MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Sunday, April 20, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 71.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

Avocados

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

ASSUMING THE GREENS FIELD A CANDIDATE:

Poll ended at Tue Jan 13, 2004 6:34 pm

PETER CAMEJO
2
100%
DAVID COBB
0
No votes
LORNA SALZMAN
0
No votes
RALPH NADER
0
No votes
KENT MESPLAY
0
No votes
CAROL MILLER
0
No votes
PAUL GLOVER
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 2

Avocados

Postby Dodge » Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:34 pm

http://www.gp.org/articles/camejo_01_05_04.html

You can't make guacamole without peeling a few avocados . . .

~ Camejo for President? ~
Dodge
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2002 8:15 pm

Re: Avocados

Postby nevermore » Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:41 pm

Dodge wrote:http://www.gp.org/articles/camejo_01_05_04.html

You can't make guacamole without peeling a few avocados . . .

~ Camejo for President? ~

No Jello Biafra? God, I can't wait for Ben Manski to turn 35. I can see the slogan now: "4% or fight!!".

Honestly Dodge, masturbation and politics shouldn't mix.
nevermore
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3833
Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 11:07 am

and the article

Postby Dodge » Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:53 pm

when you get an hour to read it . . . . what do you think of Camejo's article?
Dodge
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2002 8:15 pm

Postby snoqueen » Fri Jan 09, 2004 8:08 pm

OK, I read it (and it really doesn't take an hour, though I read fast). Here's a quote that summarizes Camejo's argument (or part of it):

"The two-party system is a self-correcting mechanism that shifts back and forth between the two parties, and within different wings of those parties, to maintain corporate political control. Loyalty to the two-party system is inculcated in the educational system, and our electoral laws are rigged to discriminate against third parties."

I'm no fan of the two party system and any criticisms anyone can assemble against it are worth study, IMO. He takes a tack that's the exact opposite of the "anyone but Bush" strategy that's so tempting in the short run and for that reason if no other the article is worthy of a look. Even if you aren't a Green (I'm not, I'm unaffiliated on principle), reading the first 3/4 of this paper can focus the malaise many of us feel going in to the 2004 election.

My own take on the political reality in America is this: we, the general public, have an extremely narrow (by design) view of the role of government, and of politics in the well-being of the people. The questions we are trained to ask and the the answers we accept are focused much too narrowly. We have no vision beyond the next six months, and no dialogue about the kind of society we want to build or we are building.

To bring up questions about the nature of the long term is cast as laughable. We've allowed ourselves to be cornered in survival mode where we get to choose between, say "jobs or the environment" or "free enterprise or socialism." These are ridiculously reductionistic pseudo-choices that effectively head off public discussion of perfectly valid alternatives that appear to threaten the balance of the existing business environment in service of long term improvements in many people's living conditions.

What's funny is George Bush is doing more to threaten that environment than the little Green Party ever will. When the world bank puts the US on notice that we're threatening the stability of the world financial system, you know they're trying to get somebody's attention.

So my first take on the article you pointed us to is this: the balance of the current US political and economic ecosystem is threatened by forces greater than the Green Party. So though I have no major disagreements with their analysis of the history of the situation I think the solution may take a different form than they envision. Perhaps I should restate that to say the consequences of the current reality may be such that the Green Party's solutions are ineffective or irrelevant.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10945
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Postby Dodge » Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:29 pm

snoqueen wrote: I'm no fan of the two party system and any criticisms anyone can assemble against it are worth study, IMO. He takes a tack that's the exact opposite of the "anyone but Bush" strategy that's so tempting in the short run and for that reason if no other the article is worthy of a look.

. . .

So my first take on the article you pointed us to is this: the balance of the current US political and economic ecosystem is threatened by forces greater than the Green Party. So though I have no major disagreements with their analysis of the history of the situation I think the solution may take a different form than they envision. Perhaps I should restate that to say the consequences of the current reality may be such that the Green Party's solutions are ineffective or irrelevant.


Thank you for reading through the article and sharing. I'm not convinced that you're wrong. I see the Greens as a step in the right direction, not as the be-all and end-all of solving the current crises.

We need an independent, self-defined (not controlled from above), mass movement of people who are committed to democracy, and who understand how to participate in democratic decisionmaking, and who will not accept a political or economic system that subverts democracy. To me, the Greens are a step in that direction.
Dodge
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2002 8:15 pm

Re: Avocados

Postby SidSeven » Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:54 am

Oscillation, everything is string theory
It's true
SidSeven
Senior Member
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:58 am
Location: Madison


Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jeerleader and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


FacebookcommentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar