Just linked to us from Paul Brochu, a very dedicated activist and NH IWW leader. Paul proposes that possibly there’s another avenue to getting our work done on key issues on the national level besides relying on career politicians.
The 2014 mid-term elections are officially in the books. Barack Obama’s Democratic party (or so the RNC would have voters believe) took a shellacking on a national level and more ethically suspect politicians have been sent to snuggle up with K Street in January. This next American Congress will continue its dysfunction as the millionaires that are overseeing the operation of a civilization are locked in a perpetual theater of struggle. Fortunately, the continuing momentum of progressive ballot measures in deeply conservative states suggests that the glorified petty popularity contests politics have become can be bypassed with direct mandates from the people.
The grinding machine of traditional electoral and legislative politics has refined itself through years of research and experience in publicity, image manipulation and importance of access to a powerful few. The causes become entwined with the people and whole movements can be stymied through either…
Tomorrow marks the termination of the Tower of London, a remembrance of British troops who served in World War I. Ceramic poppies were made and planted in honor of each soldier killed in the conflict. While the establishment makes their own remembrance of war, we prefer those who make the deeper observations about war and human assumptions and social systems that support it.
The Irony of the image of a bloody moat around a kings safe house and prison, the power protected by the sea of blood, the blood of men and women .. real living people, their lives utterly thrashed in the name of power.
The fact is that we live within a social system of hierarchical power, which is violent, extremely dangerous and at present causing great harms. It’s a similar dynamic to an abuse relationship that has become Institutionalized *(-if a number of people, who share a psychological issue, build a social structure, it will carry and express their psychology within it.)
and then, over time, as the Institutions garner more power, they never let go of it, and in time the Institutions ‘needs’ – to enhance it’s power and status, to run a bigger budget, deal with competition, etc – takes priority and so the cycle continues, to replace human community needs, and the institutional behavior becomes more embedded.
This is very strange, almost like a river of blood spewing from one of the windows of the Tower of London, a venue of torture and horror. We rarely question the relationship between dependency and deception; in the space between power is able to rise and take hold. Power exists because we are not sovereign. Tyrants, those that pretend to be your friend (your government) and those that don’t (your dictator), exist because we put them there. Don’t say i am fighting to preserve my way of life, that way of life is corrupt. If you want to end war give up being British. Queen, country, all that rot.
Its always said where there’s smoke there’s fire but in the case of the Republicans, when they start having a hissy over some proposed new rule or regulation its best to take a second look. In the Hill a piece entitled “Cruz Warns of Obamacare for Internet“. In typical slavish obedience to his corporate masters, Cruz hammers away hysterically at the last vestiges of reason left in his audience. The Hill reports Cruz as carrying on, “Net Neutrality’ is Obamacare for the Internet,” Cruz said on Twitter Monday morning. “The Internet should not operate at the speed of government.”
The Hill also adds that, “Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who is expected to become the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee next year, added his fear that Obama’s demand “would turn the Internet into a government-regulated utility and stifle our nation’s dynamic and robust Internet sector with rules written nearly 80 years ago for plain old telephone service.”
Yet when one reads further into the story and does a little scoping for the truth what comes up is quite a different story. Net Neutrality is obviously not a healthcare plan for the intertubes although nearly all of us might need some serious healthcare if we wake up to find our internet dominated by Disney and the History Channel.
The current dispute over the Obama administration’s proposal to reclassify ISP’s as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act would allow the federal government to install guidelines to ensure that ISP’s do not attempt to split internet access into a multi-tiered platform. If this were to happen (which is want the large ISP’s want, large providers able to pay high fees will get high speed access to offer at higher rates to their customers (corporations) while the smaller and less monied providers will be left with slower ISP service. Most likely the cost will be so high that only large providers with specifically geared marketing content interests will dominate the internet that you and I will see the most of.
On the Free Press blog today is another explanation:
During his first run for the White House, Barack Obama promised that he would take “a back seat to no one” on Net Neutrality.
Today, the president finally got in the driver’s seat.
Early this morning, President Obama issued a clear and powerful statement of support for real Net Neutrality — one that left no wiggle room or confusion about where he stands.
The short summary for anyone who has been following the debate over Net Neutrality: THIS IS HUGE.
The president’s statement is worth quoting at length:
An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.
‘Net Neutrality’ has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today I am asking the Federal Communications Commission to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect Net Neutrality.
As a result, access to news that covers all interests and most importantly questions the powerful in that society (in America most likely big business and its close ties with government) will not get aired. Content will be tacitly reviewed and any content that might be perceived as too challenging, controversial or digging too deep will not get aired.
Like television today where the costs prohibit an individual or small group to have their own station only those with the funds and able to keep the funds rolling in have stations. Like television as well the interests will more than likely be commercial to pay the high fees demanded of the large ISP’s and thus content will be geared to market that pays, which will mean gearing content to the lowest common denominator.
The demise of PBS stations have reflected the move most people have made to the internet, but it also reflects the commercial and marketing nature of television; without large funds rolling in the station dries up. While we won’t get into a conversation about whether the government should have continued to support public broadcasting, the fact that its support has been drastically cut is reflected in its content. Gone is cutting edge journalism and creative and diverse content. Do we want our internet to become the same dead space that Springsteen once railed about in his song “57 Channels and Nothing on?”; a dead space of empty advertising and brainless programing?
Even beyond the most basic is the fact that the FCC itself seems to have far too much undue influence by the large ISP companies and cable companies that want to make the internet their private profiteering route. Suffice it to say, the is far from dead or dormant and people need to pay attention and take action where needed.
Carl Gibson, co-founder of US Uncut and writer wrote an open letter to Democrats that he allowed us to re-post here. We think its very relevant to not only the New Hampshire Democratic party but a much wider demographic than just young folks, we think most all Democrats and progressives, including many in the upper years would agree with the point Carl makes: From Reader Supported News
Open Letter to Democrats From a Disillusioned Young Voter
ear Democrats,
Are you listening? President Obama says he hears us. He says that people don’t have a reason to show up to vote if the politicians they have to choose from don’t motivate them. He’s partially right. But that’s only part of a much larger problem. To all you would-be elected officials looking for my generation’s support at the polls, listen closely – get populist or get ready to lose bad.
2014’s low voter turnout was historic. Voter turnout actually hasn’t been this low since the 1940s. As Mother Jones pointed out, voter turnout for people under 30 was dismal. In this election, people like me only made up 12 percent of those who voted, while people aged 60 and older made up almost 40 percent of total voters. In 2012, when President Obama was re-elected and Congressional Democrats made gains in the House and Senate, millennials made up almost one-fifth of all voters, and voters 60 and older made up just 25 percent of the electorate, bringing us a little closer to a tie. It isn’t hard to see the difference – this year, Republicans steamrolled you, Democrats, because most of us stayed home and let our Fox-watching uncles and grandparents decide on who was going to represent everyone else.
So how do older people pick who runs Congress? Like every other voting bloc, they pick the ones who run on issues most important to them. And as Vox reported, data consistently shows that younger people want their tax dollars spent on education and job creation. Older voters want their money spent on Social Security and war. The Republicans who swept the U.S. Senate ran largely on fear campaigns over ISIS, promising to be more hawkish than their opponents in an eagerness to pour money and troops into Iraq and Syria to snuff out America’s newest boogeyman.
Our esteemed susanthebruce blog just posted a great analysis of Chris Cantwell, an individual of some controversy within the Free State Project, mostly because he takes the Non-Aggression Principle to its logical end and well, that makes some Free Staters a little uncomfortable. The Free Staters like to say Cantwell was banned from the Free State Project but as the photos below illustrate and as Susanthebruce points out, that just doesn’t appear to be the case or they’ve changed their minds.
Anyway, more of Susan’s excellent points on Cantwell below:
Cop Killing With Cantwell
This is Chris Cantwell. This is his Halloween costume, worn at a recent Free State Project convention in Keene.
He moved to NH as part of the Free State Project, the armed band of miscreants that are moving, en masse, to colonize NH, take over and dismantle our state government, then threaten secession.
Cantwell wants to kill cops. Well, not really – he wants to “inspire” other people into killing cops.
Someone going by the moniker “Charlie McFreman ” (we see what you did there, apparently ‘freeman’ has run its course hasn’t it?) sent us this Facebook message they received in what they are assuming is in regard to the blog posts about Free Staters:
You are nothing but a bigoted piece of s***t. F*** you and your irrational hatred. I saw what you said about someone I know to be an amazing and wonderful person based solely on a label. Do you hate niggers too? F*****g biggot. How do you look at yourself in the mirror?
Charlie McFreman
This represents the ‘movement’ their adherents want people to think is full of love and light. Also, as was stated repeatedly on the person’s Facebook page (which we assume generated this because the post was placed there), the writer did not attack Elizabeth Edwards’ personally BUT made the point that one’s integrity in their actions speaks volumes about their inner character. Also, these people strongly advocate carrying guns, open carrying and concealed carry everywhere and spew this kind of hatred. But they want us to belief they are harmless.
Edwards might want to make sure that those representing her as a kind and wonderful individual at least make an attempt to present themselves that way as well. Otherwise it kind of cancels out the message entirely. But then again, they may carry on, why stop them? Be as you will, everyone can see it.
Also, B-I-G-O-T. Since its obvious the writer is one, he might as well learn to spell it correctly.
New Hampshire Tax Payer’s Coalition, NH Tea Party and political gadfly and general annoyance Richard Girard created a flurry of excitement at hopefully finding an example of the voter fraud Republicans are certain is destroying democracy and getting Democrats into power. Unfortunately for them and their impending fame and fortune, what actually occurred was a recording error among voter history. Breathlessly anticipating we’re sure, an inquiry and criminal proceedings that would bring down the liberal cabal holding Americans against complete corporate utopia and cause a surge in their popularity among the wing-nut brigade , Richard Girard (nitpicking bore with a radio show and podcast that uses the bandwidth of a hair dryer and about as much hot air), the Tea Baggers and the The League of the Shamelessly Greedy NH TPC have found their momentum upward halted quite quickly. Fortunately for all of them (although not for us) the tumble to the ground was a short one.
As Granite State Progress notes, the group harassed a regular guy just doing his civic duty to engage in the voting process, “For the last month, Naile, CNHT, and the NH Tea Party have relentlessly alleged fraud by a former New Hampshire voter, using social media graphics and posts on Granite Grok and Girard at Large to defame an American citizen who did his civic duty to vote in every election.”
Illegal voting allegations out of Wilton
Thursday, November 6, 2014
By JESSIE SALISBURY
Correspondent
WILTON – According to an organization called Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, and as shown on their website http://www.cnht.com, resident Jared Cram voted twice in presidential elections in 2008 and 2012, both in Wilton and near Philadelphia.
So Ben Stein thinks that Obama is the most racist president in the history of this great republic. He thinks so because allegedly Obama “is purposely trying to use race to divide Americans,” and is using the ‘race card’ to convince all African Americans to vote for the Democratic Party. Ben Stein is wrong.
Obama is not the racist one, but Stein is tapping into a new discourse of racist ideology arising from the right in this country. In this discourse, anyone who mentions race as an issue in contemporary American life risks being called a racist. Anyone who points out racial inequality is at risk of being branded racist. In the mindset of those who trumpet this new discourse, we’re all equal, no matter our ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, or racial background. And any attempt to point out inequality is therefore racist/sexist/homophobic, etc, by definition.
There is no disagreement within the labor movement that we took a very big hit in the November 4 elections. Labor’s worst enemies among the politicians — Scott Walker in Wisconsin and John Kasich in Ohio, who led the charge against public employees’ bargaining rights — registered significant victories. A large number of other Republicans across the country share their anti-labor bias.
But what about the Democratic Party, supposedly the party that represents the interests of workers? It was repudiated by millions of workers who either stayed home on Election Day or cast their ballots for the Republicans.
In 2008, Obama was elected president, and Democrats won control of both Houses of Congress. Hope was in the air. But in short order, the Democratic Party betrayed its promises to labor —- without whom the Democrats could never have won the election. No legislation guaranteeing full employment was enacted. No infrastructure…
Traveling the wards on election day in Manchester gleaned some interesting snapshots, such as the one with Elizabeth Edwards at Ward 4; she was a great sport with the picture taking. But aside from the usual stock of candidate’s sign holders, Ward 6, at St. Pius Catholic Church on Candia Road, had an especially peculiar election day sign holder.
Right at the entrance to the walkway was poised a woman holding a gigantic, nearly 4′ x 5′ sign in front of her. The picture was so huge that it was visible all the way down the driveway across the large parking lot. A gigantic graphic photo of what appeared a D and C procedure blasted the viewing space of everyone heading into the polls.
Such images represent a sort of violent assault to one’s senses. If you notice in the picture, the woman is given wide berth by people doing their visibility obligations. Such a graphic image is deeply unsettling. Aside from the fact that a D&C is not a standard elective abortion procedure but used only in medical emergencies, thus such pictures are deceptive, should zealots be allowed to assault voters with such images? What if anti-war protesters decided to jump on the wagon too and carry graphic signage of children blasted apart by bombs? While all progressives and even libertarians hold strong anti-war positions, do they do this on a regular basis and if not why? Imagine such a scene if you will; the polling places would begin to look like a war zone and would possibly repel voters from even making the walk to the polling place entrance.
One of the two Democrats who stood holding signs said, “Yeah and whether you’re pro-life or not is such a sign necessary to prove your point; we’re all against child pornography but we don’t carry around images of the act to prove our point.” Exactly. The young man said that some of the people even on the Republican side occasionally walked over and tried to stand in front of the woman to at least hide her image from small children. But the woman would have none of it and would change position accordingly.
As it is, one has to wonder how parents with small children dealt with this imagery. Its a solid tradition in our country for parents to bring their children with them to the polling place, should voting be associated with graphic images of death, much less dead babies, which can be doubly upsetting to children? Is this the imprint of the voting experience that we want on children’s minds?
We called the Secretary of State’s office and spoke to the Deputy Secretary of State yesterday, she said that the moderator of the polling place has a lot of leeway in deciding what is disruptive in signage or other activities. We note that of all the polling places we visited in Manchester (barring Wards 11 and 12 which we weren’t able to get to), this was the only location that hosted this type of signage.
So the question must be asked, does this poster represent a disruption to voters that day? At what point does “free speech” intersect with the public’s interests for not being visually assaulted? Wouldn’t a poster or sign asking voters to vote pro-life been sufficient to satisfy free speech and get the message to voters?
ear Democrats,
Progressive Action New Hampshire 
