The New York Times blog picked up our attempt to have a real representative replace Hillary rather than more ruling class celebrity carpet-baggers.
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/heres-someone-gov-paterson-may-not-have-thought-of-for-hillarys-senate-seat/
Friday, December 19, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Third-Party Blind Spot - John F. Kirch
Democracy suffers when the news media ignore long-shot candidates and the
ideas they espouse
While the news media did an effective job this year of covering the
presidential campaign between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John
McCain, the press still has a major blind spot when it comes to writing
about third-party contenders.
According to a basic LexisNexis database search of election coverage
from Aug. 5 to Nov. 5, The Washington Post and The New York Times
published a combined 3,576 news stories, editorials, op-eds,
photographs and letters to the editor about Mr. Obama and 3,205 items
about Mr. McCain. By contrast, the two dailies published only 36 items
about independent Ralph Nader, 22 about Libertarian Bob Barr, five
about Green Cynthia McKinney and three about the Constitution Party's
Chuck Baldwin.
The Baltimore Sun was not much better, publishing 384 news items about
Mr. Obama, 327 about Mr. McCain, eight about Mr. Nader, four on Mr.
Barr and two each for Ms. McKinney and Mr. Baldwin.
None of these candidates garnered more than 2 percent of the popular
vote on Election Day. But how third-party candidates are covered by the
news media is an important issue that should be taken more seriously,
given that we live in a democratic society that proclaims deference to
the First Amendment and honors the notion that we are all better off
when a wide range of proposals are aired.
The news media are allowing themselves to be co-opted by the Democrats
and Republicans into viewing campaigns solely through the prism of the
two-party system. This means that the major parties control which
issues are permitted into the debate, thus denying the public a chance
to hear proposals that might seem extreme today but could gain traction
in the future if only voters had an opportunity to consider them more
seriously. Remember, third parties have been the catalyst for many
reforms throughout American history, including the abolition of
slavery, tough child-labor laws, free public education, strong business
regulations, direct election of senators and women's suffrage.
By including more substantive coverage of third-party candidates, the
press could help open the door to innovative alternatives to old
issues. It might force the two major candidates to come off message
more often and eventually adopt the new ideas pushed by otherwise
marginalized candidates, much like the Republican Party did when it
absorbed some of Ross Perot's proposals after the 1992 election.
Part of the reason that the news media ignore most third-party
candidates is that most journalists tend to view campaigns almost
exclusively as a contest of winners and losers. The criteria by which
journalists judge candidates play to the strengths of the major parties
and set up a no-win situation for all other contenders: Third-party
candidates are not covered because they do not demonstrate public
support, but they cannot gain public support because they are not
covered by the news media.
In addition, viewing campaigns mostly as a "contest" is a mistake,
because numerous political science studies conducted over the past 50
years strongly suggest that campaigns actually have little impact on
election results.
Where campaigns really matter is in their ability to educate the public
about new ideas. Studies have shown that while voters don't always
remember the specific policy proposals of each candidate when they go
to the ballot box, they nevertheless learn enough during the course of
a campaign to make sound judgments about which path the country should
take.
What this tells us is that campaigns are about more than just the horse
race. They are a time in the nation's political life cycle when voters
consider the problems facing the country and look for a wide range of
solutions. Including minor-party candidates in this debate could infuse
new ways of looking at old issues, challenge basic political
assumptions and create avenues for new movements to challenge the
hegemony of the Democrats and Republicans.
John F. Kirch is an adjunct professor of journalism at Towson
University and the University of Maryland. His e-mail is
jfk909us@aol.com
ideas they espouse
While the news media did an effective job this year of covering the
presidential campaign between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John
McCain, the press still has a major blind spot when it comes to writing
about third-party contenders.
According to a basic LexisNexis database search of election coverage
from Aug. 5 to Nov. 5, The Washington Post and The New York Times
published a combined 3,576 news stories, editorials, op-eds,
photographs and letters to the editor about Mr. Obama and 3,205 items
about Mr. McCain. By contrast, the two dailies published only 36 items
about independent Ralph Nader, 22 about Libertarian Bob Barr, five
about Green Cynthia McKinney and three about the Constitution Party's
Chuck Baldwin.
The Baltimore Sun was not much better, publishing 384 news items about
Mr. Obama, 327 about Mr. McCain, eight about Mr. Nader, four on Mr.
Barr and two each for Ms. McKinney and Mr. Baldwin.
None of these candidates garnered more than 2 percent of the popular
vote on Election Day. But how third-party candidates are covered by the
news media is an important issue that should be taken more seriously,
given that we live in a democratic society that proclaims deference to
the First Amendment and honors the notion that we are all better off
when a wide range of proposals are aired.
The news media are allowing themselves to be co-opted by the Democrats
and Republicans into viewing campaigns solely through the prism of the
two-party system. This means that the major parties control which
issues are permitted into the debate, thus denying the public a chance
to hear proposals that might seem extreme today but could gain traction
in the future if only voters had an opportunity to consider them more
seriously. Remember, third parties have been the catalyst for many
reforms throughout American history, including the abolition of
slavery, tough child-labor laws, free public education, strong business
regulations, direct election of senators and women's suffrage.
By including more substantive coverage of third-party candidates, the
press could help open the door to innovative alternatives to old
issues. It might force the two major candidates to come off message
more often and eventually adopt the new ideas pushed by otherwise
marginalized candidates, much like the Republican Party did when it
absorbed some of Ross Perot's proposals after the 1992 election.
Part of the reason that the news media ignore most third-party
candidates is that most journalists tend to view campaigns almost
exclusively as a contest of winners and losers. The criteria by which
journalists judge candidates play to the strengths of the major parties
and set up a no-win situation for all other contenders: Third-party
candidates are not covered because they do not demonstrate public
support, but they cannot gain public support because they are not
covered by the news media.
In addition, viewing campaigns mostly as a "contest" is a mistake,
because numerous political science studies conducted over the past 50
years strongly suggest that campaigns actually have little impact on
election results.
Where campaigns really matter is in their ability to educate the public
about new ideas. Studies have shown that while voters don't always
remember the specific policy proposals of each candidate when they go
to the ballot box, they nevertheless learn enough during the course of
a campaign to make sound judgments about which path the country should
take.
What this tells us is that campaigns are about more than just the horse
race. They are a time in the nation's political life cycle when voters
consider the problems facing the country and look for a wide range of
solutions. Including minor-party candidates in this debate could infuse
new ways of looking at old issues, challenge basic political
assumptions and create avenues for new movements to challenge the
hegemony of the Democrats and Republicans.
John F. Kirch is an adjunct professor of journalism at Towson
University and the University of Maryland. His e-mail is
jfk909us@aol.com
Monday, November 10, 2008
A Response To Brian Mann
This entry is a response to Brian Mann, "Ralph Nader manages To Be Relevant Again, Sort Of"
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/blogs/ballotbox/blogger.php
Brian, as always I find it very disturbing that much of your argument as a Democrat is simply based on the feeling that if I and others could not vote for Ralph Nader, we would vote for the Democrat's corporate prole instead.
Just in case there is any doubt in your mind, we would NEVER do so. Simply can't see the margin in it. I don't ever vote for the two war parties' candidates regardless of which side of the fake aisle they pretend they're on. Not ever.
I also take great umbrage at the constant labeling of "Naderites" as "fans". We are not "fans". We are SUPPORTERS. We support Ralph's platform. I came to see things in a very similar common sense way to Nader long before I really knew much about him or knew him which I do). That's something I find that most Nader SUPPORTERS have in common and do not share with our two-party brethren. We are not followers. We can all articulate our viewpoints and argue them. I resist the urge to call Democrats "Obamaniacs" (regardless of the temptation) so please give us a little more credit than that. I see far less substance on your chosen side of the aisle than on mine.
All that aside, part of the Democrats' mantra is that great damage can only be done by Republicans. This is patently ridiculous. Bill Clinton waged a daily bombing war against the civilian population of Iraq and starved a million children to death there. He destroyed our manufacturing base by pushing NAFTA through (a corporate Republican enslavement plan that the Reaganites couldn't get through congress even when they had a majority). He passed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Workfare.
Clinton failed to get us meaningful health care (that's why he had is wife spearhead it, so the "failure" would be attached to her). Its no accident that she became the second highest recipient of HMO and Big Pharma money in history.
I could go on for days but the basic point is this; Obama is NOT different than the Clintons and Bush is not Satan. He's just another smarmy blue blood fleecing the public without style or grace. Democrats are no longer different than Republicans. Our new president ill simply take on the mantle of CEO of USA Inc.
He will keep us at war and occupation in the Middle East for the same reasons that we went in the first place, control of oil and the military industrial complex's need for bloodshed to feed its constantly gaping maw.
We will not have single payer health care. We will have mandatory HMO care at twice the price of any modern country.
We will see no living wage passed at the federal level.
We will see more socialism. Not the kind where Rush and the John Birchers run around screaming that "Obama is a commie" but the REAL kind where $700 billion is given to Wall Street speculators for no good reason anyone can think of at the expense of those who work for a living. Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the poor.
Clean energy? Where was that during this campaign? Clean COAL? SAFE nukes? We will not see wind and solar developed along with a national energy job creation plan which is what we need NOW.
Democrats like to say that Bush is the devil and that Gore would have been better. You know Gore, the "environmental hero" who should be best known for never doing anything for the environment in his entire political career but who is instead known for his little enviro-movie (he should primarily be known as the guy who refused to fight for the rights of 57,000 disenfranchised black voters in Florida in 2000). We all know that Gore never would have gone to war in Iraq even though exactly the same conscienceless corporations run him that ran Bush. Says who?
Democrats love to say that John Kerry (the guy who had a draft on his 2004 campaign website and who voted for all the wars Bush has spearheaded) would have been a much better president and would have gotten us out of Iraq. From his Senate record, I see absolutely NO evidence of this at all.
My own feeling is that Democrats are happy to support COVERT fascism but like to stop short of those crazy Republicans and their OVERT fascism.
I am not any better off having an intellectual articulate a case for war than I am when a simpleton does it. Either way, it kills children. I do not choose either.
I choose common sense. I choose Nader. It is a matter of principle as you say BUT in NY, and in 39 other states, it is also the only position that makes ANY sense if one understands the electoral college. Why vote for either type of fascism in a SAFE STATE? Where's the margin in that? How is this a success? It is the poster child for throwing your vote away!
That said, Nader did NOT call Obama an "Uncle Tom". he said that Obama now had to choose between being an "Uncle Sam" for the American people or an "Uncle Tom" for the corporations that put him in office. Big difference but thats what you get for watching Fox News and taking things out of context.
Lets revisit this in a year when we're still in Iraq, we've seen another bailout and are still without health care. Lets talk about what kind of "Uncle" you think Obama is then. ;-)
Peace,
Matt
P.S. Remember Molly Ivins; "You gotta dance with those what brung ya". Obama received more money from Corporate America than any president in history. Who do you think he'll be dancing with?
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/blogs/ballotbox/blogger.php
Brian, as always I find it very disturbing that much of your argument as a Democrat is simply based on the feeling that if I and others could not vote for Ralph Nader, we would vote for the Democrat's corporate prole instead.
Just in case there is any doubt in your mind, we would NEVER do so. Simply can't see the margin in it. I don't ever vote for the two war parties' candidates regardless of which side of the fake aisle they pretend they're on. Not ever.
I also take great umbrage at the constant labeling of "Naderites" as "fans". We are not "fans". We are SUPPORTERS. We support Ralph's platform. I came to see things in a very similar common sense way to Nader long before I really knew much about him or knew him which I do). That's something I find that most Nader SUPPORTERS have in common and do not share with our two-party brethren. We are not followers. We can all articulate our viewpoints and argue them. I resist the urge to call Democrats "Obamaniacs" (regardless of the temptation) so please give us a little more credit than that. I see far less substance on your chosen side of the aisle than on mine.
All that aside, part of the Democrats' mantra is that great damage can only be done by Republicans. This is patently ridiculous. Bill Clinton waged a daily bombing war against the civilian population of Iraq and starved a million children to death there. He destroyed our manufacturing base by pushing NAFTA through (a corporate Republican enslavement plan that the Reaganites couldn't get through congress even when they had a majority). He passed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Workfare.
Clinton failed to get us meaningful health care (that's why he had is wife spearhead it, so the "failure" would be attached to her). Its no accident that she became the second highest recipient of HMO and Big Pharma money in history.
I could go on for days but the basic point is this; Obama is NOT different than the Clintons and Bush is not Satan. He's just another smarmy blue blood fleecing the public without style or grace. Democrats are no longer different than Republicans. Our new president ill simply take on the mantle of CEO of USA Inc.
He will keep us at war and occupation in the Middle East for the same reasons that we went in the first place, control of oil and the military industrial complex's need for bloodshed to feed its constantly gaping maw.
We will not have single payer health care. We will have mandatory HMO care at twice the price of any modern country.
We will see no living wage passed at the federal level.
We will see more socialism. Not the kind where Rush and the John Birchers run around screaming that "Obama is a commie" but the REAL kind where $700 billion is given to Wall Street speculators for no good reason anyone can think of at the expense of those who work for a living. Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the poor.
Clean energy? Where was that during this campaign? Clean COAL? SAFE nukes? We will not see wind and solar developed along with a national energy job creation plan which is what we need NOW.
Democrats like to say that Bush is the devil and that Gore would have been better. You know Gore, the "environmental hero" who should be best known for never doing anything for the environment in his entire political career but who is instead known for his little enviro-movie (he should primarily be known as the guy who refused to fight for the rights of 57,000 disenfranchised black voters in Florida in 2000). We all know that Gore never would have gone to war in Iraq even though exactly the same conscienceless corporations run him that ran Bush. Says who?
Democrats love to say that John Kerry (the guy who had a draft on his 2004 campaign website and who voted for all the wars Bush has spearheaded) would have been a much better president and would have gotten us out of Iraq. From his Senate record, I see absolutely NO evidence of this at all.
My own feeling is that Democrats are happy to support COVERT fascism but like to stop short of those crazy Republicans and their OVERT fascism.
I am not any better off having an intellectual articulate a case for war than I am when a simpleton does it. Either way, it kills children. I do not choose either.
I choose common sense. I choose Nader. It is a matter of principle as you say BUT in NY, and in 39 other states, it is also the only position that makes ANY sense if one understands the electoral college. Why vote for either type of fascism in a SAFE STATE? Where's the margin in that? How is this a success? It is the poster child for throwing your vote away!
That said, Nader did NOT call Obama an "Uncle Tom". he said that Obama now had to choose between being an "Uncle Sam" for the American people or an "Uncle Tom" for the corporations that put him in office. Big difference but thats what you get for watching Fox News and taking things out of context.
Lets revisit this in a year when we're still in Iraq, we've seen another bailout and are still without health care. Lets talk about what kind of "Uncle" you think Obama is then. ;-)
Peace,
Matt
P.S. Remember Molly Ivins; "You gotta dance with those what brung ya". Obama received more money from Corporate America than any president in history. Who do you think he'll be dancing with?
Sunday, November 9, 2008
New York Times (like you've NEVER seen before)
This beautiful issue of the NY Times says it all to those who voted Obama and chose to "believe" that he will be markedly different than the death merchants from the other side of the aisle.
http://www.nytimes-se.com/
A million copies of this paper were printed and handed out on the streets of New York. It is believed to be the work of the Yes Men (from RPI, the people behind WhirlMart and some great pranks and hoaxes on mainstream media).
Warning: Reading this might make some people wish that instead of a visit to the "Church" of Obama to practice their faith, they had instead made a trip to the "Library" of Ralph Nader or Ron Paul in an attempt to practice their analytical skills!
http://www.nytimes-se.com/
A million copies of this paper were printed and handed out on the streets of New York. It is believed to be the work of the Yes Men (from RPI, the people behind WhirlMart and some great pranks and hoaxes on mainstream media).
Warning: Reading this might make some people wish that instead of a visit to the "Church" of Obama to practice their faith, they had instead made a trip to the "Library" of Ralph Nader or Ron Paul in an attempt to practice their analytical skills!
Thursday, November 6, 2008
What I Really Want To Know
I consider myself a third party activist. I only support independents and Greens and Libertarians. I do not vote for Democrats or Republicans, ever. As such, I am often asked my opinion by those who play the two party game. I try to be civil and decent. I try to help them understand my viewpoint and I sincerely try to understand theirs.
Over the last decade, I have asked a few questions that I really figure any two-party denizen should be able to answer ... simply to restore my faith in humanity's ability to reason if for no other reason. Can you help me?
I asked Alan Chartok (of our NPR affiliate, WAMC) and his pals on The Media Project, Ira and Rex, to comment on why the media gives Ralph Nader zero coverage during each election cycle. I asked this because I believe that ALL media ignores thrid party candidates on purpose to prop up our system of corporate machine politics. This of course raised the hackles of all three. All of their media mechanisms covered Ralph 2-3 times over the past year. In their view, thats much better coverage than other media gave him. They wondered aloud what my problem is, then? Rex Smith (the Albany Times Union editor) even piped in to say that he felt that Nader already had his time in the sun and that his message doesn't resonate any longer with the American public. Thats why they don't cover him.
There are two huge problems with this narrow answer to my broad question;
1) Does anyone who appreciates the promise of democracy really think that the 1/4 of 1% of media coverage Nader actually got in 2000 was "fair coverage" by any reasonable measure of the word? He was polling 10-18% during that election cycle and it certianly seesm thatbwere he given 10-18% of the coverage that he would have been in the debates which might well have given him a win. Can Nader or othr independents ever truly "resonate" with anyone when the populace is subjected to the two corporate candidates 100 times a day for an entire year and are not even made aware of their many other choices? 36,500 to 3 mentions. Is this really the "liberal" media's idea of "fair and balanced"?
2) If its just Ralph Nader who has worn us all out, why then does corporate media also basically ignore ALL the other independents and third party candidates, as well? In this election cycle, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Gloria LaRiva and Roger Calero were all basically ignored, too. No one even knew about them. How could they possibly have "worn us all out" or "had their time in the sun"? Why is it that THEY didn't deserve to be covered at all? I'm not sure that I can see this behavior as anything short of willful and criminal manipulation of our information and our democracy.
A member of the local DFA chapter asked me Wednesday if I was "happy". You could see that Obama's victory made him feel that a cloud had lifted. His "team" had "won". I would write "Bob" off as a loon except that many other Democrats reached out to me withg similar sentiments, many of whom I respect greatly. To be frank, I feel sorry for people like "Bob". In my world, the ruling and the corporate classes control our democracy. That's a terrible truth but being awake to it allows me to avoid all the emotional highs and lows and the football team mentality that so many Americans seem caught up in.
I know that my fight as a citizen is a daily one against the corporate power that chokes democracy. Its never a winner take all battle waged once every four years. I don't suffer severe depression when a Bush is in office nor do I feel like I just ate a bag of mushrooms because we've elected an Obama. I don't expect the ruling class to deliver me any substantive change for the better regardless of which puppet they say is "our leader". I'm a realist.
I asked "Bob" the same question I have been asking Democrats for ten years, thus far;
"I have been working outside the Democratic Party because I do not believe that the change I want can ever come from such a flawed and co-opted machine. If just one Democrat would tell me what it is EXACTLY that has been accomplished over the last forty years by "working from within", I might better understand why you people do it. Just humor me ... tell me what specific piece of legislation has been passed by either corporate party that could demonstrably be considered pro-worker?"
"Bob" responded heatedly, "I'm not going to answer that but we're a damn sight better than the Republicans. Thats all I have to say." "Bob" then walked out.
This "walking out" is the reason why better than 100 million Americans don't vote in any election cycle. They see no visible, pragmatic reason to do so and we refuse to explain how it works to anyone's benefit to vote. Is it possible that we're not really sure ourselves?
Over the last decade, I have asked a few questions that I really figure any two-party denizen should be able to answer ... simply to restore my faith in humanity's ability to reason if for no other reason. Can you help me?
I asked Alan Chartok (of our NPR affiliate, WAMC) and his pals on The Media Project, Ira and Rex, to comment on why the media gives Ralph Nader zero coverage during each election cycle. I asked this because I believe that ALL media ignores thrid party candidates on purpose to prop up our system of corporate machine politics. This of course raised the hackles of all three. All of their media mechanisms covered Ralph 2-3 times over the past year. In their view, thats much better coverage than other media gave him. They wondered aloud what my problem is, then? Rex Smith (the Albany Times Union editor) even piped in to say that he felt that Nader already had his time in the sun and that his message doesn't resonate any longer with the American public. Thats why they don't cover him.
There are two huge problems with this narrow answer to my broad question;
1) Does anyone who appreciates the promise of democracy really think that the 1/4 of 1% of media coverage Nader actually got in 2000 was "fair coverage" by any reasonable measure of the word? He was polling 10-18% during that election cycle and it certianly seesm thatbwere he given 10-18% of the coverage that he would have been in the debates which might well have given him a win. Can Nader or othr independents ever truly "resonate" with anyone when the populace is subjected to the two corporate candidates 100 times a day for an entire year and are not even made aware of their many other choices? 36,500 to 3 mentions. Is this really the "liberal" media's idea of "fair and balanced"?
2) If its just Ralph Nader who has worn us all out, why then does corporate media also basically ignore ALL the other independents and third party candidates, as well? In this election cycle, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Gloria LaRiva and Roger Calero were all basically ignored, too. No one even knew about them. How could they possibly have "worn us all out" or "had their time in the sun"? Why is it that THEY didn't deserve to be covered at all? I'm not sure that I can see this behavior as anything short of willful and criminal manipulation of our information and our democracy.
A member of the local DFA chapter asked me Wednesday if I was "happy". You could see that Obama's victory made him feel that a cloud had lifted. His "team" had "won". I would write "Bob" off as a loon except that many other Democrats reached out to me withg similar sentiments, many of whom I respect greatly. To be frank, I feel sorry for people like "Bob". In my world, the ruling and the corporate classes control our democracy. That's a terrible truth but being awake to it allows me to avoid all the emotional highs and lows and the football team mentality that so many Americans seem caught up in.
I know that my fight as a citizen is a daily one against the corporate power that chokes democracy. Its never a winner take all battle waged once every four years. I don't suffer severe depression when a Bush is in office nor do I feel like I just ate a bag of mushrooms because we've elected an Obama. I don't expect the ruling class to deliver me any substantive change for the better regardless of which puppet they say is "our leader". I'm a realist.
I asked "Bob" the same question I have been asking Democrats for ten years, thus far;
"I have been working outside the Democratic Party because I do not believe that the change I want can ever come from such a flawed and co-opted machine. If just one Democrat would tell me what it is EXACTLY that has been accomplished over the last forty years by "working from within", I might better understand why you people do it. Just humor me ... tell me what specific piece of legislation has been passed by either corporate party that could demonstrably be considered pro-worker?"
"Bob" responded heatedly, "I'm not going to answer that but we're a damn sight better than the Republicans. Thats all I have to say." "Bob" then walked out.
This "walking out" is the reason why better than 100 million Americans don't vote in any election cycle. They see no visible, pragmatic reason to do so and we refuse to explain how it works to anyone's benefit to vote. Is it possible that we're not really sure ourselves?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Forgive Me For Not Jumping Around Like An Idiot
While about 70 million Americans are feeling elated today, slightly less than 60 million are fairly disappointed (bear in mind that there are over 300 million of us). This is the nature of our two-party dictatorship. While a significant minority of us are walking around with election hangover, a HUGE majority of Americans (about 170 million) are simply left wondering why all these people are so concerned about which Sales Rep will head the corporation known as USA, Inc for the next four fiscal years.
In my lifetime, these "CEO's" have proven themselves to be a slippery lot who do nothing for the working class and who pander to their corporate donor base and the shrinking middle class, handing out pork like after dinner mints at a Greek diner. Why would the majority of us care which puppet you've selected to mislead us this time? It really doesn't matter. The small percentage of us who are awake, who do vote and who are politically active know that our candidates (Nader, Barr, McKinney, Paul, Kucinich, LaRiva, Calero) are not going to win. We just feel like showing our fellow citizens that you don't HAVE to do what the machine wants you to is quintessentially American. You CAN vote independent or third party. You don't have to play the game by their rules.
The other 90% of this majority are inactive and don't vote at all. They are not stupid. In many cases they are street smart. They are workers. They know the system is rigged. They think we are all crazy to bother. They know that the empire is crumbling. They know their jobs are in serious danger. They know there is no health care. They know wages are too low. They know what the mortgage crisis means first hand. They are not apathetic. They are seething.
Will an Obama or McCain presidency be markedly different for any of these people. Obviously they don't think so.
Will Obama get us out of Iraq? Will he "unbuild" the corporate and military entrenchment we have undertaken there? Will he reverse our course to occupy Syria or Pakistan or Korea? Of course not. We're all toast. Obama will put a nicer face on our fascism but its pretty hard to dress up this pig we call American foreign policy (never mind the lipstick).
Will Obama put forward articles of impeachment to ensure that the war criminal Bush and his cronies go to prison for torture, war profiteering, mass murder and the suspension of our Constitution? Of course not. Honor among thieves. Future presidents can feel safe bringing the jackboot down because Obama is here to show them there will be no repercussions.
Will we get health care? While those who read know that Single Payer Health Care is the only proven answer to universal health care worldwide, Obama has been supporting an unfundable, Hillary-style, corporate plan that will allow the HMO's and Big Pharma to continue profiteering from human misery, making 25% net incomes, while denying care to sick people. 18,000 Americans will die in Obama's first year in office alone because they lack access to health care. He will not change this even with the clear mandate the people have given him.
Will Obama end our racist prison industrial complex and decriminalize marijuana and hemp? Will Obama open the gates and release the millions of black prisoners imprisoned for non-violent crime and fill the prisons with the white collar criminals who have fleeced the Amercian worker repeatedly? Of course not. Prisons are great economic development. They are loved by Dems and Reps alike and Wall Street is the source of many huge campaign contributions. Don't bite the hand that feeds you!
Will we see NAFTA or GATT renegotiated to include labor laws and environmental restrictions to protect our air and water and our jobs and our standard of living? Of course not.
So many "progressives" have said to me over the course of this day, "Well, at least McCain didn't win! Lets give Obama a chance!"
In truth, although the man, John McCain, didn't win, the class he represents and the agenda they put forward DID win yesterday. It seems that, once again, we the people, have learned nothing.
Corporate media told you that McCain and Obama were your only choice. They told it you from every angle and at every location and with amazing frequency (about 6,000,000 times a day). You believed 'em and you voted for McBama. Why does it never occur to you that you shouldn't EVER do what the machine tells you to? Have you not read your Orwell?
It would be great if you thought for a minute about what I am saying. I am admittedly not happy about what just happened. In my world, fewer than 1.5% of those who bothered to vote had the good sense to vote for a human being. About 98.5% of those voting are "happy" to have voted for one major corporation or the other. I am not "happy" about that. Its truly a terrifying thing to contemplate.
Over the next four years, as your values are betrayed and the media makes up all kinds of lies to excuse these betrayals and you start to fall for this fake, two-party, liberal vs. conservative, polarization all over again, try to remember what I have said here and use that awareness to propel you to try something different next time around. Vote for a human being. Ignore what the machine is telling you. How many times will you do the machine's bidding before you get it?
In my lifetime, these "CEO's" have proven themselves to be a slippery lot who do nothing for the working class and who pander to their corporate donor base and the shrinking middle class, handing out pork like after dinner mints at a Greek diner. Why would the majority of us care which puppet you've selected to mislead us this time? It really doesn't matter. The small percentage of us who are awake, who do vote and who are politically active know that our candidates (Nader, Barr, McKinney, Paul, Kucinich, LaRiva, Calero) are not going to win. We just feel like showing our fellow citizens that you don't HAVE to do what the machine wants you to is quintessentially American. You CAN vote independent or third party. You don't have to play the game by their rules.
The other 90% of this majority are inactive and don't vote at all. They are not stupid. In many cases they are street smart. They are workers. They know the system is rigged. They think we are all crazy to bother. They know that the empire is crumbling. They know their jobs are in serious danger. They know there is no health care. They know wages are too low. They know what the mortgage crisis means first hand. They are not apathetic. They are seething.
Will an Obama or McCain presidency be markedly different for any of these people. Obviously they don't think so.
Will Obama get us out of Iraq? Will he "unbuild" the corporate and military entrenchment we have undertaken there? Will he reverse our course to occupy Syria or Pakistan or Korea? Of course not. We're all toast. Obama will put a nicer face on our fascism but its pretty hard to dress up this pig we call American foreign policy (never mind the lipstick).
Will Obama put forward articles of impeachment to ensure that the war criminal Bush and his cronies go to prison for torture, war profiteering, mass murder and the suspension of our Constitution? Of course not. Honor among thieves. Future presidents can feel safe bringing the jackboot down because Obama is here to show them there will be no repercussions.
Will we get health care? While those who read know that Single Payer Health Care is the only proven answer to universal health care worldwide, Obama has been supporting an unfundable, Hillary-style, corporate plan that will allow the HMO's and Big Pharma to continue profiteering from human misery, making 25% net incomes, while denying care to sick people. 18,000 Americans will die in Obama's first year in office alone because they lack access to health care. He will not change this even with the clear mandate the people have given him.
Will Obama end our racist prison industrial complex and decriminalize marijuana and hemp? Will Obama open the gates and release the millions of black prisoners imprisoned for non-violent crime and fill the prisons with the white collar criminals who have fleeced the Amercian worker repeatedly? Of course not. Prisons are great economic development. They are loved by Dems and Reps alike and Wall Street is the source of many huge campaign contributions. Don't bite the hand that feeds you!
Will we see NAFTA or GATT renegotiated to include labor laws and environmental restrictions to protect our air and water and our jobs and our standard of living? Of course not.
So many "progressives" have said to me over the course of this day, "Well, at least McCain didn't win! Lets give Obama a chance!"
In truth, although the man, John McCain, didn't win, the class he represents and the agenda they put forward DID win yesterday. It seems that, once again, we the people, have learned nothing.
Corporate media told you that McCain and Obama were your only choice. They told it you from every angle and at every location and with amazing frequency (about 6,000,000 times a day). You believed 'em and you voted for McBama. Why does it never occur to you that you shouldn't EVER do what the machine tells you to? Have you not read your Orwell?
It would be great if you thought for a minute about what I am saying. I am admittedly not happy about what just happened. In my world, fewer than 1.5% of those who bothered to vote had the good sense to vote for a human being. About 98.5% of those voting are "happy" to have voted for one major corporation or the other. I am not "happy" about that. Its truly a terrifying thing to contemplate.
Over the next four years, as your values are betrayed and the media makes up all kinds of lies to excuse these betrayals and you start to fall for this fake, two-party, liberal vs. conservative, polarization all over again, try to remember what I have said here and use that awareness to propel you to try something different next time around. Vote for a human being. Ignore what the machine is telling you. How many times will you do the machine's bidding before you get it?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Meaning of Columbus Day (by Mac Chapin)
A year ago I was walking through a shopping mall in northern Virginia when I passed by a tobacco shop. A life-sized wooden Indian, clutching a handful of cigars, was guarding the door. Someone had taped a sign to its chest that read: "Happy Columbus Day."
Shortly after, I came upon a statement made by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, on the eve of the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. He called the Admiral's landfall "one of the greatest achievements of human endeavor," and added, "I strongly encourage every American to support the Quincentennary, and to discover the significance that this milestone in history has in his or her own life."
But just what "significance" does Columbus Day have, or should it have, in our lives? It celebrates the day, 516 years ago, when three small boats carrying Spanish sailors "discovered" the Western Hemisphere. This Encounter of Two Worlds, as it is often called, was the first step in a process that led, in short order, to the conquest and European subjugation of the native peoples of this newly found continent. It determined the direction the Americas were to take from that point on, and when we contemplate the significance of Columbus Day in our lives we need to take into consideration the whole package, from discovery through conquest to domination.
All of us were taught the history of the Spanish Discovery and Conquest of the Americas early on in school. Many bits and pieces of this history remain firmly lodged in our heads these many years later, yet strangely, for most of us they are scattered images that, if we inspect them carefully, don't fit together to forma very a coherent picture. They are, quite simply, inadequate as explanations. This is in large part because our school lessons were based on historical accounts that were often incomplete and confused, and they were one-sided, often flagrantly so, with a strong pro-European bias.
This was the state of historical interpretation of the Spanish Discovery and Conquest of the Americas up through the 1960s, and it was this way across the hemisphere, from north to south. Since then, some of the drumbeating for European superiority has subsided-we are less likely to be told, for example, that the appearance of the Spaniards in Mexico was "the vanguard of the great European Advance toward the broader knowledge of man and of this planet," or that the Aztecs were "mentally deranged" and in the same league with the Nazis*-but many of the old biases and stereotypes have held on tenaciously and still inhabit the pages of popular as well as scholarly histories for adults and children.
My subject here is the way historians have characterized this pivotal period in our history, and the consequences these characterizations have had on our thinking about the events themselves, the peoples who took part in them, and their successors, including all of us who currently live in this part of the world. I will draw primarily on the historical record from Central Mexico, where the Spaniards took on the powerful Mexica (Aztec) Empire, but the same characterizations, in roughly similar form, hold for the Spanish invasion of the Inca Empire to the south.
Discovery and Conquest
On the evening of October 11, 1492, a fleet of three Spanish ships-the Niсa, the Pinta, and the Santa Marнa-was nearing the end of a five-week voyage across the Atlantic. Their captain, a Genoese navigator named Christopher Columbus, was standing on the deck of the Santa Marнa when what appeared to be a light was spotted in the distance. Land was sighted several hours later, illuminated by the moon, and the following morning Columbus and a handful of his men took a small boat ashore on an island (no one is certain today which one it was) somewhere on the rim of the Caribbean Sea. The natives who came to meet them were peaceful, generous, and accommodating. Columbus wrote in his diary that "...they invite you to share anything that they possess, and show as much love as if their hearts went with it...." He went on to observe "...how easy it would be to convert these people-and to make them work for us."
Columbus made three more journeys to the New World, and in his wake came an ever-increasing procession of Spanish ships. The Spaniards made their way past the Caribbean islands to the mainland, traveled along the coast of Mexico and Central America, and eventually trekked across the Panamanian isthmus to the Pacific Ocean. Their primary quest was after riches, especially gold. During these journeys they learned of vast stores of wealth inland in the highlands of central Mexico.
Here the narrative is transformed into a story that is, as the historian William H. Prescott noted, "too startling for the probabilities demanded by fiction, and without a parallel in the pages of history." In 1519, Hernбn Cortйs led "a handful of resolute men," as one historian puts it, into the heart of the formidable and highly militaristic Mexica Empire. Two years later they laid siege to the imperial city of Tenochtitlan and after just under three months of fighting emerged victorious, leaving it in ruins and the majority of its inhabitants dead. Ten years later, Francisco Pizarro marched straight into the jaws of the equally fierce Inca Kingdom in the Andean highlands. He had no more than 168 men under his command, yet in short order he brought the Incas to their knees and gained control of the region.
And these two civilizations were not only defeated. They disintegrated and disappeared and were never able to reconstitute themselves. They left behind little more than a scattering of temples, pyramids, stone sculptures, and fragmentary histories of their former glory and achievements. And this happened everywhere the Europeans went. Their victories over the New World kingdoms were swift and decisive, and within the space of a few decades they had taken the core areas of the hemisphere from top to bottom. Those native people who managed to survive had become either slaves or fugitives in their own land, and the history of the New World had been altered drastically and irrevocably.
How did this happen?
The traditional narrative of the Conquest weaves together several causal threads. First, the story goes, in Mesoamerica the Mexica thought the Spaniards were gods and were paralyzed with fear and unable to think or act rationally. Montezuma, the Mexica emperor, believed Cortйs to be the god Quetzalcoatl, the Plumed Serpent, who was returning from the east to reclaim his throne, as had been foretold, and he was seized with panic. "He felt his empire melting away like a morning mist," in the words of Prescott.
Another ingredient revolves around the nature of the New World empires: while they appeared to be mighty and substantial, they were in fact very fragile, for they depended on relentless exploitation of their subjects. The Mexica, we are told, enslaved their neighbors, exacted onerous tribute from them, and took them captive for ritual sacrifice. In short, they were brutal tyrants who were hated throughout the region. Cortйs quickly picked up on these divisions and skillfully exploited them. He enlisted the Mexica's disaffected neighbors as allies, and the combined Spanish-Indian force overwhelmed the already panic-stricken Mexica. His advisor and interpreter (and mistress) in much of this venture was the Indian maiden Malinali (generally referred to as La Malinche in Mexico, where the word malinchista has come to mean "traitor").
A third element of the traditional story paints the Spaniards as hardened, pragmatic soldiers experienced in the art of warfare, while the Indians viewed warfare as a ritual to be fought according to strict, and greatly limiting, rules of engagement. The Spaniards, in the Indians' eyes, broke all the rules and dove in relentlessly for the kill. Beyond this, the Spaniards greatly outclassed the Indians with their superior military technology: "steel swords versus obsidian-edged clubs; muskets and cannon against arrows and spears; metal helmets and bucklers in contrast to feathered headdresses and shields," according to one historian. And of course they came with horses and savage armored dogs, while their opponents had no animals to assist them. In short, the Indians were completely outclassed militarily.
A final ingredient is the European diseases against which the native peoples had no immunological defenses. But this was a late entry into the historical record and it played no important role in the traditional narrative as it developed initially. Lethal epidemics of Old World diseases were described in contemporary accounts, often in great detail, yet historians had paid them little attention until several scholars dredged them out of obscurity in the 1960s. This revelation, which included claims of a catastrophic demographic collapse among the native peoples, was at first met with skepticism, and although it has now gained general acceptance as a rightful piece of the puzzle, it rests uneasily amid the other features of the Conquest narrative. Many historians have been uncertain about how to handle it.
Evolving History
The historical record of the Conquest begins with the firsthand accounts of the conquistadors themselves. In Mexico, the most prominent of these were Cortйs and Bernal Dнaz del Castillo, whose True History of the Conquest of New Spain is generally considered to be the most accurate record of the armed conflict. These accounts are supplemented by documents produced by a succession of Catholic priests, chroniclers of different stripes, and assorted bureaucrats within the Spanish imperial system during the early sixteenth century.
A large portion of this material was brought together and synthesized in the 1840s by the Boston historian William Hickling Prescott, who wrote the first systematic and comprehensive histories of the Conquest. Prescott published History of the Conquest of Mexico in 1843 and History of the Conquest of Peru in 1847. Both books by any measure are remarkable achievements-all the more so because Prescott was legally blind and was never able to set foot in either Mexico or Peru.
He also only had the Spanish side of the story. While the Indians had incipient writing systems involving pictographs in Mesoamerica and knotted strings (quipu) in the Andes, these were rudimentary in comparison to the European alphabets and were effectively obliterated by Spanish priests in the first years after the Conquest. And even if they had possessed more sophisticated writing systems, it's likely that they would have been too confused and distressed to record their thoughts as they were being sucked into the chaotic maelstrom of the Spanish invasion. Some decades later, Catholic priests trained a select group of surviving Mexica to transcribe accounts of their vanished society in Nahuatl, their native language. But these codices contain no first-hand glimpses into the military campaign. Records exist of what the Spaniards thought the Indians were thinking, or wanted their readers to think they were thinking, but these are poor substitutes for
hearing directly from the Indians, and the Spanish accounts are frequently self-serving and misleading.
Moreover, Prescott was writing during the infancy of historiography, and his works are best seen as fusions of literature and the first tentative steps toward "scientific" history. In his day, he was often compared to the historical novelists Sir Walter Scott and James Fenimore Cooper, and over the years analysis of his work has been the province of literary critics as much as historians. He noted in his diary that with History of the Conquest of Mexico he was setting out to create "an epic in prose, a romance of chivalry."
He succeeded brilliantly. First, he produced a riveting adventure tale in the best romantic tradition. History of the Conquest of Mexico is an exhilarating read, replete with tense confrontations and negotiations, ambushes, hair's-breadth escapes, daring battle maneuvers, blood-soaked massacres, treacherous duplicity, and ferocious hand-to-hand combat. Prescott used a variety of literary techniques, one being to place Cortйs and his men in impossibly perilous situations and then have them miraculously and heroically break free at the last possible moment, ending his chapters with cliffhangers. To make this work, he frequently embellished and even restructured the factual record. It made for electrifying reading, and it is no wonder that his books have become the primary sources for virtually every movie ever filmed about the Conquest.
But Prescott was also crafting amorality drama that showcased the inevitable collapse of a morally depraved and despotic barbarian empire at the hand of a highly civilized and vastly superior European kingdom. In Prescott's eyes, the Mexica were savages of the most degenerate sort: they practiced cannibalism, human sacrifice, sodomy, and various other crimes against nature, and they sadistically preyed on their neighbors. The Conquest was the work of Providence, an idea first put forward by Cortйs and the others; it was a triumph of civilization over barbarity and of Christianity over pagan superstition.
And indeed this came to pass amid extreme carnage and the razing of Tenochtitlan. Between 100,000 and 250,000 of the city's inhabitants died in the assault. Prescott informs us that the Mexica were doomed from the very start, and their empire "...fell by the hands of its own subjects, under the direction of European sagacity and science." The Mexica crumbled from within and their fate serves as "...a striking proof, that a government, which does not rest on the sympathies of its subjects, cannot long abide; that human institutions, when not connected with human prosperity and progress, must fall." He acknowledges that the Spaniards have been accused of excessive brutality, and he laments the loss of life. "Yet we cannot regret the fall of an empire," he reflects, "which did so little to promote the happiness of its subjects, or the real interests of humanity."
Prescott personified this struggle in the contrasting figures of Cortйs and Montezuma. Cortйs is pictured as courageous, steadfast, self-reliant, a brilliant strategist and tactician, a skillful politician, and an unsurpassed leader of men. We see him leading his men fearlessly into the thick of battle, rousing his followers with impassioned speeches, and destroying pagan idols. By contrast, his Mexica counterpart is portrayed as dimwitted, vacillating, cowardly, and effeminate, a pathetic figure who, when he first receives word of the arrival of the White Gods in Mexico (it is in Prescott that Montezuma believes Cortйs to be Quetzalcoatl), is racked with "paroxysms of despair. "To be sure, Cortйs has his defects-Prescott describes him as avaricious and "lax in his notions of morality"-but on balance he is an exceptional human figure: "a knight errant, in the literal sense of the word."
Prescott's Legacy
Prescott's vision of the Conquest has had incalculable influence on both historians and the general public throughout the world. His books have been popular in Europe, North America, and Latin America since they were published. They can be found in virtually every library of any size in the United States and purchased off the shelves at Borders and Barnes & Noble. He is cited as a major influence by later historians, including Hugh Thomas, whose massive Conquest: Montezuma, Cortйs, and the Fall of Old Mexico (1993) pays tribute to the man he dubs "the great Bostonian." Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Barbara Tuchman used Prescott as her primary source for a short description of the Conquest of Mexico in her last book, The March of Folly (1984). Even The Rough Guide to Mexico (2007 edition) cites Prescott for its brief account of the Conquest.
One aspect stressed by the Spanish chroniclers was that the American continent was inhabited by heathen savages, and the Spaniards were involved in a project to civilize it, especially through the imposition of Christianity. This was, they argued, a "just war" and regime change was in order. Later historians picked up this notion and carried it forward, not only in Spain but also in Mexico, although here there was some ambivalence (were the Indians really to be seen as the "true" Mexicans? Or were the Spaniards their root stock?).
Following their independence from Spain in the 1820s, Mexican scholars began searching for positive, heroic images of the pre-Hispanic peoples to burnish their national identity, but they could find little of value beyond some artwork and astronomy. The school textbooks they eventually produced ended up highlighting cannibalism and human sacrifice, and native society in general (not just the Mexica) was depicted as cruel, twisted, and generally abominable. In the late nineteenth century, the educator and historian Justo Sierra, minister of education under President Porfirio Dнaz, effused: "Ah! Mother Spain, your great shadow is present in all of our history; to you we owe civilization...." And in Breve Historia de Mйxico (1937),Mexican historian/philosopher Josй Vasconcelos wrote that "Spain destroyed nothing, for nothing worth preserving existed when she arrived in these territories, unless one sees as sacred all of those weeds of the soul that are
the cannibalism of the Caribes [Indians of the Caribbean], the human sacrifices of the Aztecs, the brutalizing despotism of the Incas."
Similar arguments flowed from the pens of North American historians such as Hubert Herring and Henry Bamford Parkes, both writing in the 1960s.
A closely associated, if somewhat less strident, assertion is that with the Conquest the Spaniards simply decapitated the indigenous leadership of the two empires and took its place, leaving the body (the masses) more or less intact. In Central Mexico, writes John Edwin Fagg in Latin America: A General History (1963),"...those who accepted Cortйs in place of Montezuma paid tribute and permitted Christian missionary activities and lived very much as before. "He adds, "If anything, the new regime was more agreeable than the Aztec despotism." This concept, which I remember clearly from my school days, has had considerable staying power and is still a strong feature in history books. "Within these Indian kingdoms and communities," writes Edwin Williamson in The Penguin History of Latin America (1992),"traditional life went on much as before, and, having accepted their new masters, it made sense also to accept their religion." "The top of the pyramid had
been lopped off," writes Marshall Eaken in The History of Latin America: Collision of Cultures (2007), "and the Spanish replaced the Aztecs as the rulers of the Mexicans."
The Diseases
As already noted, until the 1960s historians made no more than passing mention of disease epidemics in their accounts of the Conquest. Prescott injects but one brief description of a "...terrible epidemic, the small-pox, which was now sweeping over the land like fire over the prairies, smiting down prince and peasant, and adding another to the long train of woes that followed the march of the white men." This occurs as the Spaniards are heading for the final assault on the Mexica capital, and it sounds like a major development, one that would have a profound impact on the entire Spanish enterprise.
Yet Prescott suddenly drops it, leaving it behind like a tiny, inconsequential island in the middle of his onrushing narrative of military and diplomatic adventures. When the Spaniards enter Tenochtitlan and come upon buildings whose floors are "...covered with prostate forms of the miserable inmates, some in the agonies of death, others festering with corruption; men, women, and children, inhaling the poisonous atmosphere...," Prescott sees the cause of this "appalling spectacle" as starvation and dysentery, not smallpox. Later historians similarly mentioned epidemic outbreaks, especially of smallpox, but assigned them little importance.
It is generally accepted today that 50-80 million people were living in the Americas in 1492, and that shortly after this time they suffered a precipitous demographic collapse. The collapse radiated throughout the hemisphere, hitting hardest in the tropical lowlands and areas of dense settlement. Few regions escaped its reach, including remote corners where Europeans had never set foot. A number of scholars estimate that 90-95 percent of the native population died during the first century after contact. Others are more restrained, but all agree that the death toll was immense-the most catastrophic population disaster in human history.
What caused this massive die-off?
When the Spaniards laid anchor in the Caribbean they brought with them a cargo of virulent and utterly foreign pathogens: smallpox, measles, chicken pox, typhus, typhoid, influenza, whooping cough, bubonic plague, malaria, yellow fever, and others. The peoples of the Americas had been isolated from Eurasia for more than 20,000 years, had had no exposure to these diseases, and were without immunological defenses against them. Diseases that were generally mild in the Old World, such as smallpox and measles, became lethal in the New World ecosystem. Soon after they came ashore they morphed into what epidemiologists call "virgin soil epidemics" and began to make the rounds, with disastrous effect. Community death tolls of 50-70 percent in a single pass were common.
The depopulating of the Caribbean islands was well under way by the end of the first decade of the sixteenth century, and the Indians there were virtually extinct by mid century. An array of different illnesses was most certainly involved. Smallpox, the most murderous of the lot, reached the Yucatбn Peninsula by 1518 and the Mexica capital in 1519, just before Cortйs's final assault, and the Inca Empire by 1526, fully five years before Pizarro and his 168 men showed up. The rulers of both kingdoms died and were replaced; lesser political and military leaders were also stricken, along with a sizeable portion of the general fighting force, and in the Andes civil war had broken out between the followers of the two remaining sons of the royal family. Both regions were in a state of turmoil, and the ground was well prepared for the Spanish invasion.
And the epidemics did not stop with the Conquest. They continued to rage unfettered, passing through in waves, sometimes arriving in tandem. Before communities were able to recover from one attack, they were pummeled again, and again. Between 1520 and 1600, at least 14 distinct major epidemics of various illnesses were recorded in central Mexico, and no fewer than 17 passed through the Andes. Add to these all of the unreported "minor" epidemics and assorted Old World scourges making the rounds, and we can begin to understand the unrelenting ferocity of the microbial onslaught.
When they struck, the epidemics immobilized entire communities and regions. With the majority of the people infected and many dying or dead, there was no one to care for the sick. Children and the elderly were utterly defenseless. Traditional social mechanisms broke down, work in the fields came to a halt, and crops were left unharvested; trade networks and food distribution systems were cut. "And then came famine, not because of want of bread, but of meal, for the women do nothing but grind maize between two stones and bake it. The women, then, fell sick of the smallpox, bread failed, and many died of hunger." And, of course, "there were not enough living people to dig graves for the dead, so that death itself assumed the role of gravedigger." "Great was the stench of the dead," recorded the Cakchiquel Mayas. "After our fathers and grandfathers succumbed, half of the people fled to the fields. The dogs and vultures devoured the bodies. The mortality was
terrible."
An Uneasy Fit
The evidence we now have for epidemics and the demographic collapse of the first century after contact is substantial. Much of the new information has been mined from the chronicles of Catholic priests-Bartolomй de las Casas, Bernardino de Sahagъn,Motolinнa, and others-and the reports of bureaucrats and Spanish landholders complaining about the disappearance of their labor force. The conquistadors, by contrast, barely mention epidemics (Cortйs, for example, has just two brief mentions of smallpox, in his third letter to Carlos V) and this may at least partially explain their absence in the works of later historians, for history has traditionally been seen as a chronology of armed conflict and political intrigue, not the actions of microbes. Some historians have suggested that the conquistadors, with their attention quite understandably focused elsewhere, simply failed to pick up on the implications of the epidemics.
The result of the new information is that virtually every history dealing with the European Conquest and domination of the New World's peoples now includes something about the epidemics and the population decline. Even children's histories and elementary school texts contain short discussions of these matters. Yet there is considerable variance regarding the role given disease in the drama that unfolded, and figuring out how to deal with this has proved difficult.
At one end we have William McNeill and Alfred Crosby, along with a small but well armed band of scholars, who argue that the epidemics, especially those of smallpox, played a major if not decisive part in the Spanish Conquest. Absent the epidemics, neither Cortйs nor Pizarro would have prevailed-and it is likely, Crosby suggests, that Cortйs would have ended his days spread-eagled on the sacrificial altar of Huitzilopochtli, the Mexica Sun God. There would have been no catastrophic population disaster, and if the Spaniards had succeeded in colonizing the New World, it would have been similar to European colonization in Asia and Africa, with the eventual withdrawal of the colonizers.
Hugh Thomas positions himself at the other extreme, calling the claims of Crosby and McNeill "extravagant." For him, the Spanish achieved victory over the Mexica because of their military and diplomatic superiority, aided by allies recruited from among disgruntled neighbors of the Mexica. He estimates roughly 100,000Mexica killed in the final battle for the city, with perhaps 100 Spanish soldiers dead. He concludes, "The difference between the numbers of conquistadors And Mexica dead may be held to indicate the superior fighting skill of the former." He makes no mention of smallpox, which was raging through the city at the time, and while his 800-page book contains several descriptions of epidemics, they are slim and walled off from the main narrative. A similar approach is evident in the works of a number of other prominent scholars who deal with the Conquest; they mention the epidemics but assign them little importance in their narratives, which are
dominated by battleground heroics and the political skills of the Spaniards.
Now, one might consider it reasonable to assume that an army stricken by a disease that kills half its soldiers and sickens most of the rest would be seriously impaired in its ability to fight. One might also reasonably assume that wholesale death among the native peoples, where they were dying "in heaps, like bedbugs," as the Franciscan priest Motolinнa put it, while the Spaniards remained healthy, would have some impact on the course of events. Might not the decision of the Tlascalans and their neighbors to join forces with the bearded white men whose language was unintelligible to them have been influenced by the hope that such an alliance would provide them with some measure of protection against the unseen and thoroughly mysterious plagues?
We know that the Black Death in fourteenth-century Europe, which left a death toll roughly one-third as devastating as the epidemics of the New World and had a much shorter duration, filled the residents with paralyzing feelings of despair, anxiety, and flat-out terror. "The apparition of Antichrist was announced many times and in many places," writes Philip Ziegler. "Floods, famines, fire from heaven were perpetually around the corner. The Turks and Saracens planned a descent on Italy; the English on France; the Scots on England." The major difference, of course, was that while it was only the Europeans' imaginations that were running riot, the Americans actually were being invaded. Would not all of this-the phantom, deadly diseases; the breakdown in traditional social order; famine; and armed conflict by "a handful of resolute men" armed with steel swords and mounted on four-legged beasts-have had a profound influence on the collective psyche of the
native Americans?
The impact of the epidemics was of course huge, but how might one go about explaining what it was? We have no solid evidence to argue a case one way or another. The Indians left us no testimony; none of the Spaniards was systematically monitoring this particular angle at the time; and in any event, neither the Indians nor the Spaniards understood where the diseases had come from or how they were transmitted. Yet beyond these considerations, historians have traditionally ignored the effects of epidemics, largely because they feel uncomfortable with them. The epidemics are as vaporous as mist; they work quietly behind the scenes and out of sight, and pinning down and describing their impact is essentially impossible. How, for example, would events have unfolded if no diseases had made their appearance? We can't begin to answer this question without diving headlong into pure speculation.
In short, the role played by epidemics defies rigorous analysis. Discussions of disease and its impact are now obligatory, but they are generally framed as little more than add-ons that exist as capsules, insulated from the body of the narrative, which for most historians remains largely as Prescott created it. Thomas's Conquest: Montezuma, Cortйs, and the Fall of Old Mexico is essentially an update, with additional sources, of the work of Prescott, and the epidemics have no particular part to play in it. There have been no more than a few partial, and not entirely successful, attempts to integrate this new dimension into history books in organic fashion, and many historians simply ignore it.
Yet just because the ravages of deadly epidemics and the dramatic population disaster elude historical analysis doesn't mean that they didn't take place and had no effect, or minimal-and unstated-effect. It also doesn't negate the fact that what happened was a human tragedy of monumental proportions. Disease, of course, didn't account for the entire death toll, at least directly, but it made all that followed possible and even inevitable. The epidemics swept across the American landscape like shock troops, and in their wake came starvation, the destruction of traditional institutions, and a profound sense of demoralization and spiritual confusion. They most certainly influenced the way the different Indian groups dealt with the foreigners, how they weighed the advantages and disadvantages of becoming allies of the Spaniards. Wouldn't the groups that joined the Spaniards have been more concerned for their own survival in a world suddenly turned
treacherously lethal than in mounting a full-scale attack on the Mexica, however resentful they may have been?
There is another problem with any project to reconfigure the story of the Conquest. The traditional, epidemic-free narrative served us very well for generations. We all grew up with it, we learned it in school, and most people in academia and in the general public feel entirely comfortable with it the way it stands. It "explains" the Discovery and Conquest of the New World in a manner that is coherent, elegant, and thoroughly satisfying, and it is exciting to boot-a true "epic in prose," as Prescott put it. Can anyone imagine how the story would play in school texts, or on the silver screen for that matter, if the derring-do and heroism of the battlefield, with Cortйs and his armored followers hacking their way through armies of bronzed warriors with plumed headdresses and obsidian tipped war clubs, were to be replaced by communities overflowing with dead and dying men, women, and children covered with suppurating sores and gasping for air?
Consequences
Yet we must concern ourselves with historical interpretations of the Conquest. The events themselves are beyond our reach, but the way we view them is not, and it is here that we are confronted with a long tradition of vilification of the native peoples of the Americas.
Beginning with the Spanish chroniclers, historians have variously described the Mexica and the Inca, and by extension Indians in general, as defective. They are viewed as weak, irrational, ruled inordinately by superstition, incapable of thinking for themselves, degenerate, unreliable, untrustworthy, passive, and fatalistic. Prescott's characterization of Montezuma as a simple-minded coward has been recycled time and again and has been firmly lodged in our heads as symbolic of all Indians. Cannibalism and human sacrifice are consistently brought forth as proof of Indian savagery, and both the Mexica and the Inca are portrayed as bloodthirsty and tyrannical, traits that brought about their downfall. The Indians were outclassed on the battlefield, outmaneuvered diplomatically, and lured from their pagan ways with the more enlightened Christian religion, as evidenced by the mass baptisms that harvested upward of 10,000 new souls in a matter of hours
(Motolinнa estimated that he had performed over 400,000 baptisms over the years). Finally, the Indians proved to be "inefficient" as laborers-"so weak that they can only be employed in tasks requiring little endurance"-and had to be replaced with Negroes, "a race robust for labor." In other words, they didn't even make good slaves.
Yet the native peoples had evolved an impressive variety of languages and cultures and levels of development, with two powerful and highly sophisticated empires standing atop a landscape dotted with towns and villages of all sizes and configurations. When the Spaniards first descended into the Valley of Mexico in 1519 they were awestruck. They had never witnessed anything even remotely similar. "And when we saw all those cities and villages built in the water," wrote Bernal Dнaz," and other great towns on dry land, and that straight and level causeway leading to Mexico [Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco],we were astounded.... Indeed, some of our soldiers asked whether it was not all a dream." By comparison, Madrid at that time had fewer than 20,000 inhabitants.
All of this intricate diversity began to unravel with the arrival of three Spanish ships, and events soon grew into a tragedy too great, and too horrific, to be grasped by the human imagination. The native peoples today have been reduced to ethnic minorities mired in chronic poverty. Most of them have taken refuge in or been pushed into remote regions, out of sight, where they lack the most basic social services. They are without political clout and are now being newly overrun by multinational oil and mining companies, soybean farmers, cattle ranchers, and loggers. It is, in effect, the Second Conquest.
But there is some hope this time around. Indian organizations have sprung up to confront the outside threats and they have begun to assert themselves in national politics in key areas of Latin America. The age of extreme vulnerability to disease has passed and, with the exception of a few of the more isolated tribes, epidemics are no longer a factor. Their increasing involvement in politics has had considerable impact in several countries, to the point where non-indigenous elites have sounded the alarm. The recent election of Evo Morales, an Aymara, to the presidency of Bolivia is one sign of a resurgence of indigenous self-confidence and determination.
Certainly, huge economic, political, and economic obstacles still stand in their way. Although Indian peoples are making progress, the going is rough and they must still contend with the powerful prejudices and scurrilous stereotypes of Indians that have accumulated on Latin America's collective consciousness like barnacles on the underbelly of an old ship. These prejudices are ever-present in daily life, manifesting themselves in expressions such as "Don't behave like an Indian!" when someone behaves stupidly or obnoxiously. They are also laced throughout the seemingly innocuous history books our children read in school. Just cast a glance around and you will see them, everywhere.
Visualizing Columbus Day
The traditional image of Columbus's discovery of the New World shows the Admiral stepping onto land with a flag in one hand and a sword in the other. He is surrounded by his fellow sailors, some of whom are carrying guns and swords. A friar strides next to Columbus holding a cross on high. The three Spanish caravels are behind them, bobbing in the sun-drenched Caribbean. Observing this triumphal scene are several diminutive, semi-naked Indians hiding in the bushes off to the side.
I would like to suggest an alternative image, one that better represents what really occurred when the two halves of the world came together on the morning of October 12, 1492:
Four horsemen spur their steeds off the Spanish ships and make their way up the beach to high ground. The first horseman is Pestilence, and he is the most formidable of the lot. His companions are Famine, War, and Death. They pause briefly to survey the landscape stretching out before them, then set off in the direction of the nearest community. The natives come out, tentatively at first, to greet them. They are healthy and well formed, and they invite the strangers to share their food and whatever else they might desire.
And that was the beginning of their long and terrifying journey through the heartland of the New World...
Mac Chapin is an anthropologist who has worked with indigenous peoples in Latin America for over four decades. He is the co-founder and director of the Center for the Support of Native Lands, a non-profit organization based in Arlington, Virginia.
Purchase a PDF of the entire November/December issue of World Watch, or subscribe or renew to World Watch Magazine. Current subscribers, log in and download this issue, and past issues of World Watch.
contact us | sign up for e-mail updates | join us | sitemap | privacy policy | terms of use
© 2008 Worldwatch Institute | 1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: (202) 452-1999
He's not on TV! He's not in your local paper! See Ralph Nader live in Albany this Thursday!
Come see Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader live in Albany this coming Thursday!
Did you know there are SIX candidates on the NYS ballot November?
Lets not just accept the two choices corporate America is comfortable feeding us.
Nader was against the bailouts and is against corporate welfare!
He is absolutely in favor of Single Payer Health Care!
He will get us out of Iraq immediately!
He is for alternative and sustainable energy (like solar and wind)!
He's on the ballot in 45 states and is being virtually ignored by all corporate media (Fox, Clearchannel, NPR & the N.Y. Times alike)!
Nader has been shut out of the debates!
Celebrate democracy by coming to see the people's candidate speak live in Albany! See you there!
Thurs. Oct. 16th, 7:30pm
Nader/Gonzalez Rally
The Egg
Empire State Plaza (Albany NY)
Suggested Contribution: $10/$5 students
Nader/Gonzalez Rally
The Egg
Empire State Plaza (Albany NY)
Suggested Contribution: $10/$5 students
More info:
Matt Funiciello
518-793-0075
518-463-8653
Albanygreens@yahoo.com
Albanygreens@yahoo.com
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Urgent Business Relationship
>>Date: Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 1:18 PM
>>Subject: URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
>>
>>DEAR AMERICAN:
>>
>>I NEED TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT AN URGENT SECRET BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
>>WITH A TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF GREAT MAGNITUDE.
>>
>>I AM MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMERICA. MY
>>COUNTRY HAS HAD CRISIS THAT HAS CAUSED THE NEED FOR LARGE TRANSFER
>>OF FUNDS OF 800 BILLION DOLLARS US. IF YOU WOULD ASSIST ME IN THIS
>>TRANSFER, IT WOULD BE MOST PROFITABLE TO YOU.
>>
>>I AM WORKING WITH MR. PHIL GRAM, LOBBYIST FOR UBS, WHO WILL BE MY
>>REPLACEMENT AS MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY IN JANUARY. AS A SENATOR,
>>YOU MAY KNOW HIM AS THE LEADER OF THE AMERICAN BANKING DEREGULATION
>>MOVEMENT IN THE 1990S. THIS TRANSACTIN IS 100% SAFE.
>>
>>THIS IS A MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY. WE NEED A BLANK CHECK. WE NEED
>>THE FUNDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE CANNOT DIRECTLY TRANSFER THESE
>>FUNDS IN THE NAMES OF OUR CLOSE FRIENDS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSTANTLY
>>UNDER SURVEILLANCE. MY FAMILY LAWYER ADVISED ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK
>>FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON WHO WILL ACT AS A NEXT OF KIN
>>SO THE FUNDS CAN BE TRANSFERRED.
>>
>>PLEASE REPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, IRA AND COLLEGE FUND
>>ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THOSE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO
>>WALLSTREETBAILOUT@TREASURY.GOV SO THAT WE MAY TRANSFER YOUR
>>COMMISSION FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AFTER I RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION,
>>I WILL RESPOND WITH DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SAFEGUARDS THAT WILL
>>BE USED TO PROTECT THE FUNDS.
>>
>>YOURS FAITHFULLY MINISTER OF TREASURY PAULSON
>>
Friday, August 15, 2008
Michael Moore - Hardly a Progressive Thinker
Michael Moore's most recent piece is "How the Democrats Can Blow It" (see it at "alternet.org" or at Moore's webiste). In it, he says that Dems should not demean McCain if they wish Obama to win. Moore calls Republican tactics like "swiftboating" a "cesspool" that "they swim in". At the end of this diatribe, he casually refers to Nader-supporters as "crazy".
How does Moore expect anyone to take him seriously? The attacks on Obama have been no better and no worse than what has been done to Nader by Moore's own precious party, the Demoncrats. Scurrilous attacks are scurrilous attacks regardless of where they come from.
Calling people who HAVE spines and who work for democracy, peace, single-payer health care and sustainable energy "crazy" people is not a particularly effective way to win them over.
Every time this porcine "progressive" speaks of his ex-patron in such disrespectful terms, I am saddened to see so many absorb his bilious effluent.
Moore's worst crime against the truth is his own "swift-boating" of Nader insofar as the 2000 election is concerned. He does it subtly at the end of this piece. This propaganda is every bit as bad as anything the right has thrown at Obama. In a way, its worse because Obama has access to corporate media to respond whereas Nader has no reasonable access.
Here are some facts about 2000 that people may use to better judge Moore's own "cesspool tactics":
1) There were TEN candidates on the ballot in Florida in 2000 (six other candidates beside Bush, Gore, Nader and Buchanan). They ALL exceeded the magic vote total of 537. Using Demologic, this makes them ALL "spoilers"! Can you name even one of these "bastards who gave us Bush"? Do you know one of these "egomaniacs who handed it to the neo-cons"? Have you thanked any of these candidates (besides Ralph) for "destroying our country"? Why was Ralph the ONLY one singled out by the corporate media and unprincipled Demoncrat operatives like Moore? Anyone who frightens the little sissies in the corporate media that much must be having quite an impact.
2) Gore refused to fight for 57,000 black voters who were illegally disenfranchised by the Bush machine in Florida. Thats roughly 106 times more votes than he would have needed to reverse the results of the election! In "Fahrenheit 9/11" we actually see Al Gore banging his little gavel, refusing to hear the pleas of black congressional reps fighting for their constituents. Is Al Gore a) a racist; b) a scumbag: or c) just a dumb f*ck?
3) Nationally, in 2000, EIGHT MILLION Democrats voted for GEORGE W BUSH! Only about 700,000 Dems pulled the lever for Ralph. Why don't these idiots clean up their own pro-war yard before yelling at us about ours?
4) I have a spine so I vote on principle. I understand those who SAY they vote for Democrats "strategically" (thats French for "without spine"). But, those who say this seem painfully unaware that there are 39 safe states, places where even sheep farmers from "Shane" would be voting independent or third party. A vote for either corporate puppet in these states is the poster child for "throwing your vote away".
Moore backed Nader without reservation in 2000, He has NEVER explained why he betrayed us and joined the fake left. He continues to suggest that Bush is Nader's fault. Bush is AMERICA'S fault. Michael, and it is high time you stop trying to pin it on a guy who has spent his entire life fighting battles on our behalf.
The 2006 "transition" shows us exactly what to expect when voters are dumb enough to trust the Democrats! Nothing. Nader supporters are not the crazy ones. We want democracy and we are willing to work at it for as long as it takes. We don't support candidates who accept corporate money. It may take several decades for the mainstream to grok this, but as long as we're out here fighting a TRULY principled battle, we will eventually win. Democrats lose ... even when their candidates win.
How does Moore expect anyone to take him seriously? The attacks on Obama have been no better and no worse than what has been done to Nader by Moore's own precious party, the Demoncrats. Scurrilous attacks are scurrilous attacks regardless of where they come from.
Calling people who HAVE spines and who work for democracy, peace, single-payer health care and sustainable energy "crazy" people is not a particularly effective way to win them over.
Every time this porcine "progressive" speaks of his ex-patron in such disrespectful terms, I am saddened to see so many absorb his bilious effluent.
Moore's worst crime against the truth is his own "swift-boating" of Nader insofar as the 2000 election is concerned. He does it subtly at the end of this piece. This propaganda is every bit as bad as anything the right has thrown at Obama. In a way, its worse because Obama has access to corporate media to respond whereas Nader has no reasonable access.
Here are some facts about 2000 that people may use to better judge Moore's own "cesspool tactics":
1) There were TEN candidates on the ballot in Florida in 2000 (six other candidates beside Bush, Gore, Nader and Buchanan). They ALL exceeded the magic vote total of 537. Using Demologic, this makes them ALL "spoilers"! Can you name even one of these "bastards who gave us Bush"? Do you know one of these "egomaniacs who handed it to the neo-cons"? Have you thanked any of these candidates (besides Ralph) for "destroying our country"? Why was Ralph the ONLY one singled out by the corporate media and unprincipled Demoncrat operatives like Moore? Anyone who frightens the little sissies in the corporate media that much must be having quite an impact.
2) Gore refused to fight for 57,000 black voters who were illegally disenfranchised by the Bush machine in Florida. Thats roughly 106 times more votes than he would have needed to reverse the results of the election! In "Fahrenheit 9/11" we actually see Al Gore banging his little gavel, refusing to hear the pleas of black congressional reps fighting for their constituents. Is Al Gore a) a racist; b) a scumbag: or c) just a dumb f*ck?
3) Nationally, in 2000, EIGHT MILLION Democrats voted for GEORGE W BUSH! Only about 700,000 Dems pulled the lever for Ralph. Why don't these idiots clean up their own pro-war yard before yelling at us about ours?
4) I have a spine so I vote on principle. I understand those who SAY they vote for Democrats "strategically" (thats French for "without spine"). But, those who say this seem painfully unaware that there are 39 safe states, places where even sheep farmers from "Shane" would be voting independent or third party. A vote for either corporate puppet in these states is the poster child for "throwing your vote away".
Moore backed Nader without reservation in 2000, He has NEVER explained why he betrayed us and joined the fake left. He continues to suggest that Bush is Nader's fault. Bush is AMERICA'S fault. Michael, and it is high time you stop trying to pin it on a guy who has spent his entire life fighting battles on our behalf.
The 2006 "transition" shows us exactly what to expect when voters are dumb enough to trust the Democrats! Nothing. Nader supporters are not the crazy ones. We want democracy and we are willing to work at it for as long as it takes. We don't support candidates who accept corporate money. It may take several decades for the mainstream to grok this, but as long as we're out here fighting a TRULY principled battle, we will eventually win. Democrats lose ... even when their candidates win.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Using Tax Money To Kill Democracy!
If you consider yourself knowledgeable about politics and you believe there is a special place in Hell for those who sabotage our elections, you just may want to read up on these lesser known culprits doing that evil work right next door in Pennsylvania. Not all "theft of democracy" occurs in Florida and Ohio and not all of it is sponsored by the Republicans. Interesting stuff!
Pa. Statehouse scandal cited in Sen. ballot case
PETER JACKSON
The Associated Press
The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 16, 2008
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20080716_ap_pastatehousescandalcitedinsenballotcase.html
HARRISBURG, Pa. - A former Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate on Wednesday asked the state's highest court to reopen his two-year-old ballot-access case because state legislative officials arrested last week on corruption charges were allegedly involved in the challenge that knocked him out of the race.
Carl Romanelli, once regarded as a threat to Democrat Bob Casey in the 2006 Senate race, and his lawyer, Lawrence Otter, want the case sent back to Commonwealth Court. There, they plan to ask a judge to dismiss a ruling requiring them to pay more than $80,000 in legal costs.
Romanelli and Otter cite grand jury allegations that state House Democratic caucus operatives directed as many as 30 taxpayer-paid employees to review signatures on Romanelli's petition in the ballot challenge that killed his candidacy.
"A democratic society can no longer function if the government is going to support candidates and suppress other candidates using its funds and resources," Samuel Stretton, the attorney for Romanelli and Otter, wrote in Wednesday's filing in the state Supreme Court.
Casey, a son of the late governor, won the election over Rick Santorum, then the third-ranking Republican in the Senate.
A Casey spokesman said the senator was not aware of any illegal activity surrounding the Romanelli ballot challenge.
"There was never any indication ... about anything like this going on," said the spokesman, Larry Smar.
In a similar challenge that prevented Ralph Nader from running in Pennsylvania as an independent presidential candidate in 2004, the grand jury alleged that as many as 50 House Democratic staffers invested "a staggering number of man-hours" in efforts to block his candidacy.
The state Supreme Court ordered Nader and running mate Peter Miguel Camejo to pay $81,000 in legal costs of the voters who challenged his signatures , a judgment that Nader is contesting in the District of Columbia courts.
Nader's lawyer, Oliver Hall, said he is weighing whether to raise the Pennsylvania corruption case in that litigation.
"We are going to aggressively pursue every avenue to oppose this judgment," Hall said. "It now appears to be clear that (the judgment) is the result of a criminal conspiracy."
State Attorney General Tom Corbett's office last week charged each of the 12 defendants with theft, conspiracy and conflicts of interest counts in an alleged wide-ranging scheme to use taxpayer-funded employees, equipment and other resources to advance their political interests.
The defendants include former Rep. Michael Veon of Beaver County, the No. 2 Democratic leader until he was ousted in the 2006 election; Mike Manzo, the former chief of staff to House Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese, who has not been charged; and one sitting legislator, Rep. Sean Ramaley, D-Beaver. All the defendants are free on bail. Veon, Manzo and Ramaley have said they are innocent.
The ballot challenges left Nader and Romanelli, a railroad consultant who had been making his first bid for statewide political office, thousands of signatures shy of the number needed to qualify for their respective ballots.
Eleven Commonwealth Court judges were involved in examining Nader's petitions. Nearly two-thirds of his signatures were declared invalid, and the presiding judge cited widespread evidence of fraud that "shocks the conscience."
Democratic strategists regarded both Romanelli and Nader as spoilers who would siphon votes from the Democrats in those races.
Smar noted that Santorum's supporters provided most of the financing for Romanelli's signature-gathering effort.
"Nothing changes the fact that his signatures were invalid," said Smar.
Part of the reason for the monetary judgment against Romanelli and his lawyer was that they lacked the resources to defend themselves against the ballot challenge, Stretton said.
For example, some days they failed to muster the nine representatives that the judge wanted from each side. The Democratic State Committee, which mounted the challenge, consistently had the requisite number, he said.
"If there are going to be any fines and costs, they should be reserved for those who misused government offices and taxpayer funds in mounting this challenge," he wrote in the latest filing.
Bumped off ballot, Green Party candidate goes to court
By Tracie Mauriello
Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh), July 17, 2008
http://www.post-gazette.com
HARRISBURG -- A third-party congressional candidate filed a court petition yesterday saying he had been bumped from the ballot based on illegal work done by Harrisburg Democratic staffers who were arrested last week on corruption charges.
Carl Romanelli, a Green Party candidate in the 2006 U.S. Senate race, is asking the state Supreme Court to dismiss a ruling requiring him to pay $80,408 in legal costs incurred during his fight to stay on the ballot. He was bumped from the ballot after numerous signatures on his nominating petitions were challenged as invalid.
A grand jury presentment last week included evidence that those signature challenges were based on work by dozens of Democratic House employees while they were on the clock and being paid with tax dollars.
The grand jury found that staffers were similarly involved in an effort to remove former presidential candidate Ralph Nader from the 2004 ballot.
"The use of government monies to sponsor or support a candidate and/or challenge another candidate is absolutely dreadful and impermissible and a total violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution," attorney Samuel C. Stretton wrote in the petition filed yesterday on behalf of Mr. Romanelli and Larry Otter, an attorney who had represented Mr. Romanelli during the petition challenges. "A Democratic society can no longer function if the government is going to support candidates and suppress other candidates using its funds and resources."
Mr. Romanelli had been viewed as a potential spoiler who could draw votes away from Democrat Bob Casey Jr. during his 2006 race against longtime Republican Sen. Rick Santorum.
Mr. Casey's spokesman Larry Smar said he was "absolutely unaware" that legislative staffers had been put to work challenging petition signatures on the senator's behalf.
"We absolutely had no idea any of this was going on," he said. "But, as far as the ballot challenge, the names on the Romanelli petitions were still invalid, no matter what took place."
Mr. Nader and running mate Peter Camejo were seen as potential spoilers in the 2004 presidential race. House Democratic staffers were involved in petition challenges that got them removed from the ballot and assessed $81,000 in court costs in Pennsylvania.
"It seems clear that the judgment [against Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo] was related to conduct set forth in the presentment and, for that reason, we think it is the ill-gotten fruit of a criminal conspiracy and cannot be enforced," said Nader attorney Oliver Hall. The presentment "clearly shows you have 50 state employees who are marshaled into service by a political party for the purpose of suppressing voter choice in a federal election by forcing a candidate off the ballot."
Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo have not yet paid the $81,000 and have not decided whether to ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to remand the case, as Mr. Romanelli has.
Among those charged in the grand jury investigation were former House Minority Whip Mike Veon, D-Beaver Falls; Rep. Sean Ramaley, D-Economy, and Michael Manzo, former chief of staff to Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese of Waynesburg.
Tracie Mauriello can be reached at tmauriello@post-gazette.com or 717-787-2141.
Letters: One Reader's View
Investigate sabotage of Nader efforts
Philadelphia Inquirer, July 17, 2008
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080717_Letters__One_Reader_s_View.html
It is unfortunate that Pennsylvania Democratic Party spokesman Abe Amoros used the criminal indictment of 12 prominent Pennsylvania Democrats as an occasion, once again, to defame 2004 independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader and 2006 Green Party senatorial candidate Carl Romanelli ("National tie to Pa. bonus scandal," July 15).
As Amoros should know, only a tiny number of signatures on the Nader petitions - 687 or 1.3 percent of the total - were counted as "forgeries" by their signers, and in the words of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Thomas Saylor, there is "no evidence" to support Democrats' claims that the Nader campaign was even aware of such signatures. Furthermore, no allegation of fraud was ever raised against Romanelli's petitions.
There is, however, evidence that the Nader petitions were the target of widespread and deliberate sabotage: specifically, petition circulators discovered and removed about 7,000 obviously fake signatures prior to submitting the petitions.
Attorney General Tom Corbett should make it a priority to discover who was behind this unlawful conduct, and to clarify the role of the law firm mentioned in the indictment, which helped perpetrate the miscarriage of justice that denied Pennsylvanians their free choice of candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
Oliver Hall
Counsel to Ralph Nader
Washington
Friday, July 18, 2008
Locavore Recipes
Whether you go to farmer's markets, eat at local restaurants that care or belong to a CSA (or all three), I thought you may find this of interest.
The Natural Resources Defense Council just put out this guide with recipes for seasonal food. Its very well done and provides great ideas for what
to do with your farmer's market or CSA goodies.
I hope it is of use to you!
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Rush Limbaugh's On Welfare!
You just gotta love this! Ralph Nader just wrote Rush Limbaugh asking why he doesn't offer to pay for his use of the public airwaves with which he generates millions in profits for himself every year giving nothing back to the people who make it possible. He asks, is this not "welfare", which "conservatives" purport to despise?
Friday, July 4, 2008
Death Row Journalist On Ralph Nader and Obama
Mumia Abu-Jamal talks about Nader and Obama and the "talk white" remarks from his journalistic pulpit on Death Row.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Obama Says He'll Debate Nader!
I was just driving to work and listening to WAMC. Senator Harry Reid was on talking about how healthy he felt the Democratic Party "debates" were for the country. He was also making all the usual excuses for why the Democrats weren't fighting for the agenda of those who elected them in 2006. I couldn't help but be disgusted. The "debates" have simply been he said/she said battles between the two Democratic Senators whose views are fairly similar. I want debates but I certainly don't want 21 photo-ops between two people who basically agree on everything and thats what I've seen thus far.
Am I wrong to want substantive criticism and discussion of each candidate's "health care" plan? Is it really weird that I want a moderator to ask these empty corporate heads why, in the name of God, they and their party don't support Single Payer Health Care? I want discussion of why universal health care that is half the price we currently pay isn't even on the table. Is it really so strange that I would like to hear an actual discussion of the subtle differences between staying in Iraq for "a few more years" or "until 2011" or "until the job is done". Whatever happened to the whole "I am against this war", "Lets get the Hell out right now!" position? Which one of these pro-war candidates has a plan for peace and which one will bomb Iran as soon as they can? I want to know why nuclear power and big coal support both candidates even though each one claims to support "alternative, sustainable" energy? ets have some details about their individual policies to resolve America's energy crisis and self-created carbon emission troubles. Lets have a debate where they each discuss the mechanics of HOW their plans (for anything) will work!
Obama settled my mind somewhat recently when he said that he would debate Ralph Nader. The Nader Campaign sent this (tongue in cheek) email out (I've posted it below and you can also check it out online at "votenader.org"). If Obama really would debate Ralph, I would send him a check and a letter supporting his democratic principle. I really would. I wonder, though, should Obama become the candidate in the general election and then refuse to make good on his promise (or even mention it) .... How many Obama supporters will see the light and send Ralph a check and a letter? ;-)
Friday, May 9, 2008
Nader and Gonzalez on WAMC
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
My Speech at Single-Payer Health Care Rally in Albany
My name is Matt Funiciello. I am a small business owner here in the state of NY. I own a wholesale bread bakery in Moreau, N.Y. and we employ about 40 people. As wheat prices have tripled, we have had to struggle to find new ways to make ends meet. We had been purchasing terrible overpriced HMO insurance for those of our workers who chose to participate and we had been paying approximately 50% of the premiums.
Several months ago, we were forced to cancel our participation in said plan leaving our workers to find coverage elsewhere or do without. Some are lucky enough to have a spouse whose employer is better able to cover these expenses. Some are simply going without and some are trying to buy insurance on their own and now paying more because they are buying insurance as individuals and are not able to benefit from group purchasing.
I would just think of this as a hard time, a time we'll all eventually pass through but I find it very hard to do that. You see, I grew up in Canada and have lived under the care of a real health care system so I find it very hard to watch my children, my friends and my workers struggle on without something so vital as adequate and affordable access to doctors and health care. Being fully aware that greed and waste are what make their suffering possible is a terrible cross to bear.
Senator Charles Schumer said the other day, "Healthcare, I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we're ready for a major national healthcare plan."
Schumer is not the first elected official to question our readiness for national health care. He and many others seem unable to comprehend the simple math that allows those of in small business to understand what they cannot.
Lets play the Single-Payer/Small Business Math Game for just a second ...
We are currently spending $7,129 dollars per person to cover 257,000,000 Americans badly.
This costs about $1.832 trillion dollars a year.
Now, over 30 other industrialized nations have universal health care and it costs them all about half of that amount per capita with universal coverage.
Lets take off our politician's hats for a moment and put on our Small Business Owner's hats instead.
$1.832 trillion dollars divided by 304,000,000 Americans equals $6027 dollars per person.
So, for all of you non-politicians out there who are able to do simple math, we just took the current amount actually being spent on health care in this country and divided it by the number of people who actually live here and ... the result? We see that everyone in this country could be covered for the exact same amount being spent today if we were just able to lower our per capita
costs from $7129 to $6027 per person, a difference of just over $1,100 dollars.
costs from $7129 to $6027 per person, a difference of just over $1,100 dollars.
Well, is that possible? Could we do it? Lets keep our small business owner's hats on for just another minute and speak plainly about this dilemma. Where can we find and save this $1100 dollars per person that would allow us to cover everyone?
I bet many of you non-politicians already know the answer. We currently suffer under a system that allows for profit and administrative costs that run as high as 35%! If we could bring those costs down, that would be great, because together they amount to almost $2500 dollars per year per person! I remind you ... we only needed to save $1100 to achieve the desired result, full coverage for all!
Now, if Canadians and 35 other industrialized countries can all have health care for half of what we spend and live a year longer, why can't we? Its sure as heck not because of a lack of money being thrown at this problem.
And, if Medicare can run effectively with only a 2-3% administrative costs, why can't the private sector? I thought it was more efficient to privatize things? Apparently, its not and we need to do that other thing business does well, centralize and negotiate pricing.
Its time for our elected officials to stop telling us lies. We already spend far more than any other country does for universal care. It is time for single payer health care now! It is also time to withhold your votes from any politician who refuses to step up to the plate and hit this ball out of the park. We're virtually lobbing it to you. If you can't hit it, then lets have someone else step up to the plate who can!
Saturday, May 3, 2008
The ComPost-Star Defends Its Two-Party Bias
Our "local" corporate paper is the Glens Falls Post-Star. Its owned by the publishing empire known as Lee Enterprises who currently own 51 dailies across the country. As with many small corporate papers, the Post-Star doesn't do a terrible job with local news and many good people (including some friends) work there. However, they have a monopoly in our little town and are widely hated for their bias and lack of integrity by most people I come across (regardless of their individual politics).
The P-S buried their recent advance story on Ralph Nader's April 26th visit to our little town. It was carefully placed on page B7 in Saturday's paper (which few people read). When I got them an actual interview with Ralph, hoping they would do something front page or at least, more substantive, they did do a tiny bit better, giving him a small right hand sidebar story on page B1 with a tiny photo. As for coverage of the actual event, they only came to the fundraising dinner and not to the public Wood Theater event. We had about 225 people come out to see him. There was a lengthy standing ovation and there were four TV stations there (the local Time Warner and NBC affiliates covered it). There were three other videographers and six print journalists there from different papers (indie and otherwise). The Post-Star printed a little story on the visit on Sunday and had their anonymous an cowardly sniper, Don Coyote ("Dumb Coyote"), tell us all on the front page, "No wonder way more people went to see Rachael Ray than Ralph Nader. He didn't even have an ice sculpture." (Rachael Ray was in Lake George, her hometown, that same night, at a annual fundraiser she holds at at her alma mater, Lake George High School.)
What would it be like if Ralph made a living hawking Dunkin Donuts on TV instead of working tirelessly on our behalf? Would he then warrant some substantive coverage in the Post-Star's
precious little pages? Is that what it really takes to get on their "radar" and to earn their respect? You've got to be on TV selling crap? I can easily imagine that Miley Cyrus is the editorial staff's favorite singer (they've likely never heard of KD Lang or Lyle Lovett or Blue Rodeo, those people aren't on TV often enough to be "relevant" singers). I bet McDonald's is their favorite restaurant ("Aw shucks, them burgers is on the tube all the time, dude!). These are not people one could accuse of being too bright and they control the mainstream's access to information!
Apparently, they have never heard of journalism or substance or truth. They are so caught up in their bullshit TV world, they have lost the ability to focus on things that actually matter.
Since then, their lack of coverage has caused the story on the dinner to be the "Most Commented" on their website. Check it out.
The editorial staff have also regularly responded to online criticisms of their biased coverage (or non-coverage in many cases) by attacking me or the others who make note of their criminal behavior. John Thomas had a great letter to the editor published about the Post Star's pathetic behavior (I've copied it below). They responded (as always, using anonymity) with an "Editor's Note" saying that they had given "ample" coverage to Ralph. They also said this to me in an anonymous editor's note ... "Just declaring yourself a presidential candidate doesn't automatically make you equal to the others. If McCain, Clinton or Obama came to Glens Falls, our readers would be expecting, and we would be giving them, much more coverage than Nader. That has nothing to do with the "corporate media" junk you keep throwing out. It's common sense. Any other paper, big or small, corporate or privately owned, would do the exact same thing."
Amazing! All I can think of is that old adage we have all heard many times over the millennia, "If little Mikey jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do it, too?"
Apparently the Post Star management will follow their corporate media "leaders" right off the bridge. Their God, the mighty Boob Tube, can do no wrong. Sad little people ... all of them. If the many other media mechanisms we often think of as more "credible" didn't also cheer lead the war, water down the issues, ignore and marginalize candidates, promote big business and parrot wire stories, I would think the Post-Star was a truly evil mechanism. Knowing that they are just following the lead of NBC and PBS and Disney and the NY Times and the Washington Post makes me feel better. If they are just stupid and easily-led ... that means there is hope for them yet! ;-)
Friday, May 2, 2008
John Thomas Writes A Letter
This is a great letter published in the Post-Star concerning their terribly sparse coverage of Ralph Nader as he visited their "hometown". Thought you might get a kick out of it. You've got to love the editor's inane comment arguing that they gave him "ample" coverage. ;-)
Nader did not get the coverage he deserves
Editor:
Attendee's at the Wood Theatre were provoked by Mr. Nader to think about the situations in our nation. Mr. Nader is a seasoned Capitol Hill activist, the American people are his constituency.
Mr. Nader offers solutions to help us out of mire we've gotten into, solutions that cost only commitment and participation in the upcoming election.
Many people will not vote, some vote the party line, some will watch exit polls, vote for projected winners; projected winners have enough votes, we have to vote our conscience.
We do not have to vote for either of the two parties, and we do not have to vote to elect the lesser of two evils. It's time to take back our streets, schools, children, censor TV shows and hobble the Internet. We are distracted from government by mindless drivel; TV, movies, Internet, trash radio and biased news reporting.
Consider -- the economy is suffering, schools are suffering, huge energy issues, and Rachael Ray gets more press in the Sunday, April 27 paper than a viable, cogent, honest and altruistic presidential candidate; none of the current three popular presidential hopefuls on their best day can make any of those claims.
What have any of them done for the American people except spend tax dollars like they were on a game show. If any of the three popular hopefuls were coming to Glens Falls, I'm sure there would have been larger coverage in the paper.
I would like to see deeper and less opinionated coverage in media than we experience. The choice to run or not run a story is critical to the integrity of the paper. The editor has license. I believe the editor also has a greater and public responsibility to go with the power of that license.
JOHN THOMAS
Hartford
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Nader's visit got ample play in our publication, including a preview story last week on his upcoming visit that included a phone interview with the candidate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
