Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 12, 2021
SJA #163 - Rapid Onset Whiteness Dysphoria
You know, I really oughta keep track of where our conversation wanders.
Monday, March 15, 2021
Saturday, February 13, 2021
Saturday, June 20, 2020
Saturday, May 16, 2020
SJA #98 - Ceci n'est pas une satire, Aaron
Links
- SJA Podcast
- YouTube Channels
- SJA Patreon!
- The Crip Crafter on facebook
- Anarchist Memes on facebook
- Misandry Animals
- Sephirajo’s begging bowl
- Lady Columbia's paypal
- Twitter -
- @surgoshan
- @somerandomg33k
- @LetoAnor
- @slightlysluggy
- Dungeons & Debacles
Saturday, January 11, 2020
SJA #81 - Sundowning into WWIII
Links
- SJA Podcast
- YouTube Channels
- SJA Patreon!
- The Crip Crafter on facebook
- Anarchist Memes on facebook
- Misandry Animals
- Sephirajo’s begging bowl
- Lady Columbia's paypal
- Twitter -
- @surgoshan
- @somerandomg33k
- @LetoAnor
- @slightlysluggy
- Dungeons & Debacles
Monday, March 26, 2018
I Kind of Hate the Democrats
I Kind of Hate the Democrats — English
Not because they don’t mean well. But the Republicans mean well, too. Intentions aren’t magic. They can mean well all they want. The results of their actions are what matter. The Republicans want to take us into a fascist corporate Christian nightmare (don’t get me wrong, I think I’d make a damn good terrorists, making explosives out of piss and the walls of your house, but I’d rather just hang out and play with my cats), but they’re pretty honest about it. “Corporations are people, friend.” “We need god in schools.” “FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS.”
The Democrats are really annoying. They keep saying they want to fight for justice, fight for people’s rights, and then they keep not doing it. Women, brown people, queer folks, or immigrants, anyone’s suffering is open for negotiation. Who will the dems throw under the bus this week? Will women lose access to abortions, health care, or protection from domestic violence? Will disabled people lose the ability to force employers and building owners to make their properties accessible or will they just lose another 10% of their income? Will poor people lose their homes and their food or just their food? Will brown people lose their lives or their children?
Every goddamn time, the democrats look at the table and either fold their hand or assume they’ll win without having to fight. They can’t seem to get it through their thick fucking skulls that Republican voters don’t give a shit if the candidate is a hypocrite or a liar or a thief. Look at Trump! He’s a hypocrite, a liar, a thief, a racist, a rapist, a bully, a thug, a misogynist, a xenophobe, a homophobe, a complete failure as a moral human being, an incompetent narcissist who can’t even speak in coherent sentences, and they fell all over themselves voting for him! Why? Because they agreed with the worst of what he said and didn’t care about the rest because they knew he’d appoint the fascists they like!
The Democrats don’t even bother to compete in half the districts because they think they can’t win, they don’t compete in a quarter of the districts because they think they can’t lose, and they barely compete in the rest because they think the other guy’s a clown! And when they get in office, they keep not fighting! They don’t fight for their causes, they don’t fight for their constituents, they don’t fight for their beliefs, they just don’t fight! They open with the compromise position, compromise further, and then get stabbed in the back because the Republicans are lying, thieving assholes.
Not because they don’t mean well. But the Republicans mean well, too. Intentions aren’t magic. They can mean well all they want. The results of their actions are what matter. The Republicans want to take us into a fascist corporate Christian nightmare (don’t get me wrong, I think I’d make a damn good terrorists, making explosives out of piss and the walls of your house, but I’d rather just hang out and play with my cats), but they’re pretty honest about it. “Corporations are people, friend.” “We need god in schools.” “FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS.”
The Democrats are really annoying. They keep saying they want to fight for justice, fight for people’s rights, and then they keep not doing it. Women, brown people, queer folks, or immigrants, anyone’s suffering is open for negotiation. Who will the dems throw under the bus this week? Will women lose access to abortions, health care, or protection from domestic violence? Will disabled people lose the ability to force employers and building owners to make their properties accessible or will they just lose another 10% of their income? Will poor people lose their homes and their food or just their food? Will brown people lose their lives or their children?
Every goddamn time, the democrats look at the table and either fold their hand or assume they’ll win without having to fight. They can’t seem to get it through their thick fucking skulls that Republican voters don’t give a shit if the candidate is a hypocrite or a liar or a thief. Look at Trump! He’s a hypocrite, a liar, a thief, a racist, a rapist, a bully, a thug, a misogynist, a xenophobe, a homophobe, a complete failure as a moral human being, an incompetent narcissist who can’t even speak in coherent sentences, and they fell all over themselves voting for him! Why? Because they agreed with the worst of what he said and didn’t care about the rest because they knew he’d appoint the fascists they like!
The Democrats don’t even bother to compete in half the districts because they think they can’t win, they don’t compete in a quarter of the districts because they think they can’t lose, and they barely compete in the rest because they think the other guy’s a clown! And when they get in office, they keep not fighting! They don’t fight for their causes, they don’t fight for their constituents, they don’t fight for their beliefs, they just don’t fight! They open with the compromise position, compromise further, and then get stabbed in the back because the Republicans are lying, thieving assholes.
Monday, February 05, 2018
The Democrats Are the Conservative Party
Democrats are the Conservative Party - English
If you want to talk about politics on a global scale, it becomes confusing very quickly. “Liberal”, “Labor”, “Conservative”, “Tory”, “Green”, “Blue”... these labels get thrown around and adopted and then they mutate and they can mean wildly different things. For example, the Australian Liberal party is much the same as the US Republican party. Their Labor party is their equivalent to the Democrats. Which may be an insult; all I know is that Labor is further to the left than Liberal… in Australia.
For purposes of this convo, I’ll be using the terms as I learned them waaaay back in AP US Government.
* Conservative - someone who tries to maintain the status quo
* Liberal - someone who tries to make changes in order to make progress
For a while there in the US, it sure looked like the Republicans were the conservative party and the Democrats the liberal party. After all, the Democrats were the ones on the side of allowing gay and trans people to serve openly in the military and participate in society without fear of discrimination. Republicans just want to punish that sort of person for existing. Democrats were the ones in favor of fighting racism and racist policies against black and brown people. Republicans just want to punish that sort of person for existing. Democrats are in favor of keeping abortion safe and legal for anyone who gets pregnant. Republicans just want to punish that sort of person for existing. And so on.
But the Democrats haven’t walked the walk in decades. The party understood the results of Nixon’s Southern Strategy even if they didn’t understand the cause, and they swung to the right. They became the conservative party.
Ever since Clinton took office in 1992, the Democrats have been the weak, mealy-mouthed party of hand-wringing and compromise. They’ve been struggling to keep things quiet and peaceful and not actually change anything. They’ve been desperately fighting to keep things the way the are, fighting to keep the rich rich, keep the middle class comfortable, and keep the poor quiet.
“But what about Obamacare?” Yeah, the wildly progressive action that was the centerpiece of the Obama presidency, his left-wing legacy. The member states of the United Kingdom put National Health Services in place in the years immediately following WWII. And those are actual socialized medicine; fully funded government programs that serve the entire population. Obamacare is a slight modification to our god-awful private health care system that forces everyone to join, and forces all health plans to accept them, and forces all plans to cover all conditions.
Don’t get me wrong, Obamacare is a step up from the system we had before. It’s a step closer to the system we should have. But a pro-corporate, privatized version of a program that was successfully enacted 70 years earlier is simply not progressive. Obamacare is a patch on a profit-driven system, not actual socialized healthcare. It is incredibly conservative.
I’ve already made my feelings on the Republicans clear, but I’ll reiterate. They’re the fascist party. They’re trying to destroy every bit of social progress humanity has ever made. They’re trying to take us back to feudalism, when you were either an aristocrat or a slave. They’re trying to make changes, but they’re certainly not trying to make progress.
And to reiterate again: we need a genuine leftist movement in the United States. We need an actual counter to the fascist movement. We need democratic socialism, and it needs to recognize the reality on the ground.
Los Demócratas son el partido conservador de los Estados Unidos- Español
Si se quiere hablar de política a escala global, el asunto rápidamente se vuelve confuso. "Liberal", "Labor", "Conservative", "Tory", "Green", "Blue"... esas etiquetas se utilizan y se adoptan y luego mutan y pueden significar cosas totalmente diferentes. Por ejemplo, el partido Liberal australiano es muy similar al partido Republicano estadounidense. Su Partido Laborista es su equivalente a los Demócratas. Lo que puede ser un insulto; lo que yo sé es que el Partido Laborista es más de izquierda que los liberales... en Australia.
A los fines de esta conversación, usaré los términos como los aprendí hace mucho tiempo en AP US Government (una classe a nivel universitario sobre el gobierno estadounidense).
* Conservador: alguien que intenta mantener el status quo
* Liberal: alguien que intenta realizar cambios para hacer progresos
Durante algún tiempo en los Estados Unidos, parecía realmente que los Republicanos eran el partido conservador y los Demócratas el partido liberal. Después de todo, los Demócratas eran los que permitían a los homosexuales y las personas transgénero (lo siento si no estoy usando el término correctamente; lo uso en la manera como lo he aprendido en el inglés de izquierda de los Estados Unidos) a servir en el ejército. Los Republicanos simplemente quieren castigar a estas personas por el solo hecho de existir. Los Demócratas eran los que estaban a favor de luchar contra el racismo y las políticas racistas contra las personas negras. Los Republicanos simplemente quieren castigar esas personas por el solo hecho de existir. Los Demócratas están a favor de conservar el aborto seguro y legal para cualquier persona que resulte embarazada. Los Republicanos simplemente quieren castigar esas personas por el solo hecho de existir. Y así sucesivamente.
Pero los demócratas no han recorrido el camino desde hace unas décadas. El partido comprendió los resultados de la Estrategia del sur de Richard Nixon incluso si no comprendió la causa, y se movió a la derecha. Se convirtió en el partido conservador.
Desde que Clinton asumió el cargo en 1992, los demócratas han sido el partido débil evasivo de nerviosismo y transigencia. Han estado luchando para mantener las cosas silenciosas y tranquilas y no para verdaderamente cambiar nada. Han estado luchando para mantener las cosas como están, para guardar la riqueza de los ricos y la comodidad de la clase media y para silenciar a los pobres.
"¿Y el Obamacare?" Sí, la acción increíblemente progresista que fue la atracción principal de la presidencia de Obama, su legado de izquierda. Los estados miembros del Reino Unido promulgaron sus Sistemas Nacionales de Salud durante los años inmediatamente después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Y esos son realmente la medicina socializada; programas totalmente financiados del gobierno que sirven a toda la población. Obamacare es una modificación mínima de nuestro sistema de asistencia médica privatizada horrible que fuerza a todo el mundo a unirse y a todos planes de salud a aceptarlos y a cubrir todas las enfermedades.
No me malinterpretes, Obamacare es un paso por delante desde el sistema que teníamos antes. Es un paso más hacia el sistema que deberíamos tener. Pero una versión pro-empresarial privatizada de un programa que fue promulgado con éxito 70 años antes sencillamente no es progresista. Obamacare es un parche en un sistema con ánimo de lucro, no realmente la medicina socializada. Es increíblemente conservador.
Ya he aclarado mis sentimientos sobre los republicanos, pero los reiteraré. Son el partido fascista. Están intentando destruir todo el progreso social que la humanidad ha realizado. Están intentando llevarnos al feudalismo, cuando una persona era o un aristócrata o un esclavo. Ellos están intentando realizar cambios, pero ciertamente no están intentando realizar progresos.
Y para reiterar una vez más: necesitamos un movimiento de izquierda auténtico en los Estados Unidos. Necesitamos una oposición al movimiento fascista. Necesitamos el socialismo democrático, y este tiene que reconocer la realidad a la que enfrentamos.
Les Démocrates sont le parti conservateur des États-Unis. - français
Si on veut parler de la politique à l'échelle mondiale, elle devient rapidement peu claire. « Liberal », « Labor », « Conservative », « Tory », « Green », « Blue »... ces étiquettes sont utilisées et adoptées et puis elles subissent des mutations et peuvent signifier des choses très différentes. Par exemple, le parti Libéral australien est très similaire au parti Républicain américain. Leur parti Labor est leur équivalent des Démocrates. Ce qui peut être une insulte ; ce que je sais est que Labor est plus à la gauche que Liberal... en Australie.
Pour les besoins de cette conversation, j'utiliserai les termes comme je les ai appris il y a des années en AP US Government (une classe au niveau universitaire sur le gouvernement des États-Unis).
* Conservateur - quelqu'un qui essaie de maintenir le statu quo
* Libéral - quelqu'un qui essaie de changer des choses pour faire des progrès
Pendant un temps aux États-Unis, il semblait vraiment que les Républicains étaient le parti conservateur et les Démocrates le parti libéral. Après tout, les Démocrates étaient eux pour permettre aux homosexuels et personnes transgenres de servir dans l'armée et de participer à la société sans peur de la discrimination. Les Républicains veulent simplement punir ce type de personne pour le crime d’exister. Les Démocrates sont eux en faveur de la lutte contre le racisme et les politiques racistes contre les personnes noires. Les Républicains veulent simplement punir ce type de personne pour le crime d’exister. Les Démocrates souhaitent conserver l'avortement sûr et légal pour n'importe quelle personne est enceinte. Les Républicains veulent simplement punir ce type de personne pour le crime d’exister. Et ainsi suite.
Mais les Démocrates n'ont pas joint le geste à la parole depuis des décennies. Le parti a compris les résultats de la Stratégie du Sud de Richard Nixon même s'ils n'en ont pas compris la cause, et ils ont basculé vers la droite. Ils sont devenus le parti conservateur.
Depuis que Clinton est entré en fonction en 1992, les Démocrates ont été le parti faible qui manque de franchise, le parti de l'inquiétude et du compromis. Ils luttent pour conserver l'ordre des choses tel qu’il est, pour laisser la richesse aux riches et le confort à la classe moyenne et pour faire taire les pauvres.
« Mais qu'en est-il de l'Obamacare ? » Oui, l'action incroyablement progressive qui a été la pièce maîtresse de la présidence d'Obama, son héritage de gauche. Les états membres du Royaume Uni ont mis en place les systèmes de Sécurité sociale dans les années qui ont suivi la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Et ces sont vraiment des systèmes de sécurité sociale ; des programmes entièrement financés par le gouvernement au service de la population entière. L'Obamacare est une petite modification de notre système privé de services de santé franchement atroce qui oblige tout le monde à y adhérer et toutes les mutuelles à les accepter et à couvrir toutes les maladies.
Comprenez-moi bien, l'Obamacare est un progrès, comparé au système que nous avions avant. C'est un pas de plus vers le système que nous devrions avoir. Mais une version pro-corporatiste privatisée d'un programme qui a été mis en place avec succès 70 ans plus tôt n'est tout simplement pas progressive. L'Obamacare est un patch qui corrige un peu un système à but lucratif, pas vraiment un système de sécurité sociale. C'est incroyablement conservateur.
J'ai déjà montré mes sentiments sur les républicains, mais je les réitérerai. Ils sont le parti fasciste. Ils essaient de détruire tous les progrès sociaux que l’humanité n'a déjà faits. Ils essaient de nous retourner à la féodalité, où on est ou un aristocrate ou un esclave. Ils essaient d'apporter des changements, mais certainement ils n'essaient pas de faire des progrès.
Et pour réitérer encore une fois : nous avons besoin d'un mouvement de gauche aux États-Unis. Nous avons besoin d'un contrepoids au mouvement fasciste. Nous avons besoins du socialisme démocratique, et ceci doit reconnaître la réalité sur le terrain.
Os Democratas são o partido conservador dos Estados Unidos. - Português
Se você quiser falar sobre a política na escala global, se torna confuso muito rápido. "Liberal", "Labor", "Conservative", "Tory", "Green", "Blue"... essas etiquetas são utilizadas e adotadas, então mutuam e podem significar coisas extremamente diferentes. Por exemplo, o partido liberal australiano é muito similar ao partido republicano americano. Seu partido “Labor” é seu equivalente aos Democratas. O que pode ser um insulto; tudo o que eu sei é que o partido Labor é mais à esquerda que o partido Liberal... na Australia.
Para efeitos de conversa, eu usarei a terminologia que aprendi há muito tempo na aula AP US Government (uma aula de nível universitário sobre o governo dos Estados Unidos).
* Conservador - alguém que tenta manter o status quo
* Liberal - alguém que tenta introduzir alterações para realizar progressos
Durante algum tempo nos Estados Unidos, realmente parecia que os Republicanos eram o partido conservador e os Democratas o partido liberal. Afinal de contas, os Democratas eram a favor de permissão à homossexuais e transgêneros (me desculpe, eu espero que minha utilização desse término é correcto) de servir abertamente nas forças armadas e participar da sociedade sem medo de discriminação. Os republicanos querem simplesmente castigar esse tipo de pessoa por existir. Os Democratas eram a favor da luta contra o racismo e as políticas racistas contra pessoas negras. Os republicanos querem simplesmente castigar esse tipo de pessoa por existir. Os Democratas são a favor de manter o aborto seguro e legal para qualquer grávida. Os republicanos querem simplesmente castigar esse tipo de pessoa por existir. E assim por diante.
Mas há décadas que os democratas não andam a pé. O partido compreendeu os resultados da Estratégia sulista de Richard Nixon mesmo se não entendendo a causa, e deu uma guinada para a direita. Eles se tornaram o partido conservador.
Desde que Clinton assumiu o cargo em 1992, os democratas foi o partido débil e insincero de lamentações e compromisso. Estão lutando para manter o mundo quieto e tranqüilo e não realmente tentando mudar nada. Estão desesperadamente lutando por manter as coisas como estão, para conservar a riqueza dos ricos e o conforto da classe média e silenciar os pobres.
"Mas e quanto ao Obamacare?" Sim, a ação incrivelmente progressista que foi o centro de mesa da presidência de Obama, sua herança de esquerda. Os estados-membros do Reino Unido estabeleceram seus Serviços Nacionais de Saúde durante os anos imediatamente depois da Segunda Guerra Mundial. E estes são realmente medicina socializada; programas governamentais inteiramente financiados que servem toda a população. Obamacare é um modificação mínima de nosso sistema privado horrível de medicina que força todo mundo a associar-se e todos os planos de saúde a aceitá-los e a cobrir todas as doenças.
Não me interpretes mal, Obamacare é um avanço do sistema que nós tenhamos antes. É um passo mais perto do sistema que nós deveríamos ter. Mas uma versão pró-corporativa privatizada de um programa que foi promulgado com êxito 70 anos antes, simplesmente não é progressista. Obamacare é um remendo em um sistema com fins lucrativos, não realmente a medicina socializada. É incrivelmente conservador.
Eu já deixei claro meus sentimentos sobre os republicanos, mas eu os reiterarei. Eles são o partido fascista. Eles estão tentando destruir cada pedaço do progresso social que a humanidade já fez. Eles estão tentando devolvê-nos ao feudalismo, quando você era ou um aristocrata ou um escravo. Eles estão tentando fazer mudanças, mas eles certamente não estão tentando fazer progressos.
E para reiterar mais uma vez: nós precisamos de um movimento esquerdista autêntico nos Estados Unidos. Nós necessitamos de uma ofensiva real contra o movimento fascista. Nós precisamos do socialismo democrático, e isto precisa reconhecer a realidade que nós estamos enfrentando.
If you want to talk about politics on a global scale, it becomes confusing very quickly. “Liberal”, “Labor”, “Conservative”, “Tory”, “Green”, “Blue”... these labels get thrown around and adopted and then they mutate and they can mean wildly different things. For example, the Australian Liberal party is much the same as the US Republican party. Their Labor party is their equivalent to the Democrats. Which may be an insult; all I know is that Labor is further to the left than Liberal… in Australia.
For purposes of this convo, I’ll be using the terms as I learned them waaaay back in AP US Government.
* Conservative - someone who tries to maintain the status quo
* Liberal - someone who tries to make changes in order to make progress
For a while there in the US, it sure looked like the Republicans were the conservative party and the Democrats the liberal party. After all, the Democrats were the ones on the side of allowing gay and trans people to serve openly in the military and participate in society without fear of discrimination. Republicans just want to punish that sort of person for existing. Democrats were the ones in favor of fighting racism and racist policies against black and brown people. Republicans just want to punish that sort of person for existing. Democrats are in favor of keeping abortion safe and legal for anyone who gets pregnant. Republicans just want to punish that sort of person for existing. And so on.
But the Democrats haven’t walked the walk in decades. The party understood the results of Nixon’s Southern Strategy even if they didn’t understand the cause, and they swung to the right. They became the conservative party.
Ever since Clinton took office in 1992, the Democrats have been the weak, mealy-mouthed party of hand-wringing and compromise. They’ve been struggling to keep things quiet and peaceful and not actually change anything. They’ve been desperately fighting to keep things the way the are, fighting to keep the rich rich, keep the middle class comfortable, and keep the poor quiet.
“But what about Obamacare?” Yeah, the wildly progressive action that was the centerpiece of the Obama presidency, his left-wing legacy. The member states of the United Kingdom put National Health Services in place in the years immediately following WWII. And those are actual socialized medicine; fully funded government programs that serve the entire population. Obamacare is a slight modification to our god-awful private health care system that forces everyone to join, and forces all health plans to accept them, and forces all plans to cover all conditions.
Don’t get me wrong, Obamacare is a step up from the system we had before. It’s a step closer to the system we should have. But a pro-corporate, privatized version of a program that was successfully enacted 70 years earlier is simply not progressive. Obamacare is a patch on a profit-driven system, not actual socialized healthcare. It is incredibly conservative.
I’ve already made my feelings on the Republicans clear, but I’ll reiterate. They’re the fascist party. They’re trying to destroy every bit of social progress humanity has ever made. They’re trying to take us back to feudalism, when you were either an aristocrat or a slave. They’re trying to make changes, but they’re certainly not trying to make progress.
And to reiterate again: we need a genuine leftist movement in the United States. We need an actual counter to the fascist movement. We need democratic socialism, and it needs to recognize the reality on the ground.
Los Demócratas son el partido conservador de los Estados Unidos- Español
Si se quiere hablar de política a escala global, el asunto rápidamente se vuelve confuso. "Liberal", "Labor", "Conservative", "Tory", "Green", "Blue"... esas etiquetas se utilizan y se adoptan y luego mutan y pueden significar cosas totalmente diferentes. Por ejemplo, el partido Liberal australiano es muy similar al partido Republicano estadounidense. Su Partido Laborista es su equivalente a los Demócratas. Lo que puede ser un insulto; lo que yo sé es que el Partido Laborista es más de izquierda que los liberales... en Australia.
A los fines de esta conversación, usaré los términos como los aprendí hace mucho tiempo en AP US Government (una classe a nivel universitario sobre el gobierno estadounidense).
* Conservador: alguien que intenta mantener el status quo
* Liberal: alguien que intenta realizar cambios para hacer progresos
Durante algún tiempo en los Estados Unidos, parecía realmente que los Republicanos eran el partido conservador y los Demócratas el partido liberal. Después de todo, los Demócratas eran los que permitían a los homosexuales y las personas transgénero (lo siento si no estoy usando el término correctamente; lo uso en la manera como lo he aprendido en el inglés de izquierda de los Estados Unidos) a servir en el ejército. Los Republicanos simplemente quieren castigar a estas personas por el solo hecho de existir. Los Demócratas eran los que estaban a favor de luchar contra el racismo y las políticas racistas contra las personas negras. Los Republicanos simplemente quieren castigar esas personas por el solo hecho de existir. Los Demócratas están a favor de conservar el aborto seguro y legal para cualquier persona que resulte embarazada. Los Republicanos simplemente quieren castigar esas personas por el solo hecho de existir. Y así sucesivamente.
Pero los demócratas no han recorrido el camino desde hace unas décadas. El partido comprendió los resultados de la Estrategia del sur de Richard Nixon incluso si no comprendió la causa, y se movió a la derecha. Se convirtió en el partido conservador.
Desde que Clinton asumió el cargo en 1992, los demócratas han sido el partido débil evasivo de nerviosismo y transigencia. Han estado luchando para mantener las cosas silenciosas y tranquilas y no para verdaderamente cambiar nada. Han estado luchando para mantener las cosas como están, para guardar la riqueza de los ricos y la comodidad de la clase media y para silenciar a los pobres.
"¿Y el Obamacare?" Sí, la acción increíblemente progresista que fue la atracción principal de la presidencia de Obama, su legado de izquierda. Los estados miembros del Reino Unido promulgaron sus Sistemas Nacionales de Salud durante los años inmediatamente después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Y esos son realmente la medicina socializada; programas totalmente financiados del gobierno que sirven a toda la población. Obamacare es una modificación mínima de nuestro sistema de asistencia médica privatizada horrible que fuerza a todo el mundo a unirse y a todos planes de salud a aceptarlos y a cubrir todas las enfermedades.
No me malinterpretes, Obamacare es un paso por delante desde el sistema que teníamos antes. Es un paso más hacia el sistema que deberíamos tener. Pero una versión pro-empresarial privatizada de un programa que fue promulgado con éxito 70 años antes sencillamente no es progresista. Obamacare es un parche en un sistema con ánimo de lucro, no realmente la medicina socializada. Es increíblemente conservador.
Ya he aclarado mis sentimientos sobre los republicanos, pero los reiteraré. Son el partido fascista. Están intentando destruir todo el progreso social que la humanidad ha realizado. Están intentando llevarnos al feudalismo, cuando una persona era o un aristócrata o un esclavo. Ellos están intentando realizar cambios, pero ciertamente no están intentando realizar progresos.
Y para reiterar una vez más: necesitamos un movimiento de izquierda auténtico en los Estados Unidos. Necesitamos una oposición al movimiento fascista. Necesitamos el socialismo democrático, y este tiene que reconocer la realidad a la que enfrentamos.
Les Démocrates sont le parti conservateur des États-Unis. - français
Si on veut parler de la politique à l'échelle mondiale, elle devient rapidement peu claire. « Liberal », « Labor », « Conservative », « Tory », « Green », « Blue »... ces étiquettes sont utilisées et adoptées et puis elles subissent des mutations et peuvent signifier des choses très différentes. Par exemple, le parti Libéral australien est très similaire au parti Républicain américain. Leur parti Labor est leur équivalent des Démocrates. Ce qui peut être une insulte ; ce que je sais est que Labor est plus à la gauche que Liberal... en Australie.
Pour les besoins de cette conversation, j'utiliserai les termes comme je les ai appris il y a des années en AP US Government (une classe au niveau universitaire sur le gouvernement des États-Unis).
* Conservateur - quelqu'un qui essaie de maintenir le statu quo
* Libéral - quelqu'un qui essaie de changer des choses pour faire des progrès
Pendant un temps aux États-Unis, il semblait vraiment que les Républicains étaient le parti conservateur et les Démocrates le parti libéral. Après tout, les Démocrates étaient eux pour permettre aux homosexuels et personnes transgenres de servir dans l'armée et de participer à la société sans peur de la discrimination. Les Républicains veulent simplement punir ce type de personne pour le crime d’exister. Les Démocrates sont eux en faveur de la lutte contre le racisme et les politiques racistes contre les personnes noires. Les Républicains veulent simplement punir ce type de personne pour le crime d’exister. Les Démocrates souhaitent conserver l'avortement sûr et légal pour n'importe quelle personne est enceinte. Les Républicains veulent simplement punir ce type de personne pour le crime d’exister. Et ainsi suite.
Mais les Démocrates n'ont pas joint le geste à la parole depuis des décennies. Le parti a compris les résultats de la Stratégie du Sud de Richard Nixon même s'ils n'en ont pas compris la cause, et ils ont basculé vers la droite. Ils sont devenus le parti conservateur.
Depuis que Clinton est entré en fonction en 1992, les Démocrates ont été le parti faible qui manque de franchise, le parti de l'inquiétude et du compromis. Ils luttent pour conserver l'ordre des choses tel qu’il est, pour laisser la richesse aux riches et le confort à la classe moyenne et pour faire taire les pauvres.
« Mais qu'en est-il de l'Obamacare ? » Oui, l'action incroyablement progressive qui a été la pièce maîtresse de la présidence d'Obama, son héritage de gauche. Les états membres du Royaume Uni ont mis en place les systèmes de Sécurité sociale dans les années qui ont suivi la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Et ces sont vraiment des systèmes de sécurité sociale ; des programmes entièrement financés par le gouvernement au service de la population entière. L'Obamacare est une petite modification de notre système privé de services de santé franchement atroce qui oblige tout le monde à y adhérer et toutes les mutuelles à les accepter et à couvrir toutes les maladies.
Comprenez-moi bien, l'Obamacare est un progrès, comparé au système que nous avions avant. C'est un pas de plus vers le système que nous devrions avoir. Mais une version pro-corporatiste privatisée d'un programme qui a été mis en place avec succès 70 ans plus tôt n'est tout simplement pas progressive. L'Obamacare est un patch qui corrige un peu un système à but lucratif, pas vraiment un système de sécurité sociale. C'est incroyablement conservateur.
J'ai déjà montré mes sentiments sur les républicains, mais je les réitérerai. Ils sont le parti fasciste. Ils essaient de détruire tous les progrès sociaux que l’humanité n'a déjà faits. Ils essaient de nous retourner à la féodalité, où on est ou un aristocrate ou un esclave. Ils essaient d'apporter des changements, mais certainement ils n'essaient pas de faire des progrès.
Et pour réitérer encore une fois : nous avons besoin d'un mouvement de gauche aux États-Unis. Nous avons besoin d'un contrepoids au mouvement fasciste. Nous avons besoins du socialisme démocratique, et ceci doit reconnaître la réalité sur le terrain.
Os Democratas são o partido conservador dos Estados Unidos. - Português
Se você quiser falar sobre a política na escala global, se torna confuso muito rápido. "Liberal", "Labor", "Conservative", "Tory", "Green", "Blue"... essas etiquetas são utilizadas e adotadas, então mutuam e podem significar coisas extremamente diferentes. Por exemplo, o partido liberal australiano é muito similar ao partido republicano americano. Seu partido “Labor” é seu equivalente aos Democratas. O que pode ser um insulto; tudo o que eu sei é que o partido Labor é mais à esquerda que o partido Liberal... na Australia.
Para efeitos de conversa, eu usarei a terminologia que aprendi há muito tempo na aula AP US Government (uma aula de nível universitário sobre o governo dos Estados Unidos).
* Conservador - alguém que tenta manter o status quo
* Liberal - alguém que tenta introduzir alterações para realizar progressos
Durante algum tempo nos Estados Unidos, realmente parecia que os Republicanos eram o partido conservador e os Democratas o partido liberal. Afinal de contas, os Democratas eram a favor de permissão à homossexuais e transgêneros (me desculpe, eu espero que minha utilização desse término é correcto) de servir abertamente nas forças armadas e participar da sociedade sem medo de discriminação. Os republicanos querem simplesmente castigar esse tipo de pessoa por existir. Os Democratas eram a favor da luta contra o racismo e as políticas racistas contra pessoas negras. Os republicanos querem simplesmente castigar esse tipo de pessoa por existir. Os Democratas são a favor de manter o aborto seguro e legal para qualquer grávida. Os republicanos querem simplesmente castigar esse tipo de pessoa por existir. E assim por diante.
Mas há décadas que os democratas não andam a pé. O partido compreendeu os resultados da Estratégia sulista de Richard Nixon mesmo se não entendendo a causa, e deu uma guinada para a direita. Eles se tornaram o partido conservador.
Desde que Clinton assumiu o cargo em 1992, os democratas foi o partido débil e insincero de lamentações e compromisso. Estão lutando para manter o mundo quieto e tranqüilo e não realmente tentando mudar nada. Estão desesperadamente lutando por manter as coisas como estão, para conservar a riqueza dos ricos e o conforto da classe média e silenciar os pobres.
"Mas e quanto ao Obamacare?" Sim, a ação incrivelmente progressista que foi o centro de mesa da presidência de Obama, sua herança de esquerda. Os estados-membros do Reino Unido estabeleceram seus Serviços Nacionais de Saúde durante os anos imediatamente depois da Segunda Guerra Mundial. E estes são realmente medicina socializada; programas governamentais inteiramente financiados que servem toda a população. Obamacare é um modificação mínima de nosso sistema privado horrível de medicina que força todo mundo a associar-se e todos os planos de saúde a aceitá-los e a cobrir todas as doenças.
Não me interpretes mal, Obamacare é um avanço do sistema que nós tenhamos antes. É um passo mais perto do sistema que nós deveríamos ter. Mas uma versão pró-corporativa privatizada de um programa que foi promulgado com êxito 70 anos antes, simplesmente não é progressista. Obamacare é um remendo em um sistema com fins lucrativos, não realmente a medicina socializada. É incrivelmente conservador.
Eu já deixei claro meus sentimentos sobre os republicanos, mas eu os reiterarei. Eles são o partido fascista. Eles estão tentando destruir cada pedaço do progresso social que a humanidade já fez. Eles estão tentando devolvê-nos ao feudalismo, quando você era ou um aristocrata ou um escravo. Eles estão tentando fazer mudanças, mas eles certamente não estão tentando fazer progressos.
E para reiterar mais uma vez: nós precisamos de um movimento esquerdista autêntico nos Estados Unidos. Nós necessitamos de uma ofensiva real contra o movimento fascista. Nós precisamos do socialismo democrático, e isto precisa reconhecer a realidade que nós estamos enfrentando.
Saturday, January 06, 2018
Introduction Script
English
Hi, my name is John. I’m unhappy, and have been for a while. I can’t fix the world, make people stop hurting, but I can talk to you every once in a while. That should help me, at least. A bit.
I’ll mostly be getting things off my chest, about politics and social justice, exploring leftist thought. And I’ll be doing it in multiple languages! Because I can.
So, hi! Nice to meet you.
Spanish
Hola, me llamo John. Estoy infeliz, y he estado asì desde un rato. No puedo reparar el mundo, ni hacer que las personas dejen de sufrir, pero puedo hablar contigo de vez en cuando. Eso tiene que ayudarme, al menos. Un poco.
Principalmente voy a soltar cosas, sobre la política y la justicia social, y explorar el pensamiento izquierdista. ¡Y lo voy a hacer en múltiples idiomas! Porque puedo.
Bien, ¡hola! Mucho gusto.
French
Allo, je m’appelle John. Je suis malheureux, et j’en suis depuis un moment. Je ne peux pas réparer le mond, ni faire que les gens arrêtent de souffrir, mais je puis parler avec toi de temps en temps. Ça devrait m’aider, au moins. Un peu.
En grande partie, je vais m’enlever des poids, sur la politique et la justice sociale, et explorer la pensée de gauche. Et j’en fais en multiple langues ! Parce que je peux.
Alors, salut! Enchanté.
Portuguese
Olá! Chamo-me John. Eu estou infeliz, e tenho estado por um tempo. Eu não podo consertar o mundo, ni fazer que as pessoas deixam de sofrer, mas eu podo falar com você de vez em quando. Isto me deberia ajudar, ao menos. Um pouco.
Na maior parte, eu vou desabafar-me, sobre a política e a justícia social, e explorar o pensamento esquerdista. E eu o farei em múltiples idiomas! Porque eu podo.
Bem, olá! Prazer em conhecer você.
German
Allo. Ich heiße John. Ich lerne Deutsch, aber ich kann noch nicht das sprechen. Entschuldigung.
Hi, my name is John. I’m unhappy, and have been for a while. I can’t fix the world, make people stop hurting, but I can talk to you every once in a while. That should help me, at least. A bit.
I’ll mostly be getting things off my chest, about politics and social justice, exploring leftist thought. And I’ll be doing it in multiple languages! Because I can.
So, hi! Nice to meet you.
Spanish
Hola, me llamo John. Estoy infeliz, y he estado asì desde un rato. No puedo reparar el mundo, ni hacer que las personas dejen de sufrir, pero puedo hablar contigo de vez en cuando. Eso tiene que ayudarme, al menos. Un poco.
Principalmente voy a soltar cosas, sobre la política y la justicia social, y explorar el pensamiento izquierdista. ¡Y lo voy a hacer en múltiples idiomas! Porque puedo.
Bien, ¡hola! Mucho gusto.
French
Allo, je m’appelle John. Je suis malheureux, et j’en suis depuis un moment. Je ne peux pas réparer le mond, ni faire que les gens arrêtent de souffrir, mais je puis parler avec toi de temps en temps. Ça devrait m’aider, au moins. Un peu.
En grande partie, je vais m’enlever des poids, sur la politique et la justice sociale, et explorer la pensée de gauche. Et j’en fais en multiple langues ! Parce que je peux.
Alors, salut! Enchanté.
Portuguese
Olá! Chamo-me John. Eu estou infeliz, e tenho estado por um tempo. Eu não podo consertar o mundo, ni fazer que as pessoas deixam de sofrer, mas eu podo falar com você de vez em quando. Isto me deberia ajudar, ao menos. Um pouco.
Na maior parte, eu vou desabafar-me, sobre a política e a justícia social, e explorar o pensamento esquerdista. E eu o farei em múltiples idiomas! Porque eu podo.
Bem, olá! Prazer em conhecer você.
German
Allo. Ich heiße John. Ich lerne Deutsch, aber ich kann noch nicht das sprechen. Entschuldigung.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Freeing the South
Is there a way to free the South from the Republican Party's stranglehold? I have a proposal and I'd like to hear input.
First, I know there are liberals in the South, but they're a rather quiet, though significant, minority. In addition to the incredibly large black minority (often majority) and the Hispanic "sleeping giant", there's a significant quantity of good old-fashioned liberals and progressives. I also think there's an untapped market.
I think someone should start a Christian Progressive Party1. This is partly because the Democratic party has a serious branding problem in the South, along with the word liberal. However, I think there are a lot of people out there like my friend Tony, who want to identify both as Christians and as not-Republicans. They focus more on the charitable aspect of the New Testament and less on the fire and brimstone. Or, to put it in Terry Pratchett's terms, their goal isn't to punish the wicked, but to protect the innocent. I think a political party could make significant headway in the Bible Belt by advocating for strong leftist principles in line with a Christian worldview/morality. I don't think it would ever be a majority party and, I suspect, would usually caucus with the Democrats, but I think it would be a good start.
How would the party begin? I think it would have to begin at local political levels, in a few large cities in the south. I think it could make significant headway in Charleston, Charlotte, and Atlanta (the only Southern cities I'm at all familiar with). From there it could expand to state elections before running in national elections (Representatives, Senators). Really, I think part of the Republican stranglehold on the South is that they've too long dominated the labels of "christian" and "moral", and a lot of progressive voters are depressed at the futility of voting for a democrat.
There's already several third-parties on the right, such as the Constitutionalist and Libertarian party. There's also the Christian Liberty Party which used to be part of the Constitutionalists. I don't know if there's any way to split apart the Republican bloc; unity and uniformity are too central to the conservative worldview for that to be a realistic approach. However, I wonder if there might be a way to siphon off voters with a Christian Traditionalist Party. A group that wants to focus on building strong communities and other Conservative buzzwords.
What do people think of either of those possibilities?
1 - Not me, for obvious reasons.
First, I know there are liberals in the South, but they're a rather quiet, though significant, minority. In addition to the incredibly large black minority (often majority) and the Hispanic "sleeping giant", there's a significant quantity of good old-fashioned liberals and progressives. I also think there's an untapped market.
I think someone should start a Christian Progressive Party1. This is partly because the Democratic party has a serious branding problem in the South, along with the word liberal. However, I think there are a lot of people out there like my friend Tony, who want to identify both as Christians and as not-Republicans. They focus more on the charitable aspect of the New Testament and less on the fire and brimstone. Or, to put it in Terry Pratchett's terms, their goal isn't to punish the wicked, but to protect the innocent. I think a political party could make significant headway in the Bible Belt by advocating for strong leftist principles in line with a Christian worldview/morality. I don't think it would ever be a majority party and, I suspect, would usually caucus with the Democrats, but I think it would be a good start.
How would the party begin? I think it would have to begin at local political levels, in a few large cities in the south. I think it could make significant headway in Charleston, Charlotte, and Atlanta (the only Southern cities I'm at all familiar with). From there it could expand to state elections before running in national elections (Representatives, Senators). Really, I think part of the Republican stranglehold on the South is that they've too long dominated the labels of "christian" and "moral", and a lot of progressive voters are depressed at the futility of voting for a democrat.
There's already several third-parties on the right, such as the Constitutionalist and Libertarian party. There's also the Christian Liberty Party which used to be part of the Constitutionalists. I don't know if there's any way to split apart the Republican bloc; unity and uniformity are too central to the conservative worldview for that to be a realistic approach. However, I wonder if there might be a way to siphon off voters with a Christian Traditionalist Party. A group that wants to focus on building strong communities and other Conservative buzzwords.
What do people think of either of those possibilities?
1 - Not me, for obvious reasons.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Mantic Wednesday 3
Okay, so I don't have too much to predict. It's not like too much has changed.
Except that now Newt Gingrich is in the running for reals. Isn't this a guy whose campaign already imploded once? How is this happening? Greg Laden explains it well.
Heheeeee!
Frankly, this is true. The Republican Party, thanks to 50 solid years of race-baiting and fear-mongering and kowtowing to the ignorance of the worst of America has become the party for racist, white fundamentalists. Go to a Tea Party rally and you won't see any black faces, though you may see someone, with no sense of irony, in blackface.
So, do I have a prediction? Who will win the Republican nomination? Romney is a stupid hypocrite who's completely out of touch with the American people. Newt Gingrich is a stupid, racist, rabid hypocrite who's completely out of touch with anyone who's not a racist Christian. Romney is a Mormon. Gingrich is an evangelical of some kind.
My fondest hope is that Gingrich wins. I really, really, want it to happen. I want it to be true that that's likely, so it's suspect.
I know Gingrich is going to do well in the South and Midwest, and I know he can do well in the primaries (see above re: party for racists). I'm absolutely certain he can't win the general election. Therefor I suspect he's going to start getting some very, very strong pressure to back down from people in the party with half a brain. Being a rabid ass-hat, I don't think he'd back down gracefully, and certainly not without the promise of a big appointment, which promise would have to be off the books.
Pretty much just thinking out loud, here.
Okay, here's my prediction. Gingrich is going to do very well for a few more primaries and he's going to refuse to back down. In order to keep him from completely destroying the Republican chance of victory (not high in any case) this fall, the Republican leadership are going to circle the wagons around Romney and do everything they can to destroy Gingrich before he becomes unstoppable.
I suspect this may even happen before the Florida primary happens.
Except that now Newt Gingrich is in the running for reals. Isn't this a guy whose campaign already imploded once? How is this happening? Greg Laden explains it well.
Gingrich represents the Republican Party ... because Gingrich is a stupid hateful hypocrite who is as mean spirited as a rabid dog, and a racist shit.
Heheeeee!
Frankly, this is true. The Republican Party, thanks to 50 solid years of race-baiting and fear-mongering and kowtowing to the ignorance of the worst of America has become the party for racist, white fundamentalists. Go to a Tea Party rally and you won't see any black faces, though you may see someone, with no sense of irony, in blackface.
So, do I have a prediction? Who will win the Republican nomination? Romney is a stupid hypocrite who's completely out of touch with the American people. Newt Gingrich is a stupid, racist, rabid hypocrite who's completely out of touch with anyone who's not a racist Christian. Romney is a Mormon. Gingrich is an evangelical of some kind.
My fondest hope is that Gingrich wins. I really, really, want it to happen. I want it to be true that that's likely, so it's suspect.
I know Gingrich is going to do well in the South and Midwest, and I know he can do well in the primaries (see above re: party for racists). I'm absolutely certain he can't win the general election. Therefor I suspect he's going to start getting some very, very strong pressure to back down from people in the party with half a brain. Being a rabid ass-hat, I don't think he'd back down gracefully, and certainly not without the promise of a big appointment, which promise would have to be off the books.
Pretty much just thinking out loud, here.
Okay, here's my prediction. Gingrich is going to do very well for a few more primaries and he's going to refuse to back down. In order to keep him from completely destroying the Republican chance of victory (not high in any case) this fall, the Republican leadership are going to circle the wagons around Romney and do everything they can to destroy Gingrich before he becomes unstoppable.
I suspect this may even happen before the Florida primary happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)