Texas Longhorns with newborn calf in Bluebonnets

Texas Longhorns with newborn calf in Bluebonnets

Please note I have a new phone number...

512-517-2708

Alan Maki

Alan Maki
Doing research at the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas

It's time to claim our Peace Dividend

It's time to claim our Peace Dividend

We need to beat swords into plowshares.

We need to beat swords into plowshares.

A program for real change...

http://peaceandsocialjustice.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-progressive-program-for-real-change.html


What we need is a "21st Century Full Employment Act for Peace and Prosperity" which would make it a mandatory requirement that the president and Congress attain and maintain full employment.


"Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens"

- Ben Franklin

Let's talk...

Let's talk...

Saturday, December 11, 2010

George Lakoff and "Don't Think of an Elephant!"

It is always difficult to say what someone else's motivation is. I don't think George Lakoff has ever been motivated by a desire for progressive change. He makes a lot of money working to keep people trapped in the Democratic Party. Now, this doesn't mean he doesn't have some really good ideas that people can't use as they struggle for real progressive change based on real progressive values... but, it does mean we have to use his advice to INCLUDE specific progressive solutions to our problems. It also means that we have to understand that for real change to take place we have to develop organizations capable of bringing about progressive change--- to Lakoff's credit he only claims to be a linguist interested in framing discussion, dialog and debate. Can we use his ideas to turn the tables on Obama and the Democrats who are evading real solutions to our problems? I think so. I use Lakoff's book all the time when teaching people to write letters to the editor, leaflets and newsletters. I do find it extremely interesting that George Soros claims to have learned a lot from Lakoff and I got this article off of Tom Hayden's website; Hayden is the primary leader of the "Progressives for Obama" the group that has brought the art of evading specific solutions and movement building to new levels--- and, for what purpose? To hoodwink us all into supporting Obama.

Several years ago I was in a rather large discussion group that included some state legislators and labor leaders who gathered for the sole purpose of discussing "Don't Think of an Elephant!" I provided my thinking on this and almost everyone in the room challenged me. So, I opened the book to page 92 and read. After I was done there must have been 15 people trying to talk and "explain" what Lakoff meant by this statement.

I responded by simply saying, "George Lakoff is a most highly regarded linguist. He is an expert in his field. I assume this is why we have all come together for six sessions to discuss this important book and its ideas. Now, understanding that Lakoff is a brilliant communicator do you really expect me to believe that Lakoff has written something here that he didn't mean?" At which point the Democratic Party hack who had brought us all together went ballistic (some present accused me of making him go "postal"). Obviously the intent was to bring people together to "teach" them not to talk about solutions to problems because according to Lakoff this is when you lose elections.

This is the main conclusion for this book and the PRIMARY lesson Lakoff wants us to "learn."

It is right there... the opening paragraph under "Policy Directions" on page 92 in the final chapter (Chapter 8-What Unites Progressives).

And Lakoff cautions against getting "militant."

Well; when do people get militant? When they get fed up because very specific problems they are having are not being solved. And here we have the great "progressive linguist" advising not to bring forward specific solutions to problems. Why? Because you probably won't get elected. Translated: You won't get the big bucks from Wall Street.

As a worker I find Lakoff to be the epitome of middle class arrogance. His book was intended just for use in the kind of discussion groups I was a part of. It offends me to no end that someone who is well-heeled as a result of advising the Democratic Party and creeps like Obama how to win would expect me and working people to forgo solving our problems so that some worthless opportunist can get elected to do what Obama has done and we are supposed to accept this as "progressive." The very word "progressive" implies that people-friendly solutions will be found to problems. I hardly call anything we have been subjected to by Obama and the Democrats over the past two years as having been "people friendly."

So. how could Lakoff ever have meant for these tactics to be used "in the service of progress?"

I gave Lakoff the benefit of the doubt so I wrote him with the very concerns I am expressing here. He actually called me. He called me to tell me that he couldn't answer my question because I wasn't one of his clients--- in other words, I wasn't paying him to answer me.

I would like to have George Lakoff answer my concerns right here on FaceBook for everyone to see. Let him explain why he helps Democrats get elected by evading explaining what they are going to do to solve our problems. In fact, Lakoff doesn't doesn't want our problems solved because he makes money taking advantage of our problems.

With this said, I encourage everyone to pay close attention to what George Lakoff writes for two reasons:

1. To learn how to frame the debate/s.

2. To learn how you are going to get screwed by the very politicians--- like Obama--- who are going to have you thinking they are on your side when nothing could be further from the truth because the problems of working people are just like our national debt: The Nation's debt is the Wall Street Bankers' profits. Just like Wall Street coupon clippers reap their biggest windfalls in profits off the backs of working people whose problems are Wall Street's profits... if you don't believe me at least think about it. Who profits from paying workers poverty wages instead of real living wages? Who profits from a huge pool of unemployed? Who profits from wars that kill jobs just like they kill people?

Isn't it nice to know that the Democrats have been so well trained to make us think they are going to solve our problems when George Lakoff has trained them not to even think about solving our problems?

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Anti-communist bigot Rick Mons asked me questions... when I responded he had me banned from e-democracy because he didn't approve of my answers!

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

About Paul Krugman

First; Krugman has always been fronting for Hillary Clinton, he is an ardent Hillary supporter, so I'm not surprised his analysis never goes much towards liberalism than what Hillary would... to me it looks pretty obvious Krugman is fronting for Hillary knowing that Obama is likely a one-term President. Krugman is not going to prepare the political soil for someone the stature of a George McGovern--- an honest progressive nor for a true liberal. It's not only Krugman, but he is kind of the leader of this grouping that wants to assure the election of Roosevelt without a Frances Perkins, Henry Wallace and Harry Hopkins... most importantly without a huge, angry people's movement that is militant and organized for real change... the Krugman crowd is carefull not to help create another governor someplace like a Floyd B. Olson who might rise to challenge Hillary after a first term.

On the Social Security tax and Medicare taxes being regressive. I kind of consider any tax that isn't an income tax as regressive; but, it really is too much to expect that working people would have thee universal programs in this kind of system without "self-financing" them, isn't it?

We could have a National Public Health Care System without any fees or charges for less than what the Social Security tax is; paid for just like Social Security... wouldn't this be a lot better for most people who cannot afford high premiums and out of pocket payments for health care? an't we look upon these insurance premiums as a more regressive tax?

Here is the way I look at it, maybe I am wrong, but we live in the wealthiest country in the world (or at least a country where a very few people at the top have complete control over the life of our country by virtue of owning the means of production where working people produce this wealth); the richest country any way you look at it so we should bring forward demands for universal social programs like with health care, child care, good public transportation--- all pretty much for free and advocate that these things be paid for by ending the wars and slashing military spending and taxing the rich--- the real filthy rich--- and corporate profits, after all the most progressive tax is placed closest to wealth creation... but, we should always leave the option of people self-financing these things so in the course of struggles for these things people themselves can decide how they want to go forward once it is clear the concepts and ideas for such programs gain widespread public support.

We most likely wouldn't have Social Security today if Frances Perkins would have continued to insist on a progressive system of financing it as she originally had. And people seemed willing to settle for this "regressive" payroll tax. People also "settle" for the most regressive tax of all for funding public schools--- the property tax which hits working people the hardest and continues hitting them even harder as this recession/depression deepens.

Let's have a broad discussion about all of this; a discussion Paul Krugman and his middle class intellectuals will never initiate since it looks like we will more than likely see some kind of challenge to Obama in the upcoming Primary.

If someone would buy me a Greyhound ticket I would ride the dog from city to city the next two years challenging Obama's ideas myself; maybe I should consider walking :)

Alan

About Wiki-leaks and Assange

The release of this kind of information is important.
But it is coming from Assange, a fascist creep.
The American people should be demanding the release of these files and a whole lot more. We need to see the complete joint FBI-CIA report they call "The Family Jewels" so we know how the American people have been played for fools and suckers.
We shouldn't have to rely on a sleazy fascist bastard like Assange for information.
The time has come to open up all the FBI and CIA files none of which involves the security of this country... what it is in these files is a national embarrassment with politicians and corporations working hand-in-hand to undermine democracy established by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Assange now claims to have such scandalous documents in his possession that governments will fall if the information is released. He says the documents and files will be released if he is killed or arrested. What he really means is that he will sell this information to the highest bidder. Any progressive would release the information not indulge in these kinds of blackmail schemes for which fascists are known.

Monday, December 6, 2010

A challenge to debate...

Joel Albers,

I would be willing to debate you on point #2 and concerning your support for the Marty legislation.
You are wrong on both points.

We could hold debates across Minnesota so people would have a better idea of what is involved in health care reform.

We could have a debate on these two issues once a month in a different city in Minnesota until the 2012 elections.

I extend this challenge to you or anyone selse upporting Obama's "Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry Bailout and Profit Maximization Act of 2010;" nothing in this legislation is a "good first step."

As you are fully aware, but refuse to acknowledge, we had a very good Co-op health care program for workers in this country; it was operated by the International Workers Order which was designated by Attorney General Robert Kennedy as a "Communist Party front organization;" all of its assets were seized and distributed to for-profit insurance companies which the Kennedy family had major financial holdings in, and many of its officers and members were jailed and blacklisted.

Since David Shove has brought forward similar FBI/United States Department of (In)Injustice witch-hunts in point 1 of his Progressive Calendar, this aspect of the issue becomes even more important to discuss.

I have repeatedly challenged you anarchists along with Minnesota State Senator John Marty and the Green Party shills for the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party and the Minnesota Universal Health Care Coalition of which you are a part--- an organization whose leaders have stooped to the most disgusting red-baiting in the past--- to state exactly how much this scheme (and scam) brought forward by Senator John Marty as a gimmick for his unsussessful gubenatorial campaign is going to cost us in premiums--- come on, Mr. Albers, have the courage to debate me across Minnesota and tell audiences exactly what they can expect to pay for premiums EVERY MONTH under this Minnesota Health Plan of John Marty's that you support.

At a time of massive unemployment that entails widespread poverty with people being foreclosed on and evicted from their homes not even being able to afford to pay the heating bills from last year yet let alone the mortgage payments ,and wondering from day-to-day how they are going to feed their familiers as your great  Obama  cuts the food stamp program as he expands two very costly, immoral, unjust, illegal and unconstitutional wars to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan while maintaining over 800 U.S. military bases across the globe protecting Wall Street's interests but can't find the funds to finance a National Public Health Care System providing the American people with world-class health care through 30,000 community health care centers with 800 more advanced health care bases providing support all for free at a substantially reduced cost than what everyone is now paying to private insurance companies in monthly premiums. In fact, if need be, a special tax could be imposed upon the rich and corporate profits; or, we could just forego arguing with the rich and finance the entire system the way we finance Social Security and the share workers would pay would be much less than what they presently pay into Social Security--- not the exobitant price tag the premiums of your phony schemes (and scams) would impose on working class families. The last thing working class families need--- or can afford--- is one more bill for health care premiums. Come on Mr. Albers, tell us what this scheme is going to cost each Minnesotan.

We all know you won't publicly tell us what this is going to cost each of us because the public would immediately reject Senator Marty''s proposed legislation.

I find it quite interesting that you anarchists will go out and toss bricks through bank windows and consider this a "fight" but you don't have the courage to stand up for the kind of health care reforms that are really needed in this country nor do you have the moral or political courage to defend your views in a public debate sitting side-by-side someone who is willing to respond to your lies.

Your co-op scheme for health care is nothing but the dream fairy-tales come from and your support for this Minnesota Health Care scam brought forward by Minnesota State Senator John Marty as a mere campaign gimmick without even providing the true costs to Minnesotans is nothing short of political fraud.

John Marty canceled his events unveiling his Minnesota Health Act after I announced I would be present to ask "How much will the monthly premiums be."

You, too, run scared from this csame hallenge. Just like your anarchist friends toss urine-filled condoms at cops for no reason using people marching for peace and real health care reform as your "sheilds." 

Also, let us not forget that H.R. 676 is now dead... dead just like the jobs killed by Obama's wars and its human victims in Iraq and Afghanistan after John Conyers sold us out on H.R. 676 and the impeachment and prosecutions of Bush and Cheney to save his own hide after Karl Rove threatened to send him to prison for the rest of his life for his involvement in taking corporate bribes... charges to which his wife plead guilty in a plea bargain that allowed Conyers not to face prosecution.

Alan L. Maki

2.our critique of the 2010 federal legislation, messaging, and why
> the Co-op Health Care section of Obamacare and its generous funding
> is a good first step for MN.
>
> 3.state health care reform discussion.

Quoting David Shove <shove001@tc.umn.edu>:
>              P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R   12.06.10
> 4. uhcan-mn          12.06 7:30pm
> --------4 of 4--------
>
> From: Joel Albers <joel@uhcan-mn.org>
> Subject: uhcan-mn 12.06 7:30pm
>
> Next UHCAN-MN mtg is monday Dec 6, 7:30pm, Walker Church, 3104
> 16th ave S., mpls (near Bloomingtom ave and lake Street), lower level.
>
> 1.Reportbacks: Artists Health Fair Tabling Nov 6; Trinity Health
> Fair Nov 14
>     cholesterol tests/presentation.
>
> 2.our critique of the 2010 federal legislation, messaging, and why
> the Co-op Health Care section of Obamacare and its generous funding
> is a good first step for MN.
>
> 3.state health care reform discussion.
>
> additional items for the agenda ?
> come for the coffee/tea, snacks, stay for the conversation,
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    - David Shove             shove001@tc.umn.edu
>    rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
>                      over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
>               please send all messages in plain text no attachments
>
>                           vote third party
>                            for president
>                            for congress
>                            for governor
>                           now and forever
>
>
>                            Socialism YES
>                            Capitalism NO

58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell Phone: 651-587-5541
E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

Check out my Blog:
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Sunday, November 21, 2010

DFL needs to get back to principles to succeed







Letter to Editor published in the Bemidji Pioneer Press
 
Published November 21 2010

DFL needs to get back to principles to succeed

The next political battle about to shape up in Minnesota is over redistricting. Racist Democrats joined with racist Republicans to scheme to divide the native American Indian vote over the years in order to keep native Americans out of the Minnesota House and Senate and out of the U.S. Congress.
The next political battle about to shape up in Minnesota is over redistricting. Racist Democrats joined with racist Republicans to scheme to divide the native American Indian vote over the years in order to keep native Americans out of the Minnesota House and Senate and out of the U.S. Congress.

If Democrats are going to recover from their trouncing in northern Minnesota — Jim Oberstar, Mary Olson and Brita Sailer soundly defeated, with Persell and Skoe most likely to be next to go; Democrats will have to fight for a redistricting plan that includes a U.S. House district that includes everything from Duluth west... taking in the Indian reservations of Net Lake, Leech Lake, Red Lake and White Earth. This will assure native American Indians have a voice in the Minnesota state Legislature as well as a voice in Washington representing native American Indians from Minnesota. All working people will then have a voice in government.

Obviously Minnesota House and Senate Districts 4A and 4 need to have their boundaries redrawn to enable native American Indians to have voices at the real seat of power. There is nothing new about using redistricting to assure full representation of people of color in the political process; the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on this are very clear. Redistricting to end racism and enhance democracy for everyone is the way to enforce affirmative action in the electoral process the same way affirmative action (Executive Order 11246) is intended to end poverty by ending discrimination in employment.

The Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party has a most dismal and disgraceful record in each area and “the chickens have come home to roost.” Now is the time for real change.

Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council
Warroad

Monday, November 15, 2010

U.S. Military – The World's Largest Polluter

Editor
Brita Belli
bbelli@emagazine.com

Dear Brita Belli, Editor;

(Please note; I am responding to the article below.)


The Editors of E/Environmental Magazine, in responding to a writer from New York about what the military is doing to "reduce its carbon footprint" fails to mention that this carbon footprint is a heck of a lot bigger than what military operations alone entail.

We have the entire military-financial-industrial complex which includes everything from mining to manufacturing in order to keep the U.S. military machine in operation.

As an example for starters---

It is estimated that between 30% to 60% of all the iron ore mined on Minnesota's Iron Range has gone into military production for everything from tanks to bridges and trucks. Not only does the mining leave a massive carbon footprint but the processing of this iron ore into steel leaves a huge carbon footprint. The manufacturing operations turning this steel into tanks, guns, trucks, bombs leaves another huge carbon footprint and we haven't even begun to consider the enormous quantity of power required to run all of this... one more huge carbon footprint.

The real carbon footprint of the U.S. military entails a lot more than simply how the military uses finished products and engages in untold waste and its contribution to pollution.

Learning to live in peace with our neighbors we share this planet with while "turning swords into plowshares" makes a lot of environmental sense. I wonder how it was that Al Gore and so many environmentalists missed this?

Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell Phone: 651-587-5541

E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net




EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What is the U.S. military doing to reduce its carbon footprint and generally green its operations?        -- Anthony Gomez, New York, NY

As the world’s largest polluter, the U.S. military has its work cut out for it when it comes to greening its operations. According to the nonprofit watchdog group, Project Censored, American forces generate some 750,000 tons of toxic waste annually—more than the five largest U.S. chemical companies combined. Although this pollution occurs globally on U.S. bases in dozens of countries, there are tens of thousands of toxic “hot spots” on some 8,500 military properties right here on America soil.

“Not only is the military emitting toxic material directly into the air and water,” reports Project Censored, “it’s poisoning the land of nearby communities, resulting in increased rates of cancer, kidney disease, increasing birth defects, low birth weight and miscarriage.” The non-profit Military Toxics Project is working with the U.S. government to identify problem sites and educate neighbors about the risks.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military manages 25 million acres of land that provides habitat for some 300 threatened or endangered species. The military has harmed endangered animal populations by bomb tests (and been sued for it), reports Project Censored, and military testing of low-frequency underwater sonar technology has been implicated in the stranding deaths of whales worldwide. Despite being linked to such problems, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has repeatedly sought exemptions from Congress for compliance with federal laws including the Migratory Bird Treaties Act, the Wildlife Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

It’s unclear whether the U.S. military is taking heed of criticisms in regard to pollution and endangered species management, but it is undoubtedly concerned about climate change, as its effects on the environment could lead to unprecedented natural resource wars and mass migrations of people. And reducing our reliance on potentially hostile foreign oil sources is a short term national security imperative as well. A recent Obama administration directive calls for the DoD to draw 20 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020. Nikihl Sonnad of the GreenFuelSpot website reports that the Army and Air Force are planning to include solar arrays on several bases in sunny western states. The Air Force is also building the nation’s largest biomass energy plants in Florida and Georgia, and the Navy is building three large geothermal energy plants and funding research into extracting energy from ocean waves.

Some of the military’s R&D into renewables is for battlefield applications. Outfitting troops with the capability to produce their own on-site power from solar and wind sources not only makes sourcing oil less of a necessity but also should serve to reduce casualties from fuel transport operations. Over 1,000 American troops have lost their lives delivering fuel in the past few years alone (in part because enemy combatants often use fuel trucks as attack targets), says Sonnad.

Elisabeth Rosenthal reports in The New York Times that “there is great hope that some of the renewable energy technology being developed for battle will double back and play a role in civilian life.” She adds that the armed forces have enough purchasing power to create genuine markets in the non-military world.


CONTACTS: Project Censored, www.projectcensored.org; U.S. DoD, www.defense.gov; Military Toxics Project, www.stopmilitarytoxics.org/about.html; GreenFuelSpot, www.greenfuelspot.com.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.






Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell Phone: 651-587-5541

E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

Check out my Blog:
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Sarah Palin coins ‘word of the year’

"Refudiate"

"Brazilian and U.S. Elections: Opposite Outcomes"

A dialog with Professor Immanuel Wallerstein...(see Professor Wallerstein's "Commentary No. 293, Nov 15, 2010, below)

Professor Wallerstein,

I don't know much about the Brazilian elections and their politics or economics; but, I do know a little something about what is going on here in the United States which you don't seem to want to talk about:
Obama was hand-picked by Wall Street to do its dirty work; that he hoodwinked (actually he probably didn't have to work very hard in dpoing this) a large section of liberal, progressive, left intellectuals (including you) and "leaders" of the U.S. labor movement and all these foundation supported organizations into supporting him doesn't mean that he ever had good intentions of making good on his "hope" and "change" which you suggest his "failure" (or is it really his success?) is more the result of the economy than his bad intentions.

I guess this means you and the "Progressives for Obama" will be supporting Barack Obama in 2012?
If Lula is as beholden to ruling class and Wall Street interests as Obama is, then perhaps it is wrong for Brazilians to support him, too?

Its alright for Obama to support a neo-liberal agenda of capitalist globalization but it is not ok for Republicans to support the very same agenda--- same agenda but Obama has nicer, more people-friendly sounding rhetoric.

I supported both Al Gore and I was a delegate for John Kerry--- both of whom would have been more friendly to resolving the problems of working people than Barack Obama under the best of economic circumstances.

You say Barack Obama had a liberal voting record... there is no proof of this... a select few of his votes when his vote didn't even matter was on the liberal side intended for looks... you want us to believe the same thing about Barack Obama's voting record as a state senator and a U.S. Senator that you want us to believe of his support for healthcare reform--- the problem is, the majority of his voting record in the Illinois Senate like in the U.S. Senate was pro-corporate; not pro-people.

You bring all these issues forward that obscure the real issues: "centrism," "charismatic," "popular," "true political convictions."

But, isn't it at times when "the overall structural situation overwhelms" that we really know what politicians convictions and abilities really are based upon how they respond to the problems being encountered by working people? And you seem willing to let Obama off the hook for everything he has done that is all wrong--- in Wall Street's best interest; and, for everything Obama has not done for working people--- which just happens to be in Wall Street's best interest, too.

As someone who is looked towards for leadership in the anti-globalization movement as you are; it seems to me you have a responsibility to provide a more analytical accounting when it comes to Obama.

I would point out that Brazil's Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva is not waging dirty, immoral, unjust, illegal and unconstitutional imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which your commentary does not even mention which had a little something to do with the failure of working people--- liberal, progressive and left--- to turn out at the polls. Has it occurred to you that the American people are just plain fed up with war mongers and these wars which the Democrats refused to address in this election campaign just might have had more to do with the balloting than: "its the economy stupid."

Actually, did it occur to you that people were answering the question: How is Barack Obama's war economy working; when they stayed home on Election Day?

It is not simply about the economy; it is about this war economy.

I think I detect a bit of resentment in your commentary that the American people--- especially working people, who in their overwhelming majority are liberal, progressive and left--- who have not fallen for the line you and the "Progressives for Obama" put forward regarding how benign liberal and left Barack Obama is when most working people understand he is nothing but a right-wing, warmongering, reactionary, anti-labor flim-flam man and con artist posing as the President of the United States when he has multiple jobs working for Wall Street--- including being a corporate health insurance salesman when he isn't saddling the American tax-payer with huge debts from which Wall Street bankers will reap tremendous profits as our standard of living declines as a direct result from the austerity measures that have to be imposed so the bankers can collect--- and profit.

It's all about the PROFITS Wall Street derives from a war economy; profits that are a direct result from the growing poverty.

The "Brazilian and U.S. Elections: Opposite Outcomes"... because the U.S. has a Wall Street driven war economy to contend with and Barack Obama is not liberal or left... Brazil's "Lula" is perhaps a little liberal and a little left and having provided the Brazilian people with some much needed help--- something Obama has refused to do... but, then again, some of those small left organizations and parties in Brazil have some real clout, too, because their political homes are among the working class.
Also, Professor Wallerstein; you didn't mention the continuing home foreclosures and evictions nor Obama's failure to enforce affirmative action (Executive Order #11246).
Obama needs to be dumped by facing a primary challenge in the Democratic Party from real liberals and leftists--- not "centrists"--- who are being dogged and challenged by liberals and leftists friendly to them working in a progressive electoral coalition outside of the Democratic Party with both capable of making an intelligent and unifying decision based upon what is good for working people and the country on what to do going into the 2012 General Election... it is this liberal, progressive and left coalition that has always been the source of real change capable of delivering real reforms.

Needless to say, Barack Obama never made any suggestions to put the unemployed to work solving the problems of the people paid for with funds cut from ending these wars and taxing the rich... we could have had National Public Health Care and National Public Child Care creating some 15,000,000 new jobs for less than what these wars are costing us... a real alternative to Obama's Wall Street agenda.

Te longer all of you liberals, progressives and leftists continue supporting Obama and these Wall Street Democrats the longer the suffering of the American people will continue as problems go unresolved--- not only does Obama suffer a huge problem with his credibility but those of you who are liberal, progressive and left will continue to suffer from a lack of credibility the longer you support Obama.

Yours in solidarity and struggle with a much different view of Barack Obama,

Alan L. Maki


Quoting Becky Dunlop :
Please do not reply to the listserv. To correspond with the author, write immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu. To correspond with us about your email address on the listserv, write dunlop@binghamton.edu. Thank you.

Commentary No. 293, Nov. 15, 2010
"Brazilian and U.S. Elections: Opposite Outcomes"

     On October 31, President Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva won a sweeping victory in the Brazilian elections. On November 2, President Barack Obama was soundly defeated in the U.S. elections. The curious thing is that neither one of them was standing in the elections. In Brazil, Lula had had two terms, the maximum allowed, and was supporting Dilma Rousseff as his successor. In the United States, the 2010 elections were midterm legislative elections, not a presidential election.
     There are some striking similarities in the two men and the two political situations. Lula was elected president of Brazil in 2002 as the candidate of hope and change. Obama was elected president of the United States in 2008 as the candidate of hope and change.
     Both men were outsiders in terms of the traditional political processes of their countries. Lula was the first president of working-class background and of little formal education. Obama was the first African-American president of his country.
     In their campaigns, both rallied large-scale popular support. In Lula's case, this was not his first, but his third attempt to become president. He had been a trade-union leader and the leader of a workers' party, the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT). Obama has been a community organizer and a senator with a very left ("liberal") voting record in the legislature. Both received support from militants in social movements and appealed particularly to young voters. Both emphasized the misdeeds of the previous president in their country - Fernando Henrique Cardoso in the case of Brazil and George W. Bush in the case of the United States - and in both cases their election was seen as a repudiation of the policies of the previous president.
     In neither case did the newly-elected president have a clear path in the legislature. In the Brazilian case, the electoral system led to a legislature with multiple parties and the PT had no more than a quarter of the seats. In the U.S. case, the rules of the U.S. Senate allowed the opposition party to block or force major concessions in any legislation the U.S. president wanted to see enacted. Both men felt they had to make political compromises.
     In both cases, a major fear of the newly-elected president was that the already difficult economic situation of their countries would turn to disaster. Lula feared runaway inflation and runaway investors. Obama feared collapse of the banks and runaway unemployment. The way each responded to these fears was to turn to a relatively conservative ("neoliberal") economic approach and the appointment of relatively conservative people in the key economic positions of their administration.
     This almost immediate "neoliberal" approach dismayed a large part of their electoral base. In each case, the two men sought to reassure their more left supporters that this "neoliberal" approach was essential but transitional, and that they would see that eventually their hopes for more fundamental change would be realized.
     These assurances were taken with increasing skepticism and public dissent by these supporters, and particularly by leading left intellectuals and leaders of social movements. In the Brazilian case, some of them publicly resigned from the PT and threw their support to smaller left-wing parties. The response of both Lula and Obama was to point to various kinds of programs they had put into effect which were intended to improve the lot of the poorer parts of the population, such as the campaign against hunger in the case of Brazil and the new health legislation in the case of the United States. The skeptics pointed in each case to the important benefits that had accrued to the wealthier segments of their countries.
     When, however, the actual elections took place, many of the left skeptics returned to the fold. In Brazil, a group of very prominent left intellectuals issued a public appeal to vote for Dilma Rousseff 0n the grounds that her opponent would wreak disaster for Brazil. A similar position was taken by the most important social movement, the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra (MST), which had been badly let down by Lula but nonetheless thought that things would be still worse if Rousseff were not elected.
     In the U.S. case, intellectuals who had supported the third-party candidacy of Ralph Nader in 2000 because they felt that there was no significant difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush publicly repented of this approach and argued for supporting Democrats in the legislative elections. So did leaders of social movements - among African-Americans, Latinos, and gays - despite their public disappointment with the limited fulfillment of Obama's promises.
     All this seems remarkably similar, yet the outcome could not have been more different. Rousseff won handily in Brazil and Obama, in his own words, received a "shellacking." Why? It could not be clearer. There was one enormous difference in the two situations. Brazil's economic situation had markedly improved in the past few years, and the U.S. economic situation had become markedly worse. There could not have been a clearer demonstration of the Carville thesis: "It's the economy, stupid."
     It was not Obama's "centrism" that explains why voters turned against him. Lula has been every bit as "centrist" in his politics. It was not Obama's lack of charisma. He had seemed very "charismatic" in 2008. Lula was popular because things seemed to be going well. And Obama was unpopular because they seemed to be going badly. It is not that one sold out and the other did not. It was not a question of their true political convictions. Sometimes, the overall structural situation overwhelms the abilities of talented politicians to do much about them.
by Immanuel Wallerstein


[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.

These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]



--
Becky Dunlop
Secretary, Fernand Braudel Center
Binghamton University
PO Box 6000
Binghamton NY 13902
http://fbc.binghamton.edu
Contact:
Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell Phone: 651-587-5541

E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

Check out my Blog:
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Friday, November 12, 2010

Can anything be salvaged from this wreck? I doubt it. The deficit commission should be told to fold its tents and go away.

Friday, November 12, 2010


"Can anything be salvaged from this wreck? I doubt it. The deficit commission should be told to fold its tents and go away." 

Paul Krugman

 

Alan L. Maki
Alan L. Maki Paul Krugman says about Obama's cat food commission... "Count me among those who always believed that President Obama made a big mistake when he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform — a supposedly bipartisan panel charged with coming up with solutions to the nation’s long-run fiscal problems.


    • Alan L. Maki


      Krugman's conclusion is correct:

    • "Can anything be salvaged from this wreck? I doubt it. The deficit commission should be told to fold its tents and go away."





    • Question:

    • So, who is going to send the message to Obama to get rid of the "cat food commission?"

    • Comment:

    • Probably we won't see the "cat food commission" go away any time soon unless liberals, progressives and the left place an alternative agenda before the American people for discussion as part of a strategy to explore the possibility of political life beyond the Democratic Party.
       
    •  
    •  
    •  
    • The Hijacked Commission
      By PAUL KRUGMAN
      Published: November 11, 2010
      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=2&emc=eta1

    • Count me among those who always believed that President Obama made a big mistake when he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform — a supposedly bipartisan panel charged with coming up with solutions to the nation’s long-run fiscal problems. It seemed obvious, as soon as the commission’s membership was announced, that “bipartisanship” would mean what it so often does in Washington: a compromise between the center-right and the hard-right.
      My misgivings increased as we got a better feel for the views of the commission’s co-chairmen. It soon became clear that Erskine Bowles, the Democratic co-chairman, had a very Republican-sounding small-government agenda. Meanwhile, Alan Simpson, the Republican co-chairman, revealed the kind of honest broker he is by sending an abusive e-mail to the executive director of the National Older Women’s League in which he described Social Security as being “like a milk cow with 310 million tits.”
      We’ve known for a long time, then, that nothing good would come from the commission. But on Wednesday, when the co-chairmen released a PowerPoint outlining their proposal, it was even worse than the cynics expected.
      Start with the declaration of “Our Guiding Principles and Values.” Among them is, “Cap revenue at or below 21% of G.D.P.” This is a guiding principle? And why is a commission charged with finding every possible route to a balanced budget setting an upper (but not lower) limit on revenue?
      Matters become clearer once you reach the section on tax reform. The goals of reform, as Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson see them, are presented in the form of seven bullet points. “Lower Rates” is the first point; “Reduce the Deficit” is the seventh.
      So how, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?
      Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases — tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans — the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest — and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.
      It will take time to crunch the numbers here, but this proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans. And what does any of this have to do with deficit reduction?
      Let’s turn next to Social Security. There were rumors beforehand that the commission would recommend a rise in the retirement age, and sure enough, that’s what Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson do. They want the age at which Social Security becomes available to rise along with average life expectancy. Is that reasonable?
      The answer is no, for a number of reasons — including the point that working until you’re 69, which may sound doable for people with desk jobs, is a lot harder for the many Americans who still do physical labor.
      But beyond that, the proposal seemingly ignores a crucial point: while average life expectancy is indeed rising, it’s doing so mainly for high earners, precisely the people who need Social Security least. Life expectancy in the bottom half of the income distribution has barely inched up over the past three decades. So the Bowles-Simpson proposal is basically saying that janitors should be forced to work longer because these days corporate lawyers live to a ripe old age.
      Still, can’t we say that for all its flaws, the Bowles-Simpson proposal is a serious effort to tackle the nation’s long-run fiscal problem? No, we can’t.
      It’s true that the PowerPoint contains nice-looking charts showing deficits falling and debt levels stabilizing. But it becomes clear, once you spend a little time trying to figure out what’s going on, that the main driver of those pretty charts is the assumption that the rate of growth in health-care costs will slow dramatically. And how is this to be achieved? By “establishing a process to regularly evaluate cost growth” and taking “additional steps as needed.” What does that mean? I have no idea.
      It’s no mystery what has happened on the deficit commission: as so often happens in modern Washington, a process meant to deal with real problems has been hijacked on behalf of an ideological agenda. Under the guise of facing our fiscal problems, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson are trying to smuggle in the same old, same old — tax cuts for the rich and erosion of the social safety net.
      Can anything be salvaged from this wreck? I doubt it. The deficit commission should be told to fold its tents and go away.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Camping with Oprah

This comes from the Sierra Club... I find it interesting that it is claimed that few people of color use our National Parks... why not? I like to camp all seasons of the year... I went camping with my grand-kids for two weeks this past summer. One problem I see is that it costs way too much to use our State and National Parks.

I guess the well-heeled people who comprise the bulk of the contributors to the Sierra Club wouldn't be too concerned about costs.


Alan

Camping with Oprah

When Oprah Winfrey made a surprise camping trip to Yosemite, it may have been the biggest media event in the park since Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir posed together at Glacier Point.

Oprah decided to make the trip after receiving an impassioned letter from park ranger (and Sierra Club Books author) Shelton Johnson about his frustration that so few people of color visit our national parks.

When Oprah arrived, Shelton was there to welcome her, introduce her to the famous Giant Grizzly sequoia, and explain how to keep her s'mores fixings from attracting hungry bears and paparazzi. No word on whether Shelton's novel, Gloryland, will ever be selected for You-Know-Who's Book Club, but no need to wait -- you can order a copy now and learn what it was like to be a buffalo solider in Yosemite.

Democrats' Own Racism Has Done Them In

Letter to the Editor, submitted exclusively to the Bemidji Pioneer Press for publication;

The next political battle about to shape up in Minnesota is over redistricting.

Racist Democrats joined with racist Republicans to scheme to divide the Native American Indian vote over the years in order to keep Native Americans out of the Minnesota House and Senate and out of the U.S. Congress.

If Democrats are going to recover from their trouncing in northern Minnesota--- Jim Oberstar, Mary Olson and Brita Sailer soundly defeated, with Persell and Skoe most likely to be next to go; Democrats will have to fight for a redistricting plan that includes a U.S. House District that includes everything from Duluth west... taking in the Indian Reservations of Net Lake, Leech Lake, Red Lake and White Earth... this will assure Native American Indians have a voice in the Minnesota State Legislature as well as a voice in Washington representing Native American Indians from Minnesota... all working people will then have a voice in government.

Obviously Minnesota House and Senate Districts 4-A and 4 need to have their boundaries redrawn to enable Native American Indians to have voices at the real seat of power.

There is nothing new about using redistricting to assure full representation of people of color in the political process; the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on this are very clear.

Redistricting to end racism and enhance democracy for everyone is the way to enforce affirmative action in the electoral process the same way affirmative action (Executive Order #11246) is intended to end poverty by ending discrimination in employment... the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party has a most dismal and disgraceful record in each area and "the chickens have come home to roost."

Now is the time for real change.

Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

Cougar seen on Wolf Lake trail camera

Published November 09 2010 
 
From the Bemidji Pioneer Press

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/article/id/100023437/group/News/

Cougar seen on Wolf Lake trail camera

As thousands of deer hunters fanned out across Minnesota’s woods Saturday, the buzz in tiny Wolf Lake was of a cougar captured on a trail camera two weeks ago. 

By: Sarah Smith, Park Rapids Enterprise


As thousands of deer hunters fanned out across Minnesota’s woods Saturday, the buzz in tiny Wolf Lake was of a cougar captured on a trail camera two weeks ago.

Scott Koskela set up the Bushnell trail cam near an alfalfa field on his father, Leroy’s property east of Wolf Lake.

Scott, who lives in Coon Rapids, didn’t check the images on the camera until about a week ago.
On Oct. 18 at 6:48 a.m. the infrared flash captured three images of a large cat with a rope-like tail sauntering through the field.

Scott Koskela said the images that he e-mailed to friends created an immediate stir.

“I didn’t realize the copies would circulate so fast,” he said a bit sheepishly. “I haven’t had time to call the DNR.”

Koskela declined to be photographed with his camera.

“I’m really not looking for publicity for myself,” he said.

One of the three images sits on the counter at the Wolf Lake Co-op.

Scott Brown, who lives nearby, said he’d seen a cougar on his property about two months ago.

“It was a small cougar, not like this one,” he said, nodding at the photo. “My kids have heard it when they’re out playing. They said it sounded like a woman screaming.”

Brown said when his father told the kids what the sound was, “they’re afraid to go outside,” he said.
If verified by the DNR, it would be the "fourth record" of a mountain lion's presence in Minnesota since August 18, 2010," said independent wildlife biologist Steve Loch of Babbitt.

The DNR believes that periodic cats wander this way from the Black Hills, but there’s no evidence of a breeding population in Minnesota.

Leroy Koskela said he recalls an occasional cougar in the area, but it’s been decades, he said.
Employees at the Co-op spoke of a large cat being seen near Sebeka lately.

“I had no doubt they’re around,” Scott Koskela said. He said he’s seen tracks periodically in the woods around the area.

The trail cam captured photos of the field before and after the cat wandered through and also caught several deer in the area.


More about Wolf Lake, Minnesota:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Lake,_Minnesota

Monday, November 8, 2010

No "democracy" in "e-democracy"

Mr. Perry, e-democracy Forum Manager;

I agree whole-heartedly with David Shove's characterization of e-democracy as a front for the MN DFL:
E-dem is run in pro DFL capitalist bourgeois imperial powers that be
manner; you censor serious challenges to system evil; you don't allow any
response; and you ban those who don't fit. And what's more, you like it
that way and know we have no response. "Democracy" hah!

I have known this for a long time, and have been banned several times.

I have come to know that I have to be sneaky and indirect to get around
e-dem's serious love affair with censored parts of the powers that be.

--ds

And a further response from David Shove to "e-democracy:"


This is not so much you personally as e-dem generally - the several
branches in the several cities with the several moderators over as many
years - 10? - as it has been in existence. If records are kept, I have
been banned and warned several times, and often because the official
policy is to treat public people just like private people, as if public
people did not have in law LESS protection from charges, so that the
public could have MORE ability to expose and mobilize against bad
government and corporate etc policy. I have been written that public =
private, so it's not just an impression I have but a statement from e-dem.

-ds


I would go even further than Mr. Shove and state the true nature of e-democracy is to enable a bunch of foundation fronts for the DFL to receive grants and this money is then channeled in a way that supports DFL candidates and serves to evade all accountability.

I was banned because I continued to use phrase "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" which Mr. Moen said was the same as "reparations" which for some reason is a banned topic on e-democracy even though "reparations" is a very important topic to many, many people who continue to suffer the affects of slavery, and the United States government does, according to many people--- including myself--- have a responsibility to award damages to this "class of people."

But, it was the epitome of racism for Mr. Rick Moen to ban me because I insisted on addressing the issue of "affirmative action" in opposition to HIS interpretation that "affirmative action" is the same as "reparations for slavery."

E-democracy is racist in every way, shape and form.

E-democracy is a front used by the DFL and its foundation whores financed by outfits like the extremely anti-labor and extremely racist Blandin Foundation.

Fortunately, as we have seen from this past Election on November 2, the way e-democracy is run by you two-faced racist hypocrites interested in maintaining the DFL as the same old corrupt party of slavery, banking, power generating, mining and forestry industries raping the land and exploiting the people while engaged in a genocidal campaign that continues to this very day as e-democracy has also banned all discussion of the "Compacts" the DFL created for the mobsters who manage the Indian Gaming Industry as it was even ruled an improper topic to continue talking about how workers are forced to work in these smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages without any rights under state or federal labor laws all created by a bunch of crooked and corrupt elements inside of the Minnesota DFL like "Skip" Humphrey--- none of this is allowed for discussion on e-democracy where it is prohibited, under the guise of "civility" to call corrupt politicians corrupt and racists racist... e-democracy through its racist and undemocratic behavior that EVERYONE identifies with Brian Melendez and the Zionist AIPAC apologists for the Israeli killing machine (language also "banned" on e-democracy in the name of "civility"--- well, e-democracy through its racist and undemocratic--- as well as anti-labor--- disposition as a front for the Summit Hill Club and the MNDFL Business Caucus, has contributed to doing the DFL in at the polls... and for this I and 40,000 casino workers in Minnesota rejoice as the very racist and very anti-labor and pro-business DFL candidates you have sought to shield from the criticism have now been defeated:

James Oberstar
State Senator Mary Olson
House Member Brita Sailer
House Member David Olin
House Member Bernie Leider

Good riddance; instead of using e-democracy where there is no democracy; we took our campaign to defeat these racist bastards and bigots out to the people in a variety of other ways.

Thank you e-democracy for forcing us out into the communities where our electoral actvities met with great success as we encouraged voters not to vote for these racist bigots whose campaigns were financed by the racist John McCarthy and the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association which manipulated and maneuvered to have me banned from e-democracy.

Another subject taboo on e-democracy is the fact that not one single Native American Indian has a seat in the 200-member plus Minnesota State Legislature in spite of the fact that Minnesota has one of the largest Native American Indian populations in the United States of America with 11 Indian Nations that are supposed to be "sovereign" yet have to come begging to the State of Minnesota and the United States government for "permission" for everything they do... another topic I was warned not to comment on on your "e-democracy" which is obviously mis-named.

Mr. Perry, you can take your "e-democracy" and shove it far up into a place where the sun never shines.

In closing I would note that you have allowed Sally Fineday, another mouthpiece for the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association, to conduct the most disgusting campaign of lies against me personally and the Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council at the behest of her handlers, John McCarthy and Stanley Crooks who exploits over 5,000 casino workers in his Mystic Lake Casino empire and forces them to sign, as conditions of employment, a statement saying that they understand they will be immediately terminated if they are found to be engaging in any union organizing efforts... something that is completely contrary to every human right and labor rights standard as recognized by the civilized international community--- again, a topic you have banned from discussion on your "e-democracy."

Mr. Perry, why don't you explain the stance of "e-democracy" on "net neutrality?" Lol!

Other topics "e-democracy" has banned from discussion include:

ending U.S. aid to Israel and divestment of state funds from Israel
a national public health care system
a national public day care system

On the other hand, even after I was banned from "e-democracy;" all of you "moderators" allowed me to be attacked without let up based upon the most vicious anti-communist, racist, anti-Semitic and anti-labor campaign... true to the Minnesota Democratic Party's founding roots of defending slavery and the genocidal campaigns waged against the Native American Indian people and its support for big-agribusiness against small family farmers and its unrelenting campaign against organized labor that culminated with the "great liberal" Hubert H. Humphrey writing the Communist Control Act which still governs "e-democracy."

I am glad to see that ever larger numbers of people are coming to see "e-democracy" for what it really is... as David Shove has pointed out, you are nothing but "shills for the MNDFL."

Mr. Perry, have I provided you with enough "specifics?" I hope you will take this e-mail to the full board of "e-democracy" and provide copies to the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association, Brian Melendez the Chair of the MNDFL and the Blandin Foundation.

In closing, I would note that I was prohibited from advocating for Mark Dayton's candidacy on "e-democracy" because I noted he was for the enforcement of "Affirmative Action" (Executive Order # 11246) so I don't find it strange that "e-democracy" is now trying to thwart and stymie any discussion about how the DFL leadership, working with Karl Roves attorneys under the guise of a "fair election" is trying to deny Mark Dayton his position as Governor of Minnesota an elected position he won by 9,000 votes... since when is winning by a slim margin now an opportunity to challenge an election without having to cite any irregularities... but, what the heck, it is no different than another topic that has been ruled as banned from e-democracy: the right of employers to challenge unemployment benefits due employees without having to provide a reason... and, it is right in line with another topic banned from discussion on "e-democracy," the Draconian "at-will hiring; at-will firing" legislation which remains on the books because it is supported by the DFL Summit Hill Club and the MNDFL Business Caucus along with their Republican friends... all now working in cahoots with Republicans to deny Mark Dayton his hard worked for victory where you moderators preach "civility" but you allowed Mark Dayton to be attacked to no end as being "crazy;" and then, when challenged, you claimed it was acceptable behavior because Mark Dayton admitted to be under the care of a psychiatrist and was being medicated as a result... how pitifully bigoted and biased "e-democracy" is while claiming just the opposite.

Oh, yes; and lest we forget... it was in 2007 I was warned I could not call Barack Obama "a flim-flam man and con-artist working for Wall Street."

Mr. Perry; since you obviously were inviting my comments by sending this e-mail exchange on to me I decided to provide my input even though trying to discuss anything with you DFL party hacks is a waste of time; but, I am passing my comments along to others... and for those not receiving this "Bcc'ed;" you can tell your friends to read this on my popular blog that has more readers than "e-democracy" has participants:

http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
So, like with your daily newspaper, when reading anything on "e-democracy," make sure you "read between the lines."

Sincerely,

Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council



Quoting Matt Perry :
> Mr. Shove,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback.
>
> It appears you are implying bias, but without specifics, I cannot
> respond to such a charge. You don't know my politics from the forum. I
> make a point of not posting to the forum although that is my right so as
> to even further reduce the possibility of the perception of bias. Please
> do share any data you have related to this concern.
>
> I would value getting specific examples of the general concerns you
> raise. If I am being inconsistent or favoring one group (or issue
> position) over another then I can make adjustments. That helps me do a
> better job as forum manager.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Matt Perry
> East Harriet Farmstead/Minneapolis
> Forum Manager
>
> David Shove wrote:
>
> >E-dem is run in pro DFL capitalist bourgeois imperial powers that be
> >manner; you censor serious challenges to system evil; you don't allow any
> >response; and you ban those who don't fit. And what's more, you like it
> >that way and know we have no response. "Democracy" hah!
> >
> >I have known this for a long time, and have been benned several times.
> >
> >I have come to know that I have to be sneaky and indirect to get around
> >e-dem's serious love affair with censored parts of the powers that be.
> >
> >--ds
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 8 Nov 2010, Matt Perry wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Folks,
> >>
> >>There are many aspects of the Minnesota Politics & Issues Forum that make it a
> unique and positive experience for "information sharing and discussion of
> Minnesota public policy issues and politics."
> >>
> >>A key component are the civility rules of this forum. The use of inflamed
> speech is a violation of the forum participation rules. For example, posing
> questions like "Do you take personal responsibility for the deaths caused by
> Democratic policies" is inflamed speech.
> >>
> >>If you cannot make your point in a civil manner, then this is not the forum
> for you.
> >>
> >>4. Be Civil - No insults, name calling or inflamed speech. Personal one-on-one
> arguments, disagreements or personality conflicts are not appropriate on the
> public discussion forum. The Forum Manager shall provide guidance to
> participants on what is appropriate and what is not allowed. Attempts at humor
> or sarcasm should be labeled ... ;-), :-), etc.
> >>
> >>It is possible to make your point in an impassioned, even unvarnished way
> while keeping it civil. Please let us all do so.
> >>
> >>As a reminder, discussion of the forum management in the forum is not allowed.
> Instead, please contact me directly and *offlist* if you have questions or
> comments about this post or other forum management issues.
> >>
> >>Thank you.
> >>
> >>Matt Perry
> >>East Harriet Farmstead/Minneapolis
> >>Forum Manager
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt Perry
> >>East Harriet Farmstead, Minneapolis
> >>About Matt Perry: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/4U0LZe6OT3dFlu3DaAjylX
> >>
> >>View full topic, share on Facebook, Twitter, etc:
> >> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1HcwODRY0XfUAPBz6V3TCZ
> >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >> To post, e-mail: mn-politics@forums.e-democracy.org or "Reply-to-All" to
> post publicly.
> >> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" OR "digest on" in subject
> instead.
> >>
> >> Forum home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mn-politics
> >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >>Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting thanks:
> http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >>Follow us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/edemocracyorg
> >>
> >> Rules: Be civil - No name calling, personal attacks, etc.
> >> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mn-politics/charter
> >>Complaints to: mn-politics-fm@e-democracy.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell Phone: 651-587-5541

E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

Check out my Blog:
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/