhoo, well I'm part of the base that's demanding impeachment and withdrawal. And I worked hard to help the democrats get elected - so what's wrong with me expecting a little "pandering" too? Hey, you wouldn't want to piss-off the base now woudja? something to think about, right?

{Actually, it's not really pandering to me - when I am merely expecting them to keep their promises} 

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 2:01:08 AM

  (0+)

That's what I was asking for... new tactics. Any you can bring up would be greatly appreciated.

I was thinking that between OpEd News, Daily KOS and other web sites, along with Air America Radio (Randy Rhodes, Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann) that we could assign contact people to coordinate efforts, get more spokespersons on as guests on Air America, and start to get the liberal end of things more organized. Air America Radio is already doing this with guests from various liberal web sites, but I think that what is missing is cohesion and the ability to move quickly in a concerted fashion.

PS. Contempt charges are moving forward finally, and if Gonzo goes down, Cheney will be very vulnerable. 

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 6:26:13 AM

  (0+)

and THAT is to stop the SPP! and build that movement as we are doing up  here in Canada and will eventually happen in MEXICO, too.

 Peter you have written about it, I read your comment about it, but what direction action steps are you WILLING to make about it ...?

 I just see the same NONDIRECTIVE arguments on this thread; we are ALL leaders and who to elect is as genuine DEFOCUS.  I support Ron Paul, I support Kucinich, I like Mike Gavel and Richardson,  I don't need to make a "decision"  -- I need them ALL to see that we must stop the SPP (forget Hilary, Gore, Jeb Bush, Dodd or anyone else of that ILK and Obama,too!) saying anything about it.

We must stop focussing on THEM, the whole kabbit and kaboodly of THEM, if we are to make strides. We ARE the leaders; let's OWN our power and do miracles!

 Virginia 

lots of GREAT WEBSITES already up on this side of the border, but they simply won't post on here this am. 

by ladybroadoak (39 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 394 comments) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 2:07:46 AM

  (0+)

John, that's not going to happen because the sites you mentioned do not allow discussion on certain topics and they certainly do not allow discussion on many new tactics.

ladybroadoak, has the right idea; If we "the people" are to work together, we need to bring our sites and our people together. If we do that, then and only then, will the sites that protect the democrat PTB listen to us - otherwise, we are just a nuisance to be squashed.

Politics in America is a cunning and devious-nasty disgusting political game of chess (with life and death decisions) and although we progressives are adverse to that - we are going to have to acknowledge it (at the very least).

As for my ideas, man, I got a lot of'em, and if my tactics were used, I have no doubt that they would kick some stuck-up, ignorant, self-absorbed, Royal "schadenfreudian" Republican asses. In FACT those tactics have worked for me very well in past situations. I once had a corrupt judge to excuse himself, rather than have to make a judgement against his criminal friend (who was his golfing buddy). He had to do this because I made my opponent look so ridiculous that the entire courtroom was laughing out loud at his testimony. There was no way that the judge would dare to rule against me in that environment. Then later, when we returned with a new judge, I did the same thing, only using a new approach (because I knew they would be expecting the former approach), and guess what? I won.

Another time a dirty cop planted a huge (and I mean huge) bag of pot on the teenage child of a friend of mine. I was a witness and I went to court and pointed out that this teenager had been searched 5 (may have been six, I forget exactly) times and yet somehow during the first four (or five) times they had missed a garbage bag full of pot. Note: This was summer and the kid had on shorts and a t-shirt. I'm leaving out some details, but anyhoo, once again, I had the courtroom laughing. So you know what this judge did? He said he needed to bring the cop in for his side and that he was going to put the trial on hold. However, ;-) this case was never brought up again - and that was many years ago.

I could go and on telling you similar stories of where I have foiled the devious plans of some really awful damn people - so I know that I have some good ideas and that my input should be allowed and considered.

buuuut.... there's no use in my continuing to try to bring attention to my ideas, while we have this environment that seeks to stifle me and many others.

Once again...

You say you want to better organize to come up with better strategies and actions, then I say, you should start by allowing the input of all progressives - even those who disagree - AND furthermore, if you are not willing to accept any change, then your not really asking for ideas and input - you are asking for followers. And that is exactly what those sites that you cited are doing.

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 10:37:38 AM

  (0+)

Kos is a gatekeeper as far as I''m concerned -- and so is Air America to a great extent. So I'm not sure who would be a liason between them and here. They could have their own speaker check in to a central site, but all ideas and position would be listed there. Trying to set up a liason between two groups has an intrinisc problem: which group are they supposed to represent? And how are they to decide what either group actually wants -- with all the problems of even arriving a a 'group' position with all the different members wanting different things -- a job all by itself. Would a liason represent group A, group B, some nebulous 'in between', or himself -- or maybe a 'liason asociation' like some kind of 'congress'? This is an intrinsic and fundamental problem which must be resolved for any organization.

But an important distinction Robert Pranger made years ago, between what he called a representative vs a delegate: a representative is elected for a term, but then goes ahead with what he wants to do; a delegate carries messages from the group (more like a nations ambassador, who does not act on his own). We have 'representatives' in the government, and they are accountable only when up for re-election, so thay can raise all sorts of hell in the meantime while being ignored by the people, and then 'do the act' to be re-elected. That's the problem when people look for 'leaders' as if they were chiefs or bosses, and just the opposite of the anarchist principle of 'no chiefs' -- the actual meaning of the word 'anarchist'. Anarchy, then, is not chaos at all, but rather constant effective feedback between them, either directly or, with groups, though delegates who must really reflect the will of those who designated them as delegates. If a trues consensus can't be established and a vote is taken, a delegate can cast a "47% yea / 42% nay / 11%" abstain vote in a system of proportional representation -- reflecting the actual will and sense of the group he speaks for.

During a meeting of my local peace group someone, at almost the end of the meeting,  brought up a proposal to buy a peace pole (silly thing, really), and called for an immediate vote -- she didn't even want to allow for discussion. Everyone was ready to vote unitl I objected, and at least we got maybe 15 minutes to talk about it, but then the thing went 'into committee' and they went off deciding things -- which would have been alright except it was with the treasury of the whole group. This is a group which ostensibly is looking for political reform, and they could not even manage to make a decision in a proper way on something this simple.

I mean, damn! -- this was like the way the Republicans kept passing legislation in the middle of the night. There was no advance notice to members of the idea, no time to look at alternatives to outright purchase -- and the real kicker is that this came at the end of a meeting which was supposed to be for planning a commemoration event, but which was completely disrupted by a few members, including the nominal leader of the group, who monopolized the meeting with nonsense. No commemoration took place -- the date came and went.  Eventually, months later, they got a peace pole erected -- at apparantly a rather high cost -- and it was touted as a great 'success'. (I don't go to their meetings anymore -- that was quite typical.)

These people might have been well intentioned, but frankly, the boy scout patrols of 12-year-olds I used to work with were better organized and more competent with meeting and management skills. I see signs of similar problems in other places -- on some message boards, and with various groups -- people who don't have a clue how to manage an organization, who have never been trained, studied, or apparantly even read about the basic principles -- and worse who refuse to think about it or work on learning. Many of the nominal objectives are never accomplished, of course, and people wander off still searching for 'the great leader', and wonder why the 'left' doesn't get anywhere.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:29:42 AM

  (0+)

RCG: I am not at all sure what you are referring to as old, worn out, worthless tactics, and am not sure you are either.  I also don’t see a description of the new tactics you are suggesting. Sounds to me like you have your mind made up as to what you want and want everyone else to get on board. I would support what I agree with, of course, but without some type of organization and numbers behind it, any individual or small group would be crying in the wind. Politicians are experts at isolating and silencing individuals.

John, I have enough experience with structuring of group activities with diverse groups in different settings and cultures to know that with the proper structure they work. Obviously, rcg doesn’t have a clue as to what I am talking about. The objective is to start with problems, not with solutions, and to ensure that all participants are heard. The problems are selected by the group, and the group comes up with its own solutions. The result is a consensus, not rule by majority or overpowering by a vocal minority with its own agenda. I agree with you that we would need a central collection and dissemination point that does not owe its allegiance to any political party. I am not at all sure who or where that would be. If you are serious about organizing, let’s talk more.

Al Wight

by Albert Wight (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 12:18:50 PM

  (0+)

I have to say that the above comments ( I say it with love and respect, folks) remind me the monologue of a certain  Anton Zagoreztky, the comic character from the Griboeydov's comedy ' Misery from Being Smart'. He says  openly on the fancy ball to a total stranger, 'We,you know, have a conspiracy here. I attend the secret meetings  on Thursdays. We discuss how to make our society better. Only Shh- do not tell anyone.' Too bad that comedy was never translated  into English.

Folks,  there are two things  necessary  when it comes to organize an effort:

1. You know why you do it  ( not what you do not want but what you want)

2. You have all the time you  need.

Those two immediately define the  PROFESSION- that is PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN and/or PROFESSIONAL HITMAN.

Without people who can spend 100% of their time on this  there is no  chance in Hell to organize anything.  Thus please, point out  and recruit the PROFESSIONALS.  GET THEM!  PAY THEM! Tell them that you, the customer want one thing- Gonzo out,   whatever.  GET IT DONE ! Celebrate the Victory and go  after someone else.

I can assure you, folks also that so far the proper  watchmen do not care very much what we here are mingling about. But try to specify a specific problem and how to solve it- and you will see the  Mechanical Dog at your gates in a blink of an eye. And that would mean you really are on the right track.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4103 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 2:21:43 PM

  (0+)

...then I read this, "Obviously, rcg doesn't have a clue as to what I am talking about. " I knew you were trolling, but that sealed it. OldVet you don't know me, not at all - and if you want to talk then with me, then you will do so respectfully - that is, if you expect respect in return. That's how this works.

Everybody, else, you all had many good points, and I can tell that you are sincere - and that's all it takes to start and to organize to become an influential group that can make a difference. Whaddya say, do you guys and gals want to do that? If so, then lets get to it. I have lots of serious ideas both simple and complex (and no I'm not locked in on them) which I will be more than happy to share with those who are willing to listen. I too, in return, will be willing to listen to your ideas.

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 2:54:25 PM

  (0+)

First we need some sort of 'vision' statement -- even if a bit vague.

We can start off with:

*individual liberty, and civil rights (for everyone)

*reasonable standard of living, food, health care, so forth

*peace and security -- not be bombed, and not bomb others

*a future we can look forward to, including a viable environment

*a life with meaning and happiness

I think pretty much everyone wants something like this. More EXACTLY what that means is a bit more difficult: some would say a 'good life' means having a nice truck to drive, others want a well-functioning public transportation system. Ideally we could have both so people can choose. The biggest bone of contention is how to do it, even if we have the same goals.

But there are also a few specifics that most all of see as needed, such as an honest government and political system. With that, then we can enage in a 'normal' political process to work on the rest. No one REALLY cares what the minimum wage is: the real concerns are how well others -- or yourself -- will live if you unfortunate to end up with a lousy job, and how much supporting a system where everyone can live half-decent will cost you if you have a better job. But yes, there are beliefs and 'morals' to deal with also. Would more than a few people be bothered if the poor were living decently at the expense of the flying saucer people, or if universal health care here was paid for by the Chinese? I doubt it. Would anyone, except for racists or idealogues, care if illegal immigrants got good jobs and pay as long as there were enough so no one would have to go without that?

The thing is, many people, encouraged by politicians, confuse the real goals and desires with 'programs'. For instance, politicians blame immigrants for citizens going without good work and divert attention from how the companies screw the people both by importing cheap labor AND by exportig jobs to cheap labor in other countries -- they scapegoat. And then people end up spending time and energy arguing about the wrong things.

So the first thing needed is to determine what the right areas of disagreement and conflict are, and what the real and root problems are. One root problem is that our freedoms have been melting away. Another is that our standard of living and financial security has deteriorated. And, of course, the war and the aggressive empire has been deadly and destroyed most of the credibility of the nation in the world.

Does not everyone *more or less* agree with this, in general? In other words, are we not all human and with the about the same human needs? That's where we search for commonality, and then find more specific things we can agree on about what or who is interfering with meeting those needs. Don't most us agree that Bush and the fascists are hurting us all, and we would like to see them go away?

Once we reach a consensus to this point, then we can start talking about a strategic plan -- specific benchmarks and broad goals, but more specific than as above. We can list the various things we want, group them into categories, and see if some specific goals can be agreed to, and then look at time frames, and paths to reach the goals. This, in programming, would be called 'top down design'. There is also 'bottom up design', such as agreeing we need to get out of Iraq, or we need to have fair elections -- and then looking at which broad goals mesh with the specific goals. Will dumping Gonzales help us to have fair elections? Will dumping Cheney help ud get out of Iraq and not start a war with Iran? How do all of these things fit together? Which should be high priority, and what needs to happen before other goals can be reached?

Can this stuff be written out and organized in a coherent way so we know where are now, and where we want to move towards? And then decide how to proceed?

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 6:21:46 PM

  (0+)

Proposed Vision Statement and supportive actions. 

Saving Our Democratic Republic

Because:

Without it we cannot accomplish:

Ending this war and preventing other wars of imperialism

Providing for the health and welfare of all our citizens

Protecting the planet from our own imbecilic leaders

Rescuing the planet from ecological destruction

   To name a few.

To accomplish our overall goal we must:

       Push hard for impeachment.

       Push hard for enforcing subpoenas.

       Push hard for transparancy in all of government.

       Push hard to shut down "K" Street.

       Support and applaud whatever efforts there are in the House and Senate toward the above.  Congress is imperfect but other than that what do we have?  Open, armed rebellion with barricades in the streets?  That could turn bloody.  I'm angry, but I'm still a pacifist. 

      I could think of more stuff but that is just a beginning.

Sheila

by Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 133 comments) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 10:51:55 PM

  (0+)

I'm on board with that! Who's next?

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 6:30:29 PM

  (0+)

Get off your asses and get the f*ck out in the street, NOW!!!

 WE DO NOT HAVE TIME FOR Professorial Parlor games.

 I spent several hours today, by myself, on a busy street corner outside Rep Cummings office(after having a nice chat w/krystal inside) with a cheesy homemade sign that said on one side, "Impeach Cheney/ Demand Your Rep signs HR 333"  and on the other side it says , "Cummings hasn't signed yet"

Wow!  What an awesome day!  The feedback was so overwhelmingly positive.  Folks would honk, wave, thumbs up the first side at a long red light , then I would turn it around, they grew thoughtful , reading and I shout give him a call, or make the universal talking on the phone gesture

Lots of "I will"  and  "You bet"s.   Then the foot traffic, omg, so many questions, so many people hungry for a way to make the pain stop.

Ladies and gentlemen, I mean no disrespect.  I'm just not sure we can afford to waste any time.  Let's all do everything we can, if you can get a group up..........fantastic.  If not, don't let that be an excuse to stay behind your keyboard/ on your couch as the police state decends.

by CamusRebel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 10:43:06 PM

  (0+)

Camus,

I have been demonstrating against the war every Wednesday afternoon from 5:30 to 6:25pm almost without fail, on one street corner in Greenville, SC for four and one half years.  Once or twice by myself, most often with my friend Ted (a character you should all meet) and sometimes, like recently, with eight or nine other people; occasionally with fifty or more.  If you visit greenvilleantiwarsociety.com you can see our many events in living color.  If you visit christianforcongress.com you can read about Ted and his cybercandidacy against our Congressman, Bob Inglis. 

by Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 133 comments) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:06:12 PM

  (0+)

not recently because my health doesn't permit it, but I was able to spread a bit of sedition in three stores today while I was shopping. I was out more before the war -- marching, vigiling (once alone, once with one other guy and some signs). I visited politicians, and worked a teach-in or two, and went to meetings.

But you know -- that didn't stop it because there were not enough people and those there were were not organized -- and so a lot less effective than they might have been. I've been at this pretty much 16/7 (I do have to sleep and eat now and then) for 6 years, and much of that has been on line -- which has probabaly been more effective in spreading ideas and information than I could have done in person.

Thing is, 6 years ago we didn't have time to waste either -- but people did waste time because they weren't working smart, which is a necessary part of it.

Camus, you did good today, but think what you cold have done if there were a couple or few of you, and you had flyers to hand out and contact info for a web site or group which holds meetings, and you could done some recruiting or got them to keep thinking about it, and maybe do some action or organizing on their own. We have to spread this around and get more people involved -- that's what I'm saying. Nobody can get it done alone.

So this is not a game. I wouldn't spend tens of thousands of hours on a game. What I did was study, learn, write, tried to wake people up, share information, plan, and analyze. It always comes down to the same thing: we need large groups of well organized people to effectively oppose the fascists and the political machine -- because although they are not as numerous as the people, they are very well organized, and rich and powerful. 'Guerilla forces' need to be organized too.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 12:16:48 AM

  (0+)

THoughts after midnight.

Vision is essential, followed by a mission.

Keep the vision positive, moving towards positive developments. This can be framed to leave the crap we're dealing with now behind.

The vision also describes who we are and who we will become.

The mission gets into more detail on what things get done, how and by who.

We're looking to take the power in the system and then change the way it is wielded. We've learned that in Islamic states, you can't just hand the power of democracy over to Islamists who want to install Sharia law.

We need to study nations that have gone through revolutions. They've taken on big powers, won, and then struggled with all the mistakes, all the unplanned for developments, all the new power grabbers.

We need to get the help of people in other nation who have a stake in the outcome here in the US. I'm not talking about funding elections, where that's illegal. I'm talking about advocacy organizations.

We need to build progressive, not liberal, not centrist democratic-- PROGRESSIVE policy advocacy organizations. Think tanks are sometimes considered to be in this category. On the right, that may be true. ON the left, the think tanks tend to be no more than that-- weak, intellectual, paper-pushing idea explorers. They won't cut it. We need deeply funded advocacy organizations that develop strategies to reach judges, legislators, students, grassroots activists, mainstream media.... and more.

We need to come up with some big picture-- seeing the forest as well as the trees-- projects. Howard Dean did it with his 50 state initiative.

We need to get very, very local and take over the local parties-- Democratic, Green, Libertarian. Join your local organizations, run for committee person. Go to local meetings. Get other people to do the same.

Do MORE. You can do a lot of things you've never done before. Start trying them out, doing new things.

Do More. You can do more than you are doing. Put in ten minutes more each week, or each day. It will add up.

Meet new people. Recruit them. Allow yourself to be recruited.

Start writing. Putting words down, on paper or digitally forces you to think, to refine your ideas, to look at others' ideas. Start a blog. Post articles to OpEdNews, to other community blogs like dailykos, firedoglake, boomantribune, mydd, atrios, americablog, huffingtonpost... Comment on other people's writings. This gets you into the "energy cycle" and your energy will change and grow from it.

Support alternative media. VOlunteer, give time, money, promote it to others. Start local branches. OpEdNews lets you create your own pages for your county, your state, your city...

Develop regular communication with your legislators. And let them know that you are in touch with a lot of their constituents.

Communicate with the main stream media. When they suck, when you change the channel, tell them. When they do something good, tell them.

Become a leader. Volunteer to take on a project. Follow through, do a great job and finish it. Make sure you DO NOT commit to do something you are unlikely to finish and do a good job at. Be comfortable saying NO. But when you can, say yes.

Ask what you can do. Offer your time and help. Be selective about what you agree to.

Don't let old-timers who are burned out get you down. When you meet one, learn what you can, ignore the negativity and go out and recruit someone younger than you.

 Open your heart. Take risks, be brave, have courage. If you are too comfortable, if you have too much leisure time, you are not working and trying hard enough.

Make sure you are stretching your personal limits, your personal edges. Find and create new edges for yourself. If you stop doing this, you have let the growing part of you die. That is a tragedy.

When election times come around, do some scut work. No matter how smart or experienced you are, it's good to get out and do basic grassroots work-- phone banking canvassing, knocking door to door. You get input and see what's going on in a way that all the reading, all the polls in the world won't help you to see.


There are big projects that need to be planned-- assaults on the bastions of power that are based on boycotts, letter writing, visibility, demonstrations and more. Start talking about them with your local compatriots. Find others locally who are willing to take the risks and do what you are willing to do.

by Rob Kall (954 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2089 comments [49 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:39:32 PM

  (0+)

@Rob Kall "Don't let old-timers who are burned out get you down. When you meet one, learn what you can, ignore the negativity and go out and recruit someone younger than you. "

WRONG: Bad Advice. Children heed the wisdom of the old timers, and if they sound negative, know that it is for good reason. Furthermore, the negativity is what you should pay particular attention to. For example, I have predicted almost everything that has happened over the last 20 years or so- and the things I predicted were mostly NOT positive. If you wonder why, then consider the FACT that we have been losing substantial ground for all these years. Heck, take recent history, for example, say the last 7 years or so. I could put a nice positive spin on it, if you want, but it would-NOT-be true.

Furthermore, all along the way I have been told I was dead wrong, a fool, and told to shut up by people that either are or take it upon themselves to be "Left-Wing Gatekeepers". And guess what? These left wing Gatekeepers also told people to ignore my "negativity".

Well here you go. Take Robs advice if you want. ignore my negativity, but I'm going to tell you the truth.

Our democracy is in serious danger and very possibly over already. Rob, I'm damn sorry if that sounds negative, but it's the truth.

And one more thing, Rob, would you please make up your mind? You keep saying on thing and doing another. Those in here who are regulars they know, oh yes, they know what I am talking about. I have even had regular members to write me saying they saw the same thing, but they say they don't speak up because they do not want to anger you.

And to those who would seek to brown-nose you - you are welcome to come in here and trash me for telling the truth.

Anyhoo this is becoming an essay, so I'll wrap it up. Rob are you on board with seeking to pressure and demand that the democrats push for impeachment or not? How about a clear and definitive answer with no hedging. Thanks.

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 1:11:59 AM

  (0+)

One last comment. Looks like John isn’t serious. Then what’s the point? Blue Pilgrim and progrogirl offer some very positive suggestions, but where do we go from here? Rob gives sage advice from on high that sounds good but leads nowhere. We still all go it alone.

RCG, what you interpret as an insult is a statement of fact. Based on your comments it would not appear that you have any experience with what I was suggesting. So there is no basis for communication.

Looks like that’s all, folks.

by Albert Wight (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 10:08:19 AM

  (0+)

@OldVet- RCG, what you interpret as an insult is a statement of fact. Based on your comments it would not appear that you have any experience with what I was suggesting. So there is no basis for communication.

I don't know where you pulled that out from because a few personal comments and stories tells you nothing about all the other experience I have. Experience which is vast. So, have you read my Activist Resume? And hey, instead of just slinging mud, how about you tell me what "experience" you are looking for and what makes you so positive that I do not have it? Hmmmnn? While you're at it, tell me what makes you so high and mighty? What have you done?

As for negativity, and squabbling, I'll tell everyone this - when the democrats don't do what we elected them for and what they promised - when Conyers refuses to do what he said and instead has Cindy Sheehan and 300 others arrested - and when the stakes are so high - then it's dishonest of anyone to act surprised and upset and to complain - when when many of us complain and say we are not going to take it.

I don't know about you folks but I am going to support Sheehan in every way I can - because while she may be inexperienced - she is about the only one who keeps her promises.

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 11:35:35 AM

  (0+)

RCG, I doubt that you and I would ever be able to communicate with each other. I do agree with you on one issue, however. I support impeachment and would like to see it happen as soon as possible, before Bush and Cheney completely destroy our country.

by Albert Wight (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 1:25:47 PM

  (0+)

Oh sure oldvet, we can communicate. If you want to. I asked you some simple questions, which I'm sure that you understood, you would not answer. Thus, there is no (good) communication between us - but that was a choice you made.

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 4:40:47 PM

  (0+)

you kids can squabble in the back seat if you must, but this car is still on it's Journey to Ixtlan...  :-D

We're atalking about organizing, and thinking about it, and that's an important step to take.

There are two aspects to consider: local organizing and recruiting more people, and that's something most everyone can work on where they are; and then there is linking up in a wide network, bringing individuals and local organizations into a 'mass movement'. I call them two aspects because although they share many things the emphasis and methods are different enough that we have to shift mental gears.

Communication, for instance, is of a different character, and wide networks will require more formal statements of positions from the more local members, and also it's easier to miscommunicate and misunderstand because the context in which things are said are more varied, and we have less chance of face-to-face communicating. see illustration at bottom (1)

Because wide networks are by nature more complex, tools for handling complexity, such as planning, and delegation and representational skills are more important.

(1)
As a parallel to this, in programming you can have 'local variables' (places to store data in a defined way, such as an integer or floating point number), like an index counter -- say what the number of a sales transaction is -- used, for example, in statements such as 'for sale =1; sales-total = sales-total + sale-amount; next sale' -- totalling up all the sales for a customer. But every customer has sales, and their own sales total. If you have a universal variable for total sales, with a global scope, then if try to do this to find the sales total for each customer you might end up with each customer processed getting a total for him AND all the customers you've processed previously -- obviously not what you want. So what you need are local variables, with limited scope. The original BASIC language was infamous for such side effects.

Now translate that into organizing activists. Every area has different local situations. Hand counting paper ballots is not a problem in a small town, but is more complicated in a large city. So if someone says "we should have hand-counted paper ballots" that means something different to people in the town and the city. A better statement is "we need verifiable voting with guaranteed accurate and reviewable results" -- but just how that's done could vary from place to place. In a city it might mean using optical readers on paper ballots -- like the old computronic machines banks used for processing checks (which were still paper and could be retrieved and verified by hand) -- but would still give fast results. Requiring a small town with only a few hundred or thousand people to have such machinery might well be prohibitively expensive -- a waste of money. Or, a system for counting up precincts by hand in a large city and then phoning in results to get a fast total might be worked out. But the point is that not every place can necessarily do things in the same way.

In programming a solution was to design in terms of 'modules', or 'black boxes' where how the different subprogams and routines worked could vary as long as the proper output, given a set of input data, was correct. In the newer 'object oriented' programming not just variables, but code or 'methods' -- were local; it's like telling a secretary to write a letter and leaving up to him or her just how to do that and exactly what a letter should look like.

These problems, both with computers and with social, business, or government organizations, share many of the same characteristics: how to represent information, how to communicate, how to reach decisions, how to give every member or process enough resources to get the task done without hogging it all and stopping  the rest of the work, how the schedule so no one has to wait, wasting time, until someone (some process) is finished.

A type of "catch 22" situation: you can't the paperwork from the clerk until you fill out case number, and you can't get the case number until you send the paperwork to the central office --- the same sort of problem exists in computers -- sometimes called a 'deadly embrace': one module is reading a record and waiting for a value in some field, and 'locks' the record, while another module is trying to update that value but can't because the record is locked, and sets a flag saying the information is obsolete --which the first module sees and waits for the update before reading the record and releasing the lock (as one example of how things can be brought to a halt by an error in the system design).

The politicians wait for a massive call for impeachment from the people before open the investigations and process, and the people don't massively call for impeachment because there is no investigation establishing how grievous the abuses are -- while the mass media stays mum. If the people only knew... but who is tell them? CSpan2 covering an unofficial committee hearing held in a basement somewhere? A badly designed cybernetic Borg Collective could also fail to impeach!

If you read the analysis of  problems in management in a failing business -- how things don't work -- there is often a remarkable resemblance to a debugging report for a computer system -- control system, and communication failures. Systemic organizational failures. In many ways, a system is a system is a system. So we need to do systems thinking.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 6:54:15 PM

  (0+)

Pilgrim, 

You write...

 The politicians wait for a massive call for impeachment from the people before open the investigations and process, and the people don't massively call for impeachment because there is no investigation establishing how grievous the abuses are -- while the mass media stays mum. If the people only knew... but who is tell them? CSpan2 covering an unofficial committee hearing held in a basement somewhere? A badly designed cybernetic Borg Collective could also fail to impeach!

So, the problem is, how do we get the following message out sans Tony Snowjobs, Britt Humespeak, CNN Situationcircus Omission, Talkinghead pickittodeath discussions and "Fair and Balanced" Commendistraction issues debates? 

The message simply put:

"There is mounting evidence that Vice President Richard Cheney and President George W. Bush are guilty of methodically and with malice aforethought destroying the balance of power between the three branches of government that has made the United States  a stable democracy  for two hundred and twenty five years (until the first Bush II term).  There is ample and increasing evidence from the testimony of Attorney General Roberto Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Department of Justice has been systematically and shamelessly politicized to the point where it no longer bears any resemblance to an impartial, separate branch of government.  The Vice President has placed himself above the law through arrogance and beyond the law with the preposterous claim that he is an autonomous department under the control of neither the White House nor the Congress.  The President rules by fiat through signing statements, claims of executive privilege and by issuing executive orders.  He has total disdain for the people through their elected representatives."

The public is not known for having the time or inclination to read and understand the implications of executive orders, claims of executive privilege, depths of politicization of departments, the patriot act, the real situation on the ground in Iraq, etc.  How do you make the simple truth of the serious of the danger to our way of life these people pose, in simple language resonate to the point where congress is flooded with demands for impeachment?  Is our first job one of getting this message out?  If we made an all-out coordinated effort on multiple fronts to just put the thought in the bottom of the collective brain of the public could we do it?  Propaganda can be a good thing.  It doesn't have to be lies and distortion.

by Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 133 comments) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 8:50:37 PM

  (0+)

Blue Pilgrim,

Right on. But someone needs to do it. We need more than being told we ought to organize, not squabble. We need follow through and commitment, and enough people to make it happen. I don't see that happening. A couple people talking to each other won't do it. We need collective ideas about how it might be done, and test the ideas with a lot of people who might consider actually being involved, not just shooting the ideas down. I am sure there are a lot of people out there who would become involved if they thought this all was more than just talk. They are more likely to do so if they think their ideas might actually be considered, and not criticized. We don't need advice about what we individually can do if it is organizing we are talking about. So is this the end or is there somewhere to go with this?

by Albert Wight (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 8:51:50 PM

  (0+)

for my childish ranting earlier.  I know we all are at different stages of awakening and activism.   I'm just learning how to be most effective.

There is much wisdom here, I know one lunatic on a sidewalk is never gonna change the world, no matter how much fun it was.   When push comes to shove, we need real, serious courage to storm the barricades, and not metaphoricly, some blood will spill.   I need to fling myself at the tempest as part of a coordinated mass, thanks for the sage reminders.

by CamusRebel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 9:59:17 PM

  (0+)

shout out like a lunatic on occasion too, just so the frustrations doesn't build up too much. I've done it. Last election I went into the stores which had Hastert signs outside and said loudly enough so customers could hear that I waould never shopt there again if they were going to support such a crook!

I got some stares, and management assuring me it wasn't THEIR sign -- it must belong to the store next door. So I went next door and was told no no it's not THEIR sign either! Maybe I got some people thinking about it? Or maybe I 'shifted the perceived middle"? Or maybe I just convinced people I was a lunatic -- I dunno, but it sure felt good. :-D

But we can't do that all the time -- we have to be coldly calculating too.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 10:14:29 PM

  (0+)

is surely part of what we need. I've read Lakoff of course, and Jeff at the frame shop, and other stuff, but none of that works if we don't get the message out. I like the idea of flyers, and teach-ins, but there are many ways. I have ideas -- but I'm certainly not the only one with ideas, and there are people around who know more about and have more experience in various areas than I do.

I HAVE taught leadership training courses, and one of the main skills is recognizing, developing, and using resources -- including human resources. But there are people around who know about management and such too, and I assume some who know more than I do. Maybe some on this thread... at least about parts of it.

No, OldVet -- this can't be the end of it; it's a beginning. A few people talking won't do it alone, but a just few can get things started and get other involved -- snowball. Even squabbling can be useful if we do it properly and get ideas out and learn things. We can refine ideas, and see where the resistance might be. That can be a kind of testing ideas.

I can this much: I've been working the last few years at what oculd be called spreading "memes" -- little ideas or phrases or frames - on the internet, and I *think* some of them have been picked up and spread around. Some I think I 'invented' (adapted, really since it's extraordinary to think of anything actually new), some I saw somewhere and liked and spread around, and some I'm not sure of -- I suppose someone was spreading there memes, and I picked it up without being aware of where I got it. But the thing is, I've spreading a bunch of them around, and those that people like get spread; the others fade into the distance. That's the way a lot of plants propagate -- scattering seeds, some of which take and grow. I *suspect* that some of how this works is like Jung's collective unconscious -- that ideas and phrase just arise at times, and anyone can pick them out of that sea of humanity -- llike both Liebnitz and Newton inventing calculus, and Rubik's cube being invented by some else around that time -- in Japan I think. "Ideas whose time has come".

Most of that is on the Internet, though, and we need to get beyond that. Some people on the internet will spread memes to people they know in person -- maybe at work or to neighbors. But we should be able to be more methodical about it. That's a reason I like handing out flyers.

Demonstrations are another way -- and just one person with some signs can spread the word too. One thing to consider is just what the 'word' should be -- how to frame a message. we don't have the mass media to spread ideas, or big-money think tanks and research groups to to do focus studies -- but there are a lot of us: even the number on the internet is quite large, and they are often people who get around and influence their communities.

I've tried to use short words or phrases that have some depth behind them. I don't know if I started it or not, but I've been calling Bush et al "gangsters" for a long time, and that one seems to have had legs -- I hear it lot now. I even heard Randi Rhodes use it a couple of years ago. There are other words which go along with it -- John Perkins talks about when he was an economic hit man. Good-- hit men are hired by gangsters. We can talk about the 'Bush family', their running a 'protection racket', 'shaking down the taxpayers' and so forth -- all harping on that same theme.

One of the things we can do on the internet is to develop such memes and phrases, and those that work well will be remembered and repeated -- even if people don't know wher they originally heard it. (Like the way a joke spreads all over the county -- or an urban myth.) Once we become aware of something that seems to work, we 'casually' spread it around to other people, and hopefully they will hear it from multiple sources and understand it as 'accepted wisdom' or 'common sense'. It can take a while for it to grab. I know I've told people some things they argued against and months, or even years later, they 'explained' it to me as their own idea -- and other people have told me they experienced the same thing. You just nod at them at them gratefully and respectfully for giving you that bit of their wisdom -- and thus encourage them to explain to other people. I know -- it's evil -- it's manipualtive -- but sometimes you have to what you have to do. I also try to explain how it works -- propaganda, and memes, and framing, and psychology -- and hopefully immunize them against that as they can manage it: because when they can do that and see through the word and mind games then they will be more independent in their thinking and better citizens -- evolve beyond 'sheephood' and not fall for the mass media and fascist propagandists. So I see that as an important part of organizing -- the information and mind wars.

Another part is developing leaders -- that is people who have organizing skills and can start local groups and recruit others. Again, like plants work: a seed falls, grows , and becomes another plant which spreads it's own seeds. There are also plants which spread underground -- with rhizomes. There are huge areas of such plants and it's not trees -- there is not central root or trunk, and if some of them are ripped up it doens't matter for the plants survival because they all keep spreading out anyway. That drives fascists crazy: they are always looking for the 'leaders' figuring if thet take them out the movement will die, but when a movement has no center their efforts are wasted. So the thing we need to do is build power and then immediately give it away -- spread it around -- enable others. (Yes -- I've written about this on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/intermindcollective/ -- and colelcted links there from others who understand this and write about it.) This is what I see as the most critical part of democratic organizing -- and I also see it happening, everywhere, even though some or many people don't seem to be completely aware of it and how it works yet.

The basic principles then:

*Understand the idea of distributed leadership.

*Understand the value of forming 'nodes', temporary hierarchies, networking, and communicating.

*Acrue power (esentially knowledge and influence) and use it to develop other people and pass it on tho them -- to propagate and pass on to others.

*It's like the old ponzi or pyramid scheme but without a pinacle -- it's like a multi-level marketing scheme without the levels -- made of a viscuous liquid that doesn't build up but keeps spreading out.

*Look to nature for models -- how plants and animals propagate -- and evolve.

So it doesn't matter as much what specific 'protest' actions you take as long as you:

*Evaluate how well they work in terms of propagating the basic values of democracy and distributed leadership

*help to enable other people to be propagators and develop ideas.

Those who try to keep power for themselves will rise for a time, and then lose support as their hierarchical organization ages, becomes brittle, too complex and bureaucratic, and stifles people. When there are other organizations based on distributed leadership, enabling people, propagating, and evolving, then those form the alternative for those who had supported hierarchical organization and have become dissatisfied.

It's lousy what they are doing, of course, and they don't rally understand it, I don't think, but look at the way things like Al Qaeda has spread, with lots of 'little Al Qaedas' springin up spontaneously. The ideas that form those groups are resistance, terrorism, bullying, common cultural/religious values, and distribute leadership -- the 'cells'. The empire can't stop them -- in fact the empire is very brittle and is doomed to fall apart, as all empires do.

But what if we use the ideas of distributed leadership and resistance to the empire coupled with liberty, non-violence, enabling people -- the progressive values? Then we become even more unstoppable, but morally correct and productive. We've already started this. We see it in the early labor movement -- but many of the unions have been hurt or destroyed becasue they couldn't get past hierarchy: we had union bosses who tried to collect power for themselves, and fell into corruption. We see a similar thing with some website and groups -- people who are so steeped in the old hierarchical paradigm of the 'factory/owner' the 'great leader', and *control* that they are now losing steam. The strange thing about power is that more you give away the more you get -- and less you want you want any! You know you have been successful as a real leader when people stop looking to you as a leader and trying to give you their power (and it IS THEIR power), and use it themselves for their own development and growth -- by giving what they have to others. People learn best when they do their best to not just learn but to teach. People manage best by getting everyone to be managers. Organizations grow best when everyone involved tries to make the organization independent of what they have to offer -- and to be able to keep going just fine even if the 'leader' disappears -- the group, through embracing the distributed leadership culture, has become self-organizing, self-sustaining, and self-propagating.

So, that's what I suggest we think about. Consider this paradigm, and how we can propagate it wherever we see what may be a patch of fertile ground. Consider the skills and attitudes a newly formed group will need to blaze their path to this cooperative and dynamic cultural model, and how to keep learning and evolving, without getting hung up on the old hierachical and power-based models which so often destroys groups. Think about how the Democratic party (and, of course, the gangsters) is toxic and withering because it is based on keeping power and rigid hierarchy.

This is not going to be easy, and it will take some time -- but what else is there which won't self-destruct? I think this has to be the underlying paradigm -- even as we deal with the current crisis. There's a bit of a hump to get over, but I think this actually the fastest way to reach our goals -- and much of the worl has already been done -- the fruit is half-ripe already. When industrial shops have tried to use these principles production and profits have gone up considerably -- but most companies balk at following it through, and most bosses like the increased production but are addicted to their own power and try to exert control -- and kill the process. There are also problems in getting the workers to believe they really can make decisions (and with control-freak bosses they perceive correctly), and don't wnat the responsibility, and were never educated how to do it, and are hung up psychologically on old authoritarian models. It's hard to teach a new way of thinking, and it's hard to acquire the skills and attitudes and make them 'your own'. That's the greatest source of resistance -- not the fascists, who largely can't even recognize what's happening.

Gandalf, at some point --during Elrond's council at Rivendell, I think, says the great advantage over Sauron is that Suaron assumes that one of the elves or Dunadan (the good guys), will try to get the Ring of Power and use it against Sauron (and eventually everyone else) but that even his darkest dreams he does not imagine that they will try to *destroy* the Ring. That's the applicable mythology here -- to cast the Ring of Power into the fire!

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 11:56:13 PM

  (0+)

This all sounds good, but I am afraid it would take forever, and in the meantime we might be an annoyance but would have little influence on events. I was encouraged by the suggestion that we organize, but disappointed with the apparent lack of commitment and follow through. Just more words but no action. If we are serious, we need to talk about how we might organize to develop a movement with the numbers that people in power would have to pay attention to. Power is about all they understand.

I would suggest that everyone interested form a group in his or her community, even if it is only a group of two people to begin with. Invite more people to take part. Write letters to the editor letting people know you exist. Establish communication with other groups. Work on vision, mission statements, strategies, goals, objectives, problems, opportunities, obstacles, solutions, actions, group process, communication, etc., whatever is needed to make it work. Share these with other groups, arrive at agreement on all of the above where possible. Where general agreement exists, make this a part of the movement. Out of this could come petitions to Congress with lots of signatures. But in this case, a petition would not be the idea of a few people who need support from others but a submission from the movement. My opinion is that it would work best with some kind of central point for collection, consolidation, analysis, and dissemination of input from the community groups. At some point this would require full-time involvement of a staff of some sort. Find someone willing to do it and ways of funding. With the internet, we could have genuine participatory democracy, not the pseudo-democracy which ours has become. But we need to do it, not just talk about it.

by Albert Wight (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 1:19:44 PM

  (0+)

You Do things by involving people in actions, and every action also becomes an exercise and learning experieince in building efective organization. Learn by doing. But the things you do should have that dual objective: the results you want, such as writing to editors and making people aware of an issue, protesting at a media or political office, or mounting a boycott -- and also to build and strengthen the organization itself.

It's like you need exercise to get your body in shape, but you don't got to a gym to work out -- you plant a garden or re-roof your garage -- something useful. You may sort out the photo albums as something useful, but you don't do that to get into shape -- and you don't sit down and write two dozen letters to the editor by yourself to build organization: you recruit a dozen people to come to a meeting and two letters each -- and then have some coffee and cake, and chat about what else you might do. If you can't get a dozen people you get 2 or 4 or 6 -- and each one writes more  than 2 letters, and with cake and coffee you talk about how you can get more people to join the "writers club".

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 3:35:31 PM

  (0+)

 You said: 

I've tried to use short words or phrases that have some depth behind them. I don't know if I started it or not, but I've been calling Bush et al "gangsters" for a long time, and that one seems to have had legs -- I hear it lot now. I even heard Randi Rhodes use it a couple of years ago. There are other words which go along with it -- John Perkins talks about when he was an economic hit man. Good-- hit men are hired by gangsters. We can talk about the 'Bush family', their running a 'protection racket', 'shaking down the taxpayers' and so forth -- all harping on that same theme.

You know what?  It really does work.  Who knows how many of those memes, phrases, etc. are now part of  political conversations everywhere now?  About three years ago, I predicted to a fellow demonstrator that the next political dirty word would be "neocon".  As I recall, he did not even know what a neocon was.  Now when you apply that word to a conservative, he/she will quickly explain, "I am not a neocon, I am a real conservative."  Remember when liberals shrank from the term liberal, quickly explaining that he/she was a moderate?  The signs are there.  The tide is turning. 

by Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 133 comments) on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 8:59:17 PM

  (0+)

Liberals and progressives must contact the Congress Democrats and threaten to withhold funding. This is what I do. I'm certainly not a big donor but several thousands of small contributions=a big donation. This is the ony language the Democrats will respond to.I'm on the Democratic Party e-mail and when I their e-mail I send a reply to them stating, as above. No donations until DLC consultants are canned and impeachment proceedings begin. At this point and with Bush threatening to veto every bill submitted to him impeachment is really the only recourse Democrats have, especially since their approval ratings are hardly higher than Bush's.THEY JUST DON'T GET IT AND WE LIBERALS HAVE GOT IT AND THE SEVERITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IT AT THIS TIME. Impeachment is the Constitutional answer for the crisis engineered by the Bush maladministration and the Republican Party's implementing of a soviet-fascist type government for the USA.

by Swami Bogananda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 1:52:05 PM

  (0+)

since so much money comes from corporate sources and the wealthy -- more so for Republicans, but largely true for Democrats as well, except for a few. I would not *threaten* to withhold fund, but do it -- there are better places to put money: progressive web sites and publications; those candidates who you KNOW will work for the right things; local peace groups; a printer and paper -- make up flyers to hand out; DVDs to show at college theaters, libraries, and such, or to lend out; take out ads in the newspaper. There are lots of places, groups, projects which are underfunded and are doing work to make real differences -- just check them out first and make sure they are for real, and will use the money well.

Too often politicians say one thing, take the money, and then turn around and do the oppoiste -- Obama is one of these. The local peace group here made a donation to him when running for the senate, and then he turned aorund and supported the war -- and supports attacking Iran. He is part of Democratic establishment. They would have done better to flush the money down the toilet.

The Democrats won't respond to threats, or even care all that much if their donations are slightly reduced, becasue they are in the system, and they would rather lose small donations from the people than large ones from the corporations, and will act accordingly. But those smaller donation can make a tremendous difference for small orgnaizations or individual efforts.

The time for threats is past -- now is the time for independent action.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:11:14 PM

  (0+)