{ { { who am I? worldly»about me. what's with the grasshopper? random»why sbg. not inside frames? reload. } } }
7:03 AM | link
This [Bush bashing] madness has to stop, and the fastest way of doing that is to elect John Kerry, not because he will be different but because in most key areas -- Iraq, the "war on drugs", Israel/Palestine, free trade, corporate taxes -- he will be just as bad. The main difference will be that as Kerry pursues these brutal policies, he will come off as intelligent, sane and blissfully dull. That's why I've joined the Anybody But Bush camp: only with a bore such as Kerry at the helm will we finally be able to put an end to the presidential pathologizing and focus on the issues again.
Of course, most progressives are already solidly in the Anybody But Bush camp, convinced that now is not the time to point out the similarities between the two corporate-controlled parties. I disagree. We need to face up to those disappointing similarities, and then we need to ask ourselves whether we have a better chance of fighting a corporate agenda pushed by Kerry or by Bush.
I have no illusions that the left will have "access" to a Kerry/Edwards White House. But it's worth remembering that it was under Bill Clinton that the progressive movements in the west began to turn our attention to systems again: corporate globalization, even -- gasp -- capitalism and colonialism. We began to understand modern empire not as the purview of a single nation, no matter how powerful, but a global system of interlocking states, international institutions and corporations, an understanding that allowed us to build global networks in response, from the World Social Forum to Indymedia. Innocuous leaders who spout liberal platitudes while slashing welfare and privatizing the planet push us to better identify those systems and to build movements agile and intelligent enough to confront them. With Mr Dum Gum out of the White House, progressives will have to get smart again, and that can only be good.
6:51 AM | link
John Kerry believes in America. And he knows that it’s not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we’re all connected as one people.
If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.
It is that fundamental belief, it is that fundamental belief, I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.
E pluribus unum. Out of many, one.
Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.
The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.
We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?
7:53 PM | link
I didn't read the Chronicle's review of Fahrenheit 9/11 before I saw the movie. I wanted to see the movie first and decide for myself whether it was all hype or whether it actually deserved all this attention.
And it does. I just read Marc Savlov's review of the movie, and reading the review made me relive everything I experienced while watching the movie. Outrage, shame, and finally, always, grief and sorrow. Outrage at the unseemly financial gains Bush's family and buddies have made from this war. Shame at seeing what my country is doing halfway around the world to our own citizens and to Iraqi citizens. Grief and sorrow after seeing one mother's grief over her dead soldier son. Grief and sorrow because she's just one mother of nearly 900 mothers with children who were killed in action while serving in American forces. Grief and sorrow because she's not even one of the mothers of 10,000 civilians who have been killed because of this war.
And why? It's not that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It's not that Saddam had threatened to attack the U.S. or its interests. So is it because 9/11 was a convenient excuse for Bush and his buddies to finally go after Iraq's oil resources? Because Bush's dad and longtime family friends would make big bucks through their investments in defense companies?
Whatever the reason, it's not good enough. That woman's son shouldn't have died in Iraq fighting a bogus war. And that's just one mother, one son.
This July Fourth weekend, honor the men and women in our armed forces by seeing this movie and seeing for yourself what we're making them do.