Stats

Comments Posted By Smedley Butler

Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments

An Immodest (Immoral) Proposal

Creating an artificial island isn’t necessary I think as there are already a number of them vacant or semi vacant some of which are already inhabited.

I’m talking about offshore oil rigs. There are a few hurdles to doing this or creating an artificial island nation. Some of these are discussed here.
http://www.worldislandinfo.com/Starting%20island%20country.html

My thought is; Why would you need or necessarily want an island? Converting and old cruise ship would be cheaper easier and have the benefit of mobility should the political situation wherever it’s anchored become untenable.

I believe that starting with a ship would be much easier as all the infrastructure is already in place. You would not have to start from scratch building power generation and transmission, water, communication, sanitary facilities, dormitory’s, class rooms, kitchens and recreational facilities as all these things would already be there.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 20, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

Of Thee I Sing : a response to What IS leadership and what kind of leader do WE want?

I’m not sure the left is anymore left today. In 1912-20 Eugene Debs got 900k votes in his presidential bids and the Socialist Party of America had elected a couple of congressmen and hundreds of state and local officials.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 20, 2011 @ 2:16 am

THE EAGLE (has trouble) LANDING

Nice Post!

I’m a Washington resident located near Mt Rainier, we have eagles as well as other predatory bird species here such as hawks and owls .

I the course of my travels I became aware that the local fish hatchery’s discard hundreds of pounds of salmon and thousands of pounds statewide. I’m working to ensure that these reach local food banks instead of being discarded both reducing the cost to discard the salmon and providing low income people with healthy edible fare.

On one visit to a hatchery with my daughter we were made aware of a nesting pair of barn owls. We were told they were located directly above where we were sitting and asked if we would like to see their nest.

I thought this might involve a ladder but with two clicks of a mouse we where watching the goings on in the nest. The fun thing is that you can too! Here’s a live feed for the “Owl Cam” I hope some of you enjoy it as much as my daughter and I have.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildwatch/owlcam/video_barnowl.html

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 19, 2011 @ 11:10 am

How do you Build a Million Dollar Mousetrap that Steals Cheese

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 17, 2011 @ 7:46 pm

It’s slightly disturbing in a Stephen King way 🙂

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 17, 2011 @ 5:19 pm

I agree concerning conditioning.

Most people bristle at the thought that they have been conditioned or indoctrinated. I accept that I have been because I believe that helps mitigate it’s effects.

BTW, You can call me Smed or you can call me Fred. You can call me Eddy or you can call me Teddy. Just don’tcha call me Johnson! 🙂

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 17, 2011 @ 5:08 pm

I am 100% in agreement.

I’m guessing you work for an umbrella advocacy group like Common Cause.

You’re spot on about the need to for volunteers to present issues in a factual manner.

If even a single one misrepresents the issue even though well intentioned or ill informed it leaves teh possibility wide open that they will be O’Keefed” and not only damage support for the issue but destroy the credibility of the entire organization.

I think one of the biggest challenges for your or any similar organization is it’s difficult to explain exactly how an issue will effect them not because you fail to explain it accurately but because an astounding number of people don’t understand the basic way government works at the fundamental level.

Without the framework of knowledge to hang your presentation on it’s a little lie trying to explain Non Euclidean Geometry to someone who lacks an understanding of division and multiplication.

It can be done but it takes much more time and effort than it should reducing your effectiveness.

I blame a lot of that on the lack of civics education K-12 and think it’s an important issue as it relates to about all other issues.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 17, 2011 @ 4:57 pm

“Any time I see (and I advise the same for all) jargon or a mountain of words “explaining” what should be a simple problem, my bullshit detector goes off in a deafening klaxon, and fireworks start exploding all over the sky. Someone is either trying to hide something, scamming you, or has no idea what they are talking about (or all three).”

I’ve often thought the same thing myself. Here’s what puzzles me.

If the refrigerator repairman starts telling someone that their flappinator is bad and and needs to be replaced and their codwanker valve is restricting the juniper juice flow so the repair will cost $550 The Bullshit-meter swings into the red-zone.

We know the meter works because of this. But when the same guy watches a pundit or politician on TV he nods as you describe and walks away feeling they know something he doesn’t and are right even thought he doesn’t understand what they are talking about. That’s odd in itself but it gets stranger.

If a kid from an advocacy group knocks on the guys door and tells him the same thing using the same words the guys BS alarm rings so loud it scares the cat.

Why does the suit, stage and the fact the politician is on TV cause the BS alerts to fail and remain silent in many instances? And why does it fail even when the viewer knows that the presenter is a paid shill as in: “I’m not a real doctor but I play one on TV”?

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 17, 2011 @ 2:44 pm

This is an excellent and true explanation and example of how a small negative change evolved over time to create huge unwanted consequences for the country and perhaps the world.

Have you ever read Connections by James Burke or seen the Connections series? If not I highly recommend either of both. Burke shows how small changes and individual ideas can have often global consequences in an enlightening and entertaining manner.

Here’s a link to a documentary film site that has the whole series collected so you can watch them all and other interesting documentary’s online for free.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/james-burke-connections/

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 17, 2011 @ 2:17 pm

I have two concerns the first is that our comments are becoming thinner and will soon waste away.

The second is that what I’m approaching now is the most challenging thought to transmit in a non-technical manner that is clear and doesn’t give one the impression that I’m wearing my tinfoil hat to tight.

It looks like we are having a point counter point debate (the good healthy kind) However I believe I am right, yet agree virtually completely with everything you say. How is this apparent contradiction true?

Let me use the concept of fractal geometry to explain this you likely have seen beautiful complex images created by fractal geometry they are created by repeating the same basic shape in the same basic way over and over again.

Digital landscapes are produced with this technique and you and I are both looking at a rich and diverse mountain panorama, both you and I know this is a mountain panorama and describe its appearance the same way. But the way we reach consensus on this is by viewing this from two very different perspectives.

You are giving an accurate description based on your gestalt view of the image I am giving my accurate description from a different perspective I’m zoomed in on the picture so far all I can see is a few triangles. But by knowing what basic shape is repeated how and how often. I give the same description as you because that’s how the scene HAS to look.

Although not fully mature this is used to describe virtually everything in the universe the shape of galaxy’s, clouds, mountains, trees, even you and I. This concept can and is used to predict the behaviors of complex adaptive systems also like political and social systems. It’s widely used in the financial sector to create computerized trading programs to buy and sell stocks and commodities.

Commodity traders acknowledge that commodity prices are largely based on perception. These algorithms predict how people will feel tomorrow and they do it with a high enough degree of accuracy so as to be widely embraced.

Let me show you a place where I appear to disagree but don’t; sales. Using car salesmen as an example. I’ll leave out exceptions because by nature they are not easily reproducible thus exceptional. How they are described by this concept is another 5k words.

You say car salesmen are a diverse group using a wide variety of methods and techniques I say they are all much the same and we are both right.

Virtually all car salesmen use the same simple formula meet and greet, qualify, and question. Create an ordered list based on the questions show the mostly likely car to the customer then the next asking each time “do you like it?” in one of a variety of ways. Taking them on a test drive, if the questions indicated handling is top priority they drive down the twisty beach road, if the customer mentions he’d like coffee they drive by Starbucks. They return and close the deal.

Although the greetings questions actions and interactions of each salesman seem very different it’s produced from a few different basic rules that apply t all. If you chart out these sales interactions and where they lead it looks like a tree, as do many social interactions in politics and government. The resemblance to a tree isn’t totally coincidental it’s a visual representation of how fractal rules apply to social systems as they govern the shape of trees.

Knowing this empowers the individual by changing the way they look at things. Instead of seeing a mountain of bullshit they can’t possibly shovel away in ten lifetimes they see one small cow pie and understand the simple change of adding a seed at the right time transforms this into a mountain of flowers as they grow, go to seed and the process is repeated without much further effort.

It gives people a sense of personal responsibility when they understand how repeating an undesirable behavior can increase it being adopted by the public in a geometric fashion. And it gives them an incentive to join groups and movements as well because they understand that they can have a large voice in these by making minute initial changes to a very simple part.

I’m under no illusion that everyone will ever look at things this way, not ever a majority or likely a large minority. But that doesn’t matter. I believe only a tiny progressive minority need see things this way to effect major social change because of the nature of nature. A tiny authoritarian minority applies these principals to ruin us a tiny progressive minority can apply these principals to enrich us.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 17, 2011 @ 5:51 am

I should have made that longer so I’ll fix that here No apology is needed but it’s cool that you offer one. I’m sure your as strong in your convictions I am in mine.

Maybe we should work together to try and find the places where we have common ground so we can go there and share a cool drink with a tiny umbrella when clawing in the mud over things we don’t tires us both out.

I can be very combative and have a short fuse at times. I know this and work at changing it, sometimes I fall down but I’m always willing to get back on the horse and ride until it throws me again.

Don’t take a lot of offense at sarcasm from me. Everyone’s style is different and I understand I can be a little “different’. I also like to tease at times.

BTW Did I mention that Jeb asked me to tell you he’s a free man now that he divorced his cousin and that he has a complete Elvis on Velvet collection in his trailer? 🙂

I beleive we are both trying to navigate towards the same clearing in the woods and that we just differ on which path to take. But let’s walk together for a while where we can.

Ty for writing that CL.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 16, 2011 @ 10:35 pm

You know I’m a delicate flower 🙂

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 16, 2011 @ 10:17 pm

I believe that people are not really as diverse as they appear to be. It just looks that way not because of the differences because of the similarities. I know reading this many will say “What the hell is this guy talking about? It goes aagainst everything I hear and see” I think this is just a matter of perspective.

Imagine you have a five gallon bucket of black marbles spread out on a big tray. Their similarity is obvious. you toss in a small handful of colored marbles, in the mass of black marbles these colored one stand out. The difference between the black and colored marbles seems glaring and pronounced.

Is this because the colored marbles are so different from the black marbles? Not really, it’s because the black marbles that surround them look so much alike that the difference is what you see.

If you randomly fill the bucket with marbles of all colors what you see is a rich complex diversity of marbles of all colors but are the differences really as complex as they appear? All the complexity you perceive is based on a single factor color.

In every other way the marbles are identical size, shape, and weight and indeed every other thing aside from color is the same. Although they are the same in 99% of the things that define them, they appear different and complex based on the 1% difference.

This example applies to people as well as marbles. You can apply this type of logic to describe racial differences and all the social behaviors they have produced. All the myriad of what looks like a wide and complex range of social behaviors based on race can be attributed to a genetic difference that is so small as to be almost negligible.

Exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, the Tea Party, Slavery both physical and economic as well as a host of other political policy’s are or where all promoted by understanding that the difference not the commonality is what people tend to see.

You seem to have a good grasp of the power of advertising and have given a lot of thought as to how and why it works. Presenting things from a perspective that makes a small difference seem to have much more significance than it does is is a tool used by both advertisers and the Oligarchy.

Advertisers say “Don’t be the last one on your block to have a widget. Everyone else has one you should to.” People seeking to assert control of political systems do the same. They say “Get on the Bandwagon, everybody’s doing this”

This works because they understand the basic similarity the way people perceive others to be the “white marble” based on tiny differences. They magnify these small differences to look much larger than they are then use peoples common behavior a a social animal to “fit in” with the group to further their ends.

They make these small differences the only thing many see to achieve control by promoting the idea that “free thinkers” are dangerous radical provocateurs who are alien to the average person.

They need not make every single person think this way or do it all at once. A small group conforms to these notions based on what are really small differences. After this point it requires much less effort as the members function the same way based on common traits and do the work for them.

they employ two basic things, exclusion and iteration. Authoritarian control is based on exclusion Democratic control is based on inclusion. The authoritarian method uses exclusion to brand policy’s that are not in line with theirs as radically different and dangerous. The authoritarian viewpoint is repeated again and again by it’s supporters and seems larger than it is only because of the group suppressing all other viewpoints.

They grow the group this way by engulfing more and more people until all are on the inside looking out. No one wants to be an outsider.

Authoritarian come into and retain power even though they are a tiny minority or even single person because they understand how this works. They have generations of knowledge and experimentation since the beginning of man as a guide. And they are very, very good at it.

Ever hear someone mouth the common platitude “You can change the world”? People say it but they really don’t believe it. They have bought into looking at things from a perspective that tells them this is impossible. To do so requires them to be radically different from the common man because those in power are somehow radically different from them.

Most folks think effecting change is impossible without a huge and elaborate machine and host of other tools available only to the Oligarchy. It’s not. they’re just like the powerful in almost every way.

Most peoples gut reaction to saying things like “You can change the world” is to immediately begin formulation rationals why they can’t change the world. Many go like this; The Koch brothers are wealthy trust fund babies with mountains of resources a single person cannot possibly have a hope of success. To make this work you have to overlook that single people can and have made huge changes in politics an society over and again throughout history. Denial impedes progress.

Every person who makes these large changes is not a trust fund baby, some are from quite humble beginnings. The is dependent on the individual only. Some born to wealth and power squander their fortunes and influence some don’t. Some begin with nothing and gain everything.

The Wealthy who retain influence and expand it and the poor individual who rise to prominence are different from anyone else in only one significant way. They understand how to promote their ideas with very minimal effort by introducing them at the right place so it is repeated over and over and becomes powerful. They are masters of the Butterfly Effect.

People are indoctrinated from birth to believe an individual has no power. They never try to look for ways they can make huge positive changes because they are dogmatically convinced they cannot.

You can see the negative effect of this in groups and movements also based on the idea their individual power is insignificant. “One more person in the group won’t make a difference either way.” It’s not about the contribution the group can make, it’s about the feeling that they can’t make a meaningful contribution.

Now my personal favorite part of any post where I talk about ME, ME, ME!

I have been am and and will continue to work on my message skills to make them as clear and understandable as I can. I will continue to learn how to iterate these messages. By dong this I have a chance of using the Oligarchy’s own tools to defeat them.

I reject the notion alone I am powerless and focus on the proven truth that one man can make a difference by using the methods employed by other individuals who have. I reject the notion that because they are somehow wildly different authoritarians are impossible to challenge.

I understand that clear ideas properly repeated can be powerful, and that the repetition has a purpose beyond creating a slogan. It’s to increase the chance that the tiny nudge will be made in the right small place by nudging in as many places as possible.

I accept that what I say often falls outside of the mainstream view and and this is often enough to provoke attacks so fervent that they sometimes make me feel like I’m a guy giving away copies of “On the Origin of Species” at a tent revival. This does not deter me.

I understand and truly believe that “Yes I can and so can you!” Is a fundamental and integral part of “Yes We Can!” That’s what keeps me going.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 16, 2011 @ 10:07 pm

I advocate the carrot and stick approach, whack them with the stick. If that fails to work beat the hell out of them with the carrot.

I don’t think greedy folks at the top at least not as a general rule. They will only back down under threat of prosecution. And the threat must be enforced with penalty when the rules are broken.

Threat of consequence under the law is part of what makes society livable.To do this in the case of corporate criminals today requires the same basic steps that most problem solving does.

Identify problems and solutions, stratagize implementation then make needed changes. These broad steps are broken into smaller sub steps as far as they need be to be practicable. It’s fairly important not to skip steps, often this makes things go South, If it does back up to where it went bad and step from there.

The folks we are talking about are a very tiny parasitic minority they can be brought in check. Most of their power derives from our perception of their authority when that changes from “powerful, awe inspiring, invincible authority” to “guy like the rest of us that’s a crook” things can and do change. That dynamic drives events in Wisconsin, Egypt, Libya and worldwide today.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 16, 2011 @ 2:44 am

Gee Gollegers you got me! I never did read on one o them thar “Bill” things.

But one time when me and the fellers were on break at the hog renderin plant I seen this cartoon where a turtle in a stove pipe hat had this big old square block of paper that looked sorta like a book that said “BILL” in one hand and another one that said “CONSTIPATION PROCREATION” I’m not to sure really but that’s close enough.

Anyhow that turtle sure was a tricky one. This crazy squirrel in a Confederate cap and no pants kept tryin to shoot that turtle with a shot gun every time he stepped over this Mason Dixon line. Even I’m smart enuff to know that what their talking about was a pencil line drawn by a bricklayer cause he’s what ya,ll call a Mason and my Pencils all says Dixon.

Well to get along now, one time that tricky turtle hid out in a holler tree then whomped that no pants rebel Squirrle with the BILL! Hee Hee You shoulda seen them fireworks and stars fly outer that squirrels head then little birdie’s flew round it. Hang on. That there turtle was so funny I’m squirtin Budweiser out my nose on ma new wife beater.

OK I’m better now. I figure from the way that nutty squirrels head shot out them colored stars and them birdies where a twirlin that that Bill thing had to be at least as big as the Sears Catalog.. Lot’s of other folks said they seen them BILL things was real big too sometimes they even stack em up like bibles after church. Elma from the laundry mat said sometimes they roll em on carts. But I don’t believe that any dam fool knows a wheelbarrow is better and everybody knows Elma’s a little “touched”.

Now that makes me think the BILL was pretty big but I got proof their confusin too. See some of the guys down at the renderin plant are moonlighting as pundits and analyzers to make a few extra bucks for the tractor pull. (Lester and I got in a little scuffle when I called him an Anal-eyesore, but that’s done with now).

These guys are real smart. Jeb built a keg cooler out of a trashcan and an air conditioner that fits in the trunk of his Oldsmobile. There’s a beer tap right under the radio so you can talk on the phone, eat a sausage McMuffin, drink a beer and listen to Conway Twitty on the way to work…The guys a genius

These guys rake the dough in a do-in that. They all got new outboards and the sky’s the limit. I figured there was lot’s of guys working at that reading and figurin out stuff. But Jeb says that it don’t matter if there’s lot’s and lot’s of pundits and analysts they still take days weeks and sometimes months to figure out these BIll things so there’ll never be a shortage of work like there is at the lard plant since hippies invented salads.

So that’s what I based my entire opinion on, A cartoon and the collective wisdom of lard ladler’s. How’d you figure that out after readin one sentence Karnak?

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 16, 2011 @ 2:04 am

“However, I disagree that politics isn’t a complicated business, with many different components and nuances. I think the actual BUSINESS of politics and governing is very complex and DOES require complex thought and the ability to see the ‘BIG PICTURE’ as well as the understanding how various ideas intertwine and effect other components. ”

I’ll discuss much of what you say here in part two were I’ll explain why governing is not as complex as it seems and seeing the “Big Picture” doesn’t necessarily mean looking at every tree to see the forest.

I’ll try to post the next part ASAP. You were already part of the inspiration for this article and I’ll try not to hold up answers. Please be patient, my wrist is already sore from writing even though I’ve been viewing 30 minutes of internet porn a day as physical therapy for it. 🙂

Intuition, common sense vs factual reasoning as well as size and scope are not dependent on a degree of complexity. Often what are considered to be common sense solutions can indeed be very much more complex than insinuative solutions and visa verse. Things large in size and scope can be very simple, small things like a wrist watch can be very complex.

Who to trust laymen or experts? What is the criteria for being an expert? This is where I have and probably many others have the hardest time. Credentials are not a good indicator of expertise. The Corporate machine produces hundreds of “experts” who are credentialed global warming deniers. You are likely not a global warming denier based on your research you may not have credentials but I believe your position to be more credible than the “experts”.

The son of the wealthy alumni who builds a library gets a diploma. GW was credentialed and he was a dismal leader. Lincoln was largely self educated and relatively un-credentialed and a spectacular success.

I think the criteria for expertise is knowledge. You can access this by winnowing what you consider to be credible sources from unreliable then then further cross checking these sources. Generally new credible sources can be gleaned from teh citations and recommendations of folks you already believe to be honest and factual.

Please allow me to say I’m not seeking to annoy you with contrariness Abbyrose and that I agree with much of what you say above. The points where we diverge are fun and interesting to discuss and explore.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 15, 2011 @ 9:50 pm

What IS leadership and what kind of leader do WE want?

I just thought this might be a good place to mention that I have the patience of a saint and an always willing to help a friend should you need someone to watch the Sorority girls while you take a well earned two week vacation.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 17, 2011 @ 10:54 pm

I’m going to print that and post it next to the monitor!

Thanks for sharing that.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 15, 2011 @ 5:50 pm

“This should be moved to it’s own post, rather than a comment.”

Hear! Hear! I second the motion! Roosevelt might not think here’s ready for the stage but if we shove him through the curtain he’ll be fine with the audience 🙂

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 15, 2011 @ 5:11 pm

Thanks Abbyrose for a great and thought provoking article.

Our system is suffering from basic fundamental failures. Voices asking basic questions, discussing fundamental issues and concepts are needed today more than ever.

If you’d like I would be glad to seed your article to MSNBC Newsvine.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 15, 2011 @ 4:59 pm

I agree about the nature of leadership. it’s simply the act of a person leading, I’m not evn sure if followers are necessary. If you’re playing a game of follow the leader and the followers miss a turn and get lost your still the leader.

You only have to wait as long as now to see how people react to a fascist state. The difference you might see between here and a “real” fascist state is only a matter of degree just as comparing here to a “real” Democracy would be.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 15, 2011 @ 4:50 pm

The Daily Planet, Vol. 21

Energy

A GOP spokesperson declared today that Republicans favor tough new regulations on Fracking and and will introduce a bill requiring that all fracking be done by two person teams consisting of one man and one woman for the purpose of production only.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 12, 2011 @ 11:40 am

Turn left, Turn right, Turn off

A lot of the talk here of Complexity, and Sloganeering has motivated me to put these on my writing to do list with a bullet.

The phrase “political reality” is one I associate with a PR maneuver to excuse inaction and is widely used to dismiss things contrary to the Corporate agenda. I’ll try to work that and some others into a post as this topic seems quite relevant and worthy of discussion.

I couldn’t resist “political reality” but that’s all I’m saying until I write someth8ing up.

That’s it, no more.

Tic a lock, I’ll… be quite now.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 14, 2011 @ 10:20 pm

LOL I can be just a snippy and persnickety as anyone. i try and sometimes fail to curb my combative tendencies. I try to take some advice offered before and here again by Cher to try and provide a few solutions to go along with griping about problems.

I try to keep in mind that others are as impassioned about their beliefs as myself. ChoiceLady and I are having a multi round brawl in this thread; do I take it personally? Hell No! I wish we could meet up and debate because there is more to be learned from conflicting points of view that listening to the choir sing.

I have thought about these things a lot in the years since my first political experience where I had the pleasure of observing on a first hand basis how Mass. Democratic Party leader Micky Williamson led her state to the only victory in a lop sided 49 state defeat. She knew how to build a coalition!

Believe me I know I can improve the way I respond to criticism. I also believe that if your not getting criticized, trolled and receiving occasional death threats in your e-mail you ain’t doing it right. 🙂

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 14, 2011 @ 10:03 pm

You seem to be all over the board in your rationals for criticism of progressives so I’ll focus on this one thing in this post.

“Repealing DADT by Executive Order makes it a privilege and NOT a right. It’s scenic. It’s not substantial. Having buy in from all parties makes it stable and enduring. ”

I won’t be sucked in by using a transparent debating technique favored by the GOP to sway it’s minions. That being framing the debate by providing a false set of choices. “You can have apples of oranges but not both” Bullshit… I can have both.

Repealing DADT by executive order does not prohibit it being codified via legislation. Period.

In fact doing so pro actively would make it easier not harder to pass legislation by placing the opposition in a position where they have to gain support for repealing a policy that has broad public support.

I can also make a fairly accurate supposition that showing support for this and other issue by taking a strong visible public stand would have had a marked positive effect on voter turnout in the mid terms.

Please explain how executive order precludes legislation and a strong visible show of support would not have translated to additional progressives appreciative of the face of the Democratic Party advocating for a cause they support showing up at the polls.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 14, 2011 @ 8:28 pm

It still confuses me that you’ve several times mentioned that you never hear from progressives on one hand yet advocate their causes on the other. This aside…

You’re mixing apples and chainsaws as a lobbyist you should understand the difference between issue advocacy groups and umbrella advocacy groups the largest and perhaps most inclusive of these being political parties.

Here you say:
The absent voices were the secular people who never showed up to testify against Schwarzenegger’s outrageous health care bill, who absented themselves on every turn from single payer if they weren’t IN the state strategy group, who were freaking too busy to support anti-death penalty work, supplementary bills reinforcing marriage equality, and on and on and on.”

Here you’re angry because issue advocacy groups didn’t rally to support your particular issue. That’s not their function you’re asking them to devote time and resources under the umbrella of their constituents who are concerned about their particular issue and advocate for your issue. If only those misguided folks would stop advocating the wrong thing (their thing) and devote their time and energy to advocate the right thing (your thing).

I suppose part of the failure can be attributed to their just being to stubborn arrogant whiny and self centered to understand how your thing helps promote their thing. This is surely their fault for being stupid, petulant and childish and not at all related to a failure to communicate in a manner that informs and engages them to facilitate forming lasting political alliances.

It also seems a dam shame that people were to stupid petulant ect. to understand why their particular constituency should join with after they are left or locked out of leadership decisions via leadership representation. Of course their particular issue advocacy groups likely exist because the folks in them feel that they a under or unrepresentative by leadership in the larger political arena but PETA should understand why they should support your issue (say corporate taxation) yet have no leadership voice to advocate for their issue.

I blame this failure to follow on the collective stupidity of all the groups you mentioned above not a failure of networking skills and willingness to provide inclusive leadership.

Issue advocacy groups are not generally umbrella organizations encompassing a particular ideology this is the function of political parties who encompass a group of issues. By including these folks in leadership and decision-making they achieve across the board success. In many ways the degree of their success is determined by their willingness to expand their group by including more various constituencies that are not diametrically opposed to their overall Party viewpoints.

Progressives issue advocacy groups are not political party’s complaining because they do not function as political parties is a lot like complaining because your toaster does not fry an egg well. If you use the toaster to make toast and the frying pan to cook eggs you will have far less complaints. If you reasonable expect issue advocacy groups to advocate particular issues and political parties to serve as umbrella organizations that encompass multiple issues you will have far less complaints.

Berating progressives for being uncooperative, untrustworthy, ignorant elitist dangerous Nazi brown shirts who petulantly refuse to follow where you lead if they are refused a voice in leadership just doesn’t seem like a good coalition building strategy to me.

Forming a Nation identifiable Progressive Party/Faction that represents the viewpoints of various progressive issue advocacy groups and gives them a voice direction and policy by allowing representatives of their viewpoints to actively participate in leadership and trying to be tolerant and listen to progressives with other viewpoints rather than dictate the viewpoints and priorities might be a better way to go.

Having that viewpoint may make me one of those whiny, petulant childlike progressives who hate democracy but it’s just a cross I’ll have to bear.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 14, 2011 @ 7:11 pm

I will not berate or belittle those people or question their patriotism. When GOP voters have failed to turn out for unsavory candidates I didn’t do any of the above either I respected their choice. I respect the choice of the Wisconsin 14 not to vote in protest although the bill still moved forward and the average citizens to the same degree.

The rightward course of American leadership over the preceding decades is much discussed and undeniable. I have never heard a clear cognizant argument that explains how voting right wing Blue Dog candidates into office then showing support and preserving their incumbency will return politics to the center of spectrum.

I’m saying instead of looking at the negative consequences and casting aspersion on Democrats natural constituents who stayed home in protest. Perhaps we should look at the leadership of the party, particularly those in and associated with the senate and executive branch. This is who progressive and issue voters are most unhappy with and their displeasure is not limited to those who stayed home.

Electing the guy who has been spoken of as “democratic candidates best friend” recently may have been a second chance at redemption by energizing progressive voters. I’d say there’s a good possibility there are a number of folks who didn’t vote in the mid terms in those crowds around the nation.

The way to capitalize on this isn’t to dismiss them it’s to give them a home in a progressive party faction and keep them engaged by promoting a progressive agenda.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 14, 2011 @ 3:36 am

I’m a little slow and don’t understand exactly how to derive that only 20% of voters represent progressive and independent progressive issue voters from the graph above.

It doesn’t seem all that depressing. Deficit, Jobs, protecting medicare, affordable health care, tax reform and at least some part of the somewhat popular “other” are progressive issues. I’m glad people have an interest in them.

On a variety of high interest issues polling asking about related progressive solutions seems to show support for these options. No reason for sadness.

As dead Generals go, I’m not a big fan of George McClellan the Pottsylvania Creeper who constantly blamed his inaction on misjudging his opponents strength. His opponent loved to put on shows for him marching the same troops around and around to give the illusion of numbers. Today we call these circles Corporate spin.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 14, 2011 @ 1:49 am

“We’ve had this conversation here before and I won’t repeat what I’ve said in the past – except to state that major legislation usually occurs incrementally. Too many progressives seem not to understand this is how it happens in a democracy. It’s messy.”

Politics and Geology are similar in this way Gradualism is not the sole mechanism of change from time to time the ground shifts rapidly on both the Terrestrial and Political Landscape. The cause is much the same as well the release of pent up stress.

Thing can happen fast and do in the last few decades we have had a lot of stuff crammed down our throats at times seemingly overnight. I hope and believe that rapid positive change is possible as well. If you deny the possibility low expectations create a self fulfilling prophecy.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 14, 2011 @ 1:15 am

The GOP has an identifiable right wing party/faction the Tea Party. The Democratic party has an identifiable right wing faction the Blue Dogs. Why is there no progressive party/faction? Virtually every successful democracy in the world has a progressive faction/party only corporate control prevents one from filling a natural vacuum here.

Mike Moore described this as “a war” wars are not always fought with bombs and guns this is one of those wars. Corporate control will not be relinquished voluntarily by corporate concerns. Victory will not be achieved by allowing and aiding them in securing majority representation in the opposition party.

Without a national and visible progressive party Corporate control of both party’s is almost assured. Allowing them a large and unpublicized degree of influence in the opposition party ensures the corruption of democracy.

The Democratic party will not be dissolved it will be co-opted to preserve the illusion of choice. A complete takeover is unnecessary just enough support to add to that of the T_GOP to ensure control is enough. If a scattered and disorganized opposition is not unified in support of truly progressive representatives it’s easier to bring enough resources to bear on any single one who gains traction and popularity to smack them down.

Billionaires and Corporations seeking to control national policy and direction need only influence who is run and receives election support from the Democratic party to enough of a degree to keep the numbers right to achieve bi-partisan majorities favoring Corporate policy.

It is imperative that we fight the battle in our own back yard. We have lost one party if we lose two or even 1.5 we are cooked.

» Posted By Smedley Butler On March 14, 2011 @ 12:20 am