http://anarchismtoday.org/ AnarchismToday.org en-us Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:50:25 GMT 1440 CPG-Nuke Dragonfly AnarchismToday.org News http://backend.userland.com/rss http://anarchismtoday.org/images/logobluegrey.gif http://anarchismtoday.org/ http://anarchismtoday.org/Blogs/display/mode=display/id=16.htmlThe inception of the Free Software movement, north in years of the 20th century, more accurately 1983, struck a tremendous blow to statists everywhere. The Free Software movement, sometimes labeled "open source", a misnomer and propaganda, out of concern for software users' freedom, built the Free Software community. Free Software ensures and secures what software users are rightly entitled to: (0) to run the program, for any purpose, (1) to study how the program works, and adapt it to suit your needs, (2) to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor, (3) to improve the software, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to source code is a precondition for two of these. Free Software's being consists of making new inroads of liberation while effectively defending it. A perverse system, e.g. State Government, by design, is antithetic to Free Software. Authoritarian systems are abject and share two common pathologies: acquiring power and pecuniary polarity. The goal of controlling knowledge is an authoritarian one. The cornerstone of tyranny being secrecy fits well into the mold of non-free software; a system designed to subjugate people. The use of non-free software means you are enslaved because someone else gets to make decisions for you; what you read, what you write, what the program can do, so on and so forth. The advent of Digital-Restrictions-Management bolsters the current system in dictating the terms of your private and public life; there is no privacy and anonymity when using non-free software. A person is hard-pressed to justify spying on software users. Non-free software means you cannot even share a copy with a friend! That is anti-social. The history of software is the advancement of human knowledge. Software, like the field of mathematics is a functional work; like a cook that follows a recipe. Technical works are useful because they allow some task to be accomplished. To sabotage software by making it non-free is a clear indication you are slave to the master. Free Software has proven to be a successful tool in subverting injustice. Free Software has provided the communication networks used to organize against the harshest and most brutal of murdering regimes. The reason it remains useful to dissidents is because it escapes the control of the power structures. People must value freedom, Free Software, to support on-going struggles of revolution. Please join us. The easiest and fastest method of participating is by correcting wording so please visit: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html Copyright (C) 2008 Chris M. Simon --Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the copyright notice are preserved.Wednesday, July 16, 2008 (16:50:25)http://anarchismtoday.org/Blogs/display/mode=display/id=15.htmlIt wasn't supposed to work you know... There aren't managers bossing people around...and it isn't primarily concerned with the "finished product", or the "bottom line"(time and money). It Evolves... Decentralized... Utopian... Impossible... I presume some of us have heard this before? In "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", Eric S. Raymond counter-poses two software development models, "The Cathedral", symbolizing the rigor and hierarchy of the commercial model, and "The Bazaar", symbolizing an open system, based on constant peer-review, and in my mind, not too different from Peter Kropotkin's anarchist ideas of mutual aid. In the documentary "Revolution OS", one learns that the ideas in Eric Raymond's paper influenced the people at Netscape, so much so that, besieged by the Microsoft monopoly, they saw releasing the browser code for Netscape Navigator under an Open-Source license as their best option. In January of 1998, Netscape started the Open Source Mozilla project, which became a non-profit foundation in July of 2003. The mozilla project provides the core for arguably most of the free browsers available on the internet, including FireFox, and it's unbranded cousin, IceWeasel. The former has thoroughly trounced the monopoly in an area where they were thought to hold unchallenged dominance not so long ago, while the latter of these I'm using to enter this in to this website. (Which is also composed of free software.) Viewed in this light, it seems that rather than being utopian or impossible, these ideas are always at work, if we open our eyes. -Andy Rink Andy Rink is a Microsoft Certified Professional (back in the 4.0 days) with 3 years of professional experience as a computer technician and systems administrator.Tuesday, July 15, 2008 (15:22:00)http://anarchismtoday.org/Blogs/display/mode=display/id=14.htmlI was talking to my son, long distance, on the phone the other day. We talked for hours about everything. One subject that came up was about squatting. My son knows much about real estate. You see, he wanted to show me that the things I have stood on for years regarding the system, privilege, and the disadvantage wasn't always true. Since he was old enough to work he would talk about getting rich by means of concentrated inexhaustible effort toward that end. He studied housing and thought he could buy and sell them to make a fortune with which he would use to help his relatives; particularly his mother and me, his dad. He is older now, age 32, and has realized that what I've been saying was and is true and consistent. Part of his personal study included squatters rights. It seems in some states a house that has been abandon and the taxes not paid could be taken over legally if a person paid a small portion of the taxes on that property. Having researched this unpopular but legal fact my son did exactly that. There is a nice home in Richmond, Va. in a upper middle class neighborhood that an elderly couple lived in. Eventually the man died and the women unable to care for herself was placed by her son in a "nursing home". She soon followed her husband and died as well. The son lives in New Jersey where he practices medicine. He wanted nothing to do with his parents' house and for some twenty odd years it remained unchanged as if the couple still lived there. Their 1991 vehicle still parked in the garage. Taxes in arrear since 1991 and the house was in severe need of general maintenance. According to my son this house was coveted by a neighbor who happened to be a Realtor and who he had inquired too about the house. The lady told him the above story and so he went down to city hall paid about $4.00. $3.00 for filing and $1.00 in taxes. He then went to the house with his personal belongings and moved in. The neighbors where, well very unhappy to say the least and the real estate lady called the cops. The cops came and my son met them outside. They asked him for proof that this was his house. He simply showed them his receipt and that he was the person responsible for paying property taxes at this address. The cops left astounded and baffled and the Realtor lady flabbergasted but nothing could be done to have my son removed. On the phone I suggested to my son that he go to Richmond's' Globalization Network in association with FNB (Food Not Bombs) and offer to share his knowledge with them on legalized squatting because they also help homeless people who are exposed to the elements. The sharing of knowledge achieves two things. It helps people and it breaks down the hierarchal system of greed. That is it undermines the purpose of "Intellectual Property". The sharing of knowledge for the benefit of others is far more rewarding then selling that same knowledge for "profit" and it is a selfless act of generosity and kindness. It is the finest expression of human nature. It is one aspect of collectivism. Sharing knowledge shakes the neocons world of consolidated wealth and power. They dis empower people through privatization. Intellectual property is privatized knowledge. They can't sell what is common knowledge because the capitalist economy is based on scarcity. We should all do what comes natural to humans; learn then teach! We love our children so we teach them what we know so they will be stronger, safer, and "better off". We often voluntarily share what we know with relatives, co-works, and friends for the same reasons we share them with our children. Helping others is its' own reward. Also see: www.peopleseducation.org/populareducation.htmWednesday, July 02, 2008 (22:38:43)http://anarchismtoday.org/Blogs/display/mode=display/id=13.htmlPersonally I am not one to be the center of attention. I would rather be on the side lines inconspicuously. With that said, it is important for activist to know themselves, their strengths and weaknesses, their attitude, moods and emotional state. Are you humorous or too serious. Perhaps your too humorous as a means to avoid difficult feelings. Activist must be able to keep them self in check in order to be effective in their endeavors and tasks for change. Before one can organize others, you must be able to organize yourself. Before one can truly know and understand others, you must be able to know and understand yourself. I am aware that "self development" is somewhat of an unpopular topic however, if you don't apply yourself what can you really offer in facilitating change? What can a unbalanced, unstable person bring to the collective. I doubt such a person would ever be asked to be a member of a collective set aside the possibility of joining an anarchist affinity group doing covert ops. Improving on yourself is imperative to any progressive organization you may participate in and any direct action you decide to take. Exercise, eat right, get plenty of rest, learn all you can, i.e.; technology, speech, first aid, the arts etc.etc... Take up martial arts. I don't drink nor use drugs. I once spent some time down in Phoenix,Az. among a collective there. They had a general meeting and after I was invited over to some peoples home where most of the collective visited. after a short time of being there i was invited to smoke some pot. I declined. I pass no moral judgment on what others might do but there are some things to keep in mind regarding recreational drug use. People that use drugs often can't see that they "need" them. Police often use people as informants when they are in "legal" trouble. Drug users (as well as people on probation or parole) jeopardize the integrity of a movement, collective and action because it is through weakness that such are infiltrated. Personally, I defend the right of people to use recreational drugs without being inhibited or persecuted by government agents. However, when one chooses to get involved in political action then one must adjust their lives accordingly. Anarchy is not chaos. Being an anarchist means taking personal responsibility. "Personal Responsibility" is a term I never liked because while the constructors of present day society demand "personal accountability" for the common people they never do so themselves. If people have an responsibility to society as individuals then society owes the same to the individual. Did you know that "twelve step groups" such as, Alcoholics Anonymous" and Narcotics Anonymous are compatible with anarchy as they use anarchy principles which can be found within their "twelve traditions. Don't be ashamed to give them a try if you are having personal problems with drugs, alcohol, emotional or mental. In conclusion, when you get your act together you and then we all benefit greatly. I know from personal experience. also see, http://a4a.mahost.org/zen.htmlMonday, June 23, 2008 (17:47:19)http://anarchismtoday.org/Blogs/display/mode=display/id=11.htmlFeeding the Mouth That Bites You We're the greatest nation on Earth...or so we tell me... Maybe if you measure greatness with dollar signs. We're the richest country, and what do we do with it? Spend a trillion dollars of our money in Iraq, killing a million people. Look at the way Cuba prioritizes human need...if the US was a third world country most of us would have probably died already. Almost 50 years of economic terrorism by the US, thanks largely to the Kennedy brothers...and their infant mortality rate is LOWER then ours. Richest country on earth with military spending rivaling that of the rest of the world, why do we care so little about our people? But take your pick of the most demonized, supposedly despotic nations, and they don't lock up as high a proportion of their population as we do here in the "Land of the Free..." -Andy RinkTuesday, February 19, 2008 (23:30:00)http://anarchismtoday.org/Blogs/display/mode=display/id=10.htmlIf the republicans don't see to it, the democrats will, good commissars that they are... I'd love to believe that karma exists and that war criminals will spend their remaining days hiding in seedy alleyways and sewers, constantly looking over their shoulders for members of groups they've been oppressing...In reality, he'll probably live out his incurious, arrogant, wretched excuse for a life in the sort of luxury 99% of us could never dream of.Saturday, January 19, 2008 (07:10:00)http://anarchismtoday.org/Blogs/display/mode=display/id=9.htmlLimits of Academic Dissent: Ward Churchill, David Graeber, & Norman Finkelstein en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._Churchill Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an American writer and political activist. He was a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder from 1990 to 2007. His work primarily concerns the United States and its historical treatment of political dissenters and of American Indians. In these subject areas, he has made numerous controversial and provocative claims, often in a confrontational style. In January 2005 Churchill was widely discussed in the mass media for a 2001 essay in which he claimed that people killed in the World Trade Center attacks were involved in provoking the attack. In March 2005 the university began to investigate allegations that Churchill had engaged in research misconduct; it reported in June 2006 that he had done so. The university fired Churchill on July 24, 2007. Churchill has contested the finding of misconduct. Some observers infer that the investigation and these actions were in retaliation for Churchill's controversial statements about the World Trade Center attacks because it began in the midst of national media coverage of his statements, with one stating that Churchill's writing was "subjected to a line-by-line review for evidence of academic malfeasance solely as a punishment for his political statements." Eleven CU professors have signed a complaint against the investigation and its findings, claiming the Committee's research violates standard scholarly practices by using biased information and suppressing information favorable to Churchill's.[40] CU Professor Margaret LeCompte views the Churchill case as a "key precedent that could lead to curtailing academic freedoms."[41] In addition, scholars and organizations including the ACLU, the National Association of Chicana and Chicano Studies, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Drucilla Cornell, and Immanuel Wallerstein, have issued statements objecting to the circumstances of Churchill's firing. The Liberal Thrashing of Ward Churchill The shameless trashing of Ward Churchill from the left side of our political setting was perhaps the most grotesque of all the attacks faced by the tenured University of Colorado professor after his essay "Some Push Back" began making headlines in early 2005. It was predictable that right-wingers like David Horowitz and pundit Sean Hannity would blather about Churchill being un-American, but the liberal loathing of the radical academic came with an extra unexpected fervor. Let's take Marc Cooper, contributing editor to The Nation magazine, whom, on his personal blog, responded to Churchill's 9/11 thesis: "Move over, Mumia. The Left has a new cause celebre that's a guaranteed loser: Ward Churchill I saw the essay at the time and was nauseated by it. I have been tempted over the years to write something about it, but have always decided not to. Only because I consider Churchill to be an irrelevant and clearly deranged loner on the edge of the looniest left. "Now I regret not having denounced him. Too bad others on the left also didn't quickly hurry to divorce themselves from this guy. "Churchill, as you know, surfaced in the news last month when he was invited to speak at an upstate New York university and some conservatives raised a ruckus ­ as they damn well should. If this guy can hang on to his tenure at CU[,] fine. But damned if student funds from somewhere else should be used to host him as some sort of guest speaker." It was the kind of cheap jab Cooper is famous for. He's spelled out all sorts of ad hominems over the years -- from the bashing of Mumia to the castration of Hugo Chavez -- Cooper claimed to have reread Churchill's essay, only to find "it more offensive than when I originally saw it right after 9/11." If one only read Cooper's grotesque distortions of Churchill's fiery analysis (thinking a liberal would at least give Ward a fair crack), they would most likely believe the professor deserves the filthy muck that has been shoveled all over his career. Select quotes from Ward Churchill: "When you knowingly accept the collateral effects of business practice as usual, projected by the United States into the rest of the planet, and even if you don't agree with it, contribute your expertise, your technical ability, your proficiency to furthering the process of extermination of masses of children, for your own personal gain and benefit, to fit into the structure, without challenging it, you are, in the Hannah Arendt metaphysical sense of Eichmann, Eichmann." "Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly." "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." "White domination is so complete that even American Indian children want to be cowboys. It's as if Jewish children wanted to play Nazis." - Ward Churchill Related videos: Ward Churchill: Perpetual War, State Terror, Limits on Academic Dissent When They Came for Ward Churchill en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber David Graeber is an anarchist and anthropologist. He was an associate professor of anthropology at Yale University, although Yale controversially declined to rehire him, and his term there ended in June 2007. On June 15, 2007, Graeber accepted the offer of a senior lectureship in the anthropology department at Goldsmiths College, University of London. He began teaching there in September 2007.[1] Graeber has a history of social and political activism, including his role in protests against the World Economic Forum in New York City (2002) and membership in the radical labor union Industrial Workers of the World. In May 2005, the Yale anthropology department decided not to renew Graeber's contract. Pointing to Graeber's highly-regarded anthropological scholarship, his supporters (including fellow anthropologists, former students, and anarchists) have accused the dismissal decision of being politically motivated. Critics argued that Graeber's dismissal was in keeping with Yale's policy of granting tenure to few junior faculty and Yale has given no formal explanation for its actions. Graeber has suggested that his support of GESO, Yale's graduate student union, may have played a role in Yale's decision. David Graeber on Charlie Rose Norman Gary Finkelstein (born December 8, 1953) is an American political scientist and author, specialising in Jewish-related issues and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. A graduate of Binghamton University, he received his Ph.D in Political Science from Princeton University. He has held faculty positions at Brooklyn College, Rutgers University, Hunter College, New York University, and most recently, DePaul University, where he was an assistant professor from 2001 to 2007. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...inkelstein In a decision which aroused widespread controversy, Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul in June 2007, and placed on administrative leave for the 2007-2008 academic year, his single course having been cancelled. Finkelstein made his reputation with his meticulous examination of Joan Peters's best-selling From Time Immemorial. A "history and defense" of Israel, Peters' book had been effusively praised in mainstream United States media sources by figures as varied as Barbara Tuchman, Theodore H. White, Elie Wiesel, and Lucy Dawidowicz. Saul Bellow, for one, wrote that: "Millions of people the world over, smothered by false history and propaganda, will be grateful for this clear account of the origins of the Palestinians." Finkelstein in his doctoral thesis, by minutely examining all of the sources Peters harvested and the way she used her evidence, concluded that the book, elsewhere acclaimed as a breakthrough into a balanced perspective on Jewish-Palestinian demographics, was nothing more than a what he now calls a "monumental hoax".[11] However, according to Finkelstein, whereas Peters' book received widespread interest and approval in the United States, a scholarly demonstration of its fraudulence and unreliability aroused little attention: Of the 30-odd people Finkelstein sent a draft of his preliminary findings to in the U.S., only one, Noam Chomsky, responded, warning him of the probable consequences of his research: "I warned him, if you follow this, you're going to get in trouble—because you're going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they're going to destroy you." --snip--- Shortly after the publication of the book The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz, Finkelstein derided it as "a collection of fraud, falsification, plagiarism, and nonsense". Asserting, during a joint interview by Amy Goodman, that Dershowitz lacked knowledge about specific contents of his own book, Finkelstein also speculated that Dershowitz did not write the book, and may not have even read it. In an interview with a Dutch newspaper Finkelstein said: "In September 2003 I had a TV-debate with him. The notes in his book showed that he had worked on the manuscript until June 2003. However in September he had no idea of what was in the book. He didn't know names of people he cites. ... But it is true that I couldn't prove my thesis, I withdrew it." In June 2007, following a 4-3 vote by DePaul University's Board on Promotion and Tenure (a faculty board), a decision affirmed by the University's President, the University denied Finkelstein tenure. The political science department of the university had praised Finkelstein and recommended tenure by a 9-3 vote (a recommendation endorsed by a 5-0 vote by the College Personnel Committee), but according to university president Dennis Holtschneider, Finkelstein's "unprofessional personal attacks divert the conversation away from consideration of ideas, and polarize and simplify conversations that deserve layered and subtle consideration." The university denied that Alan Dershowitz, who had been criticized for actively campaigning against Finkelstein's tenure, played any part in this decision. At the same time, the university denied tenure to international studies lecturer Mehrene Larudee, a strong supporter of Finkelstein, despite unanimous support from her department, the Personnel Committee and the Dean. The Faculty Council later affirmed the right of Professors Finkelstein and Larudee to appeal, which a university lawyer said was not possible. Council President Anne Bartlett said she was "'terribly concerned' correct procedure was not followed". DePaul’s faculty association considered taking no confidence votes in administrators, including the president, because of the tenure denials. In a statement issued upon Finkelstein's resignation, DePaul called him "a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher." Dershowitz expressed outrage at the compromise and this statement in particular, saying that the university had "traded truth for peace." Democracy Now!: Noam Chomsky Accuses Alan Dershowitz of Launching a "Jihad" to Block Norman Finkelstein From Getting Tenure at Depaul University -personmanTuesday, November 27, 2007 (16:13:00)http://anarchismtoday.org/Blogs/display/mode=display/id=8.htmlThe idea of a "free-market" is a hallmark of extremist, laissez-faire capitalist ideologies. The basis of it is, there should be no government regulation of business, no government role in the economy. The unstated lie implicit in it is that the uneducated, oppressed and poor are on equal footing with obscenely wealthy massive global corporations. The reality is the rich are free to screw over the poor who are free to starve. That's the free-market. From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...am_Chomsky : Chomsky argues that the wealthy use free-market rhetoric to justify imposing greater economic risk upon the lower classes, while being insulated from the rigours of the market by the political and economic advantages that such wealth affords. He remarked, "the free market is socialism for the rich— markets for the poor and state protection for the rich." A reasonable regulated/mixed market on the other hand, could possibly provide "a sort of freedom" by leveling the playing field, but it's important to remember that "free-market" in capitalist terms means tyranny of the rich. -personmanTuesday, November 06, 2007 (05:24:00)http://anarchismtoday.org/Blogs/display/mode=display/id=7.htmlThe credo of capitalism. Unfortunately like most of our institutions, education has long been perverted to serve the interests of power, and produce historically ignorant little worker man-bots. The elite schools are even worse, and the elite culture in general is usually highly indoctrinated Here is a fun test you can try on your own...find a kid from a wealthy family who went to a private school...say "capitalism is immoral"...brace yourself for... justify JUSTIFY justify JUSTIFY justify commies suck JUSTIFY justify We can't teach a scientist or engineer worth a fuck, but we are churning out "little Eichmanns" like nobodies business. Could be further proof that as our capitalist system destroys the very innovation and prosperity that some credit it for, we will be increasingly forced to rely on monsters in suits (aka politicians and capitalists) to strong arm the world so we can maintain our levels of privilidge.Friday, September 14, 2007 (09:03:23)http://anarchismtoday.org/Blogs/display/mode=display/id=6.htmlThis was in reply to a forum post on Democratic Underground regarding american military casualties in Iraq. -personman Why do we all care so much about those perpetrating the crimes and so little for their victims? By crimes I'm referring specifically to the war of aggression in Iraq, and other crimes stemming from it. To quote the chief american prosecutor of the Nuremberg trials: "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." We hung nazis for this, and "I was just doing my job" was NOT an accepted excuse. If we don't stop painting these walking brain-stems as heroes we will never outgrow this, and they will never take a serious look at themselves. Between Clinton's sanctions and bombings and the Bush wars, 1,000,000 dead Iraqi civilians sounds a conservative estimate. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. -personman The Original Poster responds: The criminals are in the White House, facilitated by sycophants in Congress and enabled by "We the People." The buck stops at OUR feet ... ALL of ours. The sole legitimacy of any government comes from the CONSENT of the governed ... no matter how lazy and passive ... and that's US. We consent, as a nation, by paying taxes. We consent, as a nation, by taking no action. We consent, as a nation, by not leaving our blood in the streets. We consent, as a nation, by not doing everything we can do. It is the 'social contract' (the bargain we make) of a democracy, no matter how atrophied, that we buy into the directions our elected (no matter how arguable) government chooses. It's the bargain of a democracy to accept the will of the majority - as represented, however imperfectly, by the system of elections and citizen participation we've enacted and established. Just because we whine and kvetch and disagree, it does NOT absolve us from responsibility for that governance unless and until we're bleeding in our own streets to take it back. We're not doing that. We're making juvenile critiques of Code Pink. We're making pretentious and empty critiques of MoveOn.org ... from the peanut gallery. That's what passes for "consent" - pissing on those actively DISSENTING and risking jail time for civil disobedience. (It's easy to sneer from the cheap seats.) The military is SUBORDINATE to the "consent of the governed." If they can bleed and die ... and we make no such investment and take no such risk ... we are not earning a moral right to throw stones. It's easier to complain and criticize than actually do something. In that sense, we appear like spoiled brats whining about the meals our mother cooks. Detestable. People should probably take careful note that the rank and file soldiers were NOT tried at Nuremberg. It was the senior leadership. The War Crimes were prosecuted from the top down. I cannot be conscionably done, even rhetorically, from the bottom. Taking cheap shots at the rank and file military without bringing the chief War Criminals to trial is sheer cowardice. My Response: I don't blame the people for this...I don't blame JUST the troops... but troop worship IS war glorification. They ain't over there huggin' and kissin' 'em. I was using Nuremberg to illustrate the ideas behind the Nuremberg Principles, one of them being: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." I don't think anyone would argue this was meant to apply only to top brass and I personally don't think the fact they only chose to apply it to the top brass is particularly relevant, I think the principle is universal. The difference between the "top brass" and "rank-and-file" is the difference between Pirates and Emporers. You seem to have the impression, based on this reply and the last, that I'm attempting to pin all the blame on the troops. I am not. I am saying however, that they ARE NOT blameless. We have free will no matter how some of us choose to ignore it. If we don't like the choices they are making then perhaps we need to look at our society and our education system and see why they make the choices they make. That's another discussion for another thread though. -personman P.S. All your "We the people" talk does is convince me that you are a successfully indoctrinated cog in the machine, further proved by your incorrect assertion that the public supports what the government is doing. The people aren't "failing" (and the lack of faith in your fellow man this framing implies is sad). The government is. Liberals such as yourself think people don't vote because they are stupid and lazy, but the fact is, this wonderful liberal "democracy" of ours believes the people must be removed from the political arena. This idea has been called the manufacture of consent and as far as democrats and republicans are concerned, it's "the way democracy is done." So people have this crazy perception (completely true of course, but opposed to established doctrine) that they don't have any meaningful say in their lives, and whether they vote for a demopublican or a republicrat, government wins. Even calling our system a democracy is a dishonest frame that seeks to stamp whatever mess the leadership are dragging us in to with the public's approval. If I thought for a moment people really agreed with what our leadership does, I'd probably join al-qeada. (jk) The problem is the power structure. Blaming the people doesn't really make much sense to me, and seems much closer to me to "blaming the victim" then any of my troop rhetoric.Tuesday, September 11, 2007 (18:34:00)