If you have 20 minutes, this clip from NBC featuring the narration of Dan Rather shows what is happening in Belorus today. I am posting it here for the selfish reason that I worry for the safety of my good friend and her family who live there. By the way, this is the Dan Rather that we want to see and hear.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Reup4fsgvVQ
Please share widely!
I wonder what we are to make of your last line (“By the way, this is the Dan Rather that we want to see and hear”) — this piece is classic Dan Rather, and is why he was such an influential voice. It is a large reason why CBS news was once an influential media force. Dan Rather was forced into near-obscurity because he dared to report the truth about George W. Bush’s National Guard service.
Could it be that you only want to hear Mr. Rather when he reports things you agree with?
The situation in Belarus is tragic and awful. Because I feel such empathy for the victims of the tyranny there, I find it difficult to reconcile your well-deserved concern for your friend and her family with your stance towards a multitude of current issues and events in America today.
The forces that effectively silenced Dan Rather in the US have more in common with the villains in Belarus than with the freedom fighters there. That effort was driven by the GOP, that you constantly defend here. When Barack Obama intervened successfully to stop similar abuses in Libya, it was the GOP who condemned him. Today, outrageous abuses continue in Syria — he is unable to act because of the intensity of GOP-led opposition to anything he does.
I hear, share and appreciate your concern for the citizens of Belarus. I wish that you were better at allowing that concern to inform your conclusions about who the “good guys” and “bad guys” are here in the US. Which of the US parties is more sympathetic to the Occupy movement here? Does Dan Rather’s report of the mother unable to buy sufficient groceries for her child resonate with the policies and proposals of the GOP or of the Democrats?
Dan Rather was silenced by the guys in the black hats — the ones with the elephant on their badges.
In fact, a certain mainstream candidate could only say, “everyone must obey the law” – don’t know what she would have said during the heavy days of civil rights when some of us were gassed and clubbed.
It has been Democratic mayors who took down Occupy camps, and were responsible for 7000+ arrests, on the whole.It is Democratic mayor Rahm Emmanuel who has caused massive increases in fines for protestors (from $50 to $1000, I believe) as well as incarceration times.
It is the Democratic mayor of Boston who says he will arrest anyone for stepping on the grass at Dewey and that there is no room for civil disobedience in Boston – and who set up protest pens at the National Democratic Convention.
Folks like me who remain in the “democratic wing of the Demcratic party” are not under any illusions as to whether or not civil liberties, the Bill of Rights, and free speech hold a high place of honor for either the State Democratic Party (or its platform) or the National Democratic Party. We also have a Democratic governor intent on diluting indigent defense and instituting a greet ’em and plead ’em cheapness system if he can force it through and eviscerating the independent defense bar.
The NDAA was signed. A drone was used to kill a U.S. citizen without due process. These are as dangerous a time to care about liberty as during the McCarthy Era – that is my opinion.
I share your concerns about the depth to which tyranny is invading the actions of the US government, including elected representatives of each party. I, too, vigorously oppose the actions and policies that you cite.
Yet my perception is (your mileage may vary) that the GOP and right wing is far more aggressive in attempting to suppress dissent and impose their repressive and self-serving agenda on the rest of us. As bad as our fellow Democrats have been (and I agree that the things you cite are appalling), the GOP and its rabid base of Tea Party supporters is worse.
It is, for example, the GOP that is aggressively pursing the “voter ID” program — a thin veneer of euphemism atop the all-too-familiar racist canards that have been used to disenfranchise minority voters for generations. It is the GOP (funded by right-wing extremists like the Koch brothers) that is doing all in its power to gut labor rights and silence working people across the nation (starting in Wisconsin). It is the GOP that is aggressively pursuing a war against women, collaborating with the most repressive elements of misogynistic religious institutions in an attempt to reverse all the gains women and feminism have made since the 1960s.
It was the GOP who effectively silenced Dan Rather, directly because he dared report the truth about George W. Bush.
The “moderate” figures and movements across Europe that Edgar presumably encourages and supports — especially in the nations of the former Soviet Union — are far to the left of today’s GOP (and virtually all of today’s Democrats).
I am not attempting to defend the abuses and wrongs of today’s Democrats. I am, instead, doing all I can to keep the problem from getting far far worse. I passionately agree with what I believe to be the fundamental premise of the Occupy Everything movement that the real war (and that’s what it is) is between the 1% and 99%, and the left/right political fighting is in many ways a perhaps intentional distraction from that reality.
Nevertheless, the GOP candidates and agenda that Edgar frequently defends here is a far greater threat to the things you and I hold dear than Barrack Obama and the overwhelming majority of current Democratic office holders (with some significant exceptions).
While I appreciate your unhappiness with Elizabeth Warren, I don’t recall seeing anything from Edgar in support of Marisa DeFranco. Have I missed something?
Why does one have to have ideological purity to be ok with you? Must one agree on every issue? I have said many times that I am not a Republican; indeed I was for many years a registered Democrat until 2010. I have contributed (not a large sum, to be sure) to the DeFranco campaign, and I have supported her candidacy here–but the problem is that David and his like-thinking cohorts do not like to hear the Marisa ia the more attractive candidate. That’s ok, I won’t make fun of them next November after Brown has been reelected. :):) For the record: I support universal medicare (and always have); I come from a union family so I tend to support most union positions; I think Obama has done a fantastic job in foreign relations; and I don’t believe in Gaeia (mother earth) as a religion. I also agree with you most, but not all, of the time. Let’s continue to disagree without being disagreeable.
And I spend more of my time with the bottom 50% than anyone else.
The “democratic wing of the Democratic party” used to pay attention to the bottom 70%, not just worship the top 10%!
Yes, the top .1% of the 1% wants to bust us all – but it is the bottom 20% that will take the brunt of the MBTAs proposal, and the bottom 60% that are not paid attention to by either party – but are the vast majority of those who show up for Occupy events.
John Walsh says that Martha Coakley lost or could have won by 50 votes a precinct. There are easily 500 votes a precinct from the members of the 30%-80% who are not in the EW fan club – they don’t drink wine, they are maybe so discouraged they don’t vote, but a candidate that connects with the bottom 80% could shoot Scott Brown out of a cannon and away across the ocean, it would be such a huge win. The top 20% won’t win this one, frankly. And the top 10% sure won’t.
Hint – there is no agreement at all as to what “the middle class” is but it is not someone earning $200,00 or more albeit they are not in the top 1% yet or that particularly toxic, narcissistic, selfish tribe comprising much of the top .1%
The whole middle-class thing is a call to people’s self-interest when, in fact, there is a higher-calling: ending, or at least alleviating, poverty.
But, anyway, the top 10% are not enough votes to win an election and I am already so tired of hearing the “middle class this” or “the middle class that” I frankly tune all of that out and so do a lot of other folks. The so-called middle class seems to be code for the top 10% at least to me.
…but by definition would have to fall in the, you know – MIDDLE. The question is how expansive is it on either side of the median income. The top 10% is by definition not the middle. My own image of middle class is a family who can afford a single-family home in the suburbs, albeit presumably with a mortgage. Amberpaw, methinks thou dost protest too much. Of course, the Democratic Party is closer to sympathetic with the Occupiers and the middle/lower classes. We are fighting for fairer taxes and economic justice, along with a culture of all being in this together than being on our own. Frankly, you come closer to the “not a dime’s worth of difference” attitude than I’m comfortable with, especially for someone who serves on the state committee. Since you brought up Elizabeth Warren, I have to say she has spent a good chunk of her career fighting exactly these battles on behalf of the middle class against those with financial power. She didn’t just magically appear overnight as an empty candidate with no resume as you sometimes seems to imply.
Further, my “job” as a member of the State Democratic Party is NOT to conform to some kind of ‘party line” and it IS to speak truth to power when I feel that to be needed.
I find that fighting for fairness for the lower 75% IS part of my role as an old school Democrat, and that includes fighting to get access to justice on the platform.
If anything, I do feel like the Democratic party has moved very far to the right, farther than I am comfortable with – and the Republicans have moved all the way to the radical right, where the John Birch society used to dwell when I was your age 30 or so years ago. But, really, “not a dime’s worth of difference” is not even close to anything I have said, and trying to fight for the soul of my party is why I am on the State Committee. My sense is that you don’t really listen to what I have to say, but do like to score some cheap points. I thought better of you than that, and also, that we were beyond that in our interactions.
Is the Democratic Party in some sort of theoretical sympathy with Occupy? Maybe. Have its elected mayors shown much sympathy or support? A few. But the right of free speech and assembly is under attack today – and the Bill of Rights has been much weakened, and undermined often by Democrats like Rahm Emmanuel. If people like ME don’t call that out, who will?
As to fighting for “fairer taxes and economic justice” – there is no stomach for that among most on Beacon Hill – though I will agree that Jamie Eldridge is one of the best legislators in the Commonwealth in that regard, and the Capitol Hill Republicans are doing their best to undo the New Deal and in fact, seem to be wholly owned by a desire to become employees and lackeys of the 1% when they leave office. Most do, in fact. I don’t think the watered down Stock Act will change that, though it is a start.
Further, a house in the suburbs is so far out of reach of most people as to be upper middle class, or upper 25% – it is not median and in my view IS out of touch with current fiscal reality. This generation of students graduates with so much debt it is a tragedy and the crony-capitalism and philanthrocapitalism of ever-increasing tuition is to blame. How about schools that decrease costs are eligible for more student aid for their enrollees – and those that increase costs are eligible for less government subsidies to avoid perverse incentives?
But anyway, if you are uncomfortable with me because I am too radical and too far to the left of you, that I can accept. Of course, you are welcome to join me on the protest lines, at Occupy Boston events, or in fighting to improve access to justice and to protect indigent defense. You haven’t. But you would be welcome.
But accusing me of saying that there is not a dime of difference? Please. That sounds like you don’t read what I write, don’t listen to what I say, and make up words to stick in my mouth and criticize.
…but your comments DID seem to accuse the Democrats of catering to the top of society almost as much as the Republicans. Maybe some do, and I can see that there is too much political temptation (ie money for campaigns) to do so. I’m personally sympathetic to Occupy, but haven’t participated partly because getting to Boston is a bit of a hassle, and partly because that kind of direct action has never been my cup of tea. This maybe an instance of written communication not conveying tone well because you’ve taken my comments here and before much more harshly than I ever intended. By all means fight – more often than not I suspect I will be with you on the substance of an issue. I certainly don’t make stuff up intentionally so I can criticize you; what motive would I have for that? My apologies for offending you.
If you do decide to look into, or stand up for issues of social justice, freedom of speech, and against the power of money in government and in politics, you don’t have to go to Boston to check out Occupy. There is an Occupy Worcester, Occupy Quincy, Occupy Lynn, Occupy Lowell, Occupy UMass (and on and on – maybe as many as 90 Occupy groups meet at least once a week and often more what with working groups) – the point is that civics hasn’t been taught in this state for 25 years, and frankly, the forces of plutocratic reaction, or whatever you want to call them have just plain gone too far. And no, I don’t mind standing up for what I believe in, including in public and at some risk. I will admit it took a lot to get me back on the front lines – but Citizens United, the NDAA, and the attack on access to justice/indigent defense have definitely done it and brought that part of my life out of retirement, as it were.
I honestly missed that, and I live there! Do you have more on that? I could check that out, though I haven’t seen any big assemblies like I associate with Occupy in any of the city’s public spaces.
We need to require civics, even if it means making it an MCAS subject.
And the party loyalists who think they should call the balls and strikes only to protect party interests. Look, when the power structure feels threatened they close ranks-usually wrapped in the flag and touting the historic display of bi-partisanship. Sadly, it only takes walking on the grass to threaten Menino’s sense of security.
Wow, that’s harsh. All that for suggesting that most of today’s Democratic Party candidates, as imperfect as they are, are preferable to most of today’s Republican candidates?
If that makes me a “prig”, I plead “Guilty as charged.”
If you think I’m a “party loyalist”, then you haven’t been reading many of my comments and posts here. You may not know that I’ve been a consistently harsh critic of Mr. Menino for a very long time here. I don’t remember you stepping up when I objected to Michael Keneavy’s illegal destruction of emails, and to Martha Coakley’s contemptuous dismissal of the actions filed against it.
To quote an earlier comment of yours — lose the attitude.
I think what irks me about your posts is their elitism masquerading as wisdom. I don’t think anyone has said they are not going to vote for democrats because they aren’t “pure” enough.
You and amberpaw seem to be joining Edgar in objecting to my comment. I think Deborah and I understand where each other is coming from and I don’t think either of us has a problem with the other.
Edgar has been a strong Scott Brown supporter for a quite awhile. I’m not at all sure, based on your comments, where you come down if the choice is between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren.
Just to clarify — if Marisa DeFranco is somehow the Democratic Party nominee this November, I will enthusiastically support and vote for her. I have no reservations about saying that any of the Democratic candidates are far better than Scott Brown. If that makes me “elitist”, then like being a “prig”, I plead guilty.
I ask again: lose the attitude. I’m not sure what you think you gain by calling me names, but I don’t appreciate it.
And if EW is the candidate, I will vote for her over Scott Brown but cannot claim as of today that I am able to do so “enthusiastically”. I just don’t feel enthusiastic, and it is likely for a complex set of reasons. I will be doning back room work if EW is the candidate, at least so far, because I cannot feign enthusiasm I just do not feel. Do I prefer her to Scott Brown? Absolutely. Scott Brown is a wholly owned minion of big oil and the Koch brothers based on my data set. But the chemistry of the Political Sell just hasn’t happened for me with EW for reasons I would rather go into with you in person. Why spoil it for those who do like her?
I actually would enjoy meeting you again, our first time was years ago when I was new to BMG and hardly knew you or BMG.
…since I’m not comfortable personally doing voter contact even for candidates I do enthusiastically support. Campaigns need both kinds of workers anyway, right?:)