I think of us as Cassandra but I haven't come up with anything clever using her name.

Ghostly Blue Beacons
Lighthouse Blues
Lighthouse 99
Blue Rays at Lighthouse 99
Rhythms in Blue
99 Blue-Spotted Sting Rays
Blue Sting Rays
Blue Hawks

ok, I am blue for lack of oxygen to my brain. Good luck with name calling...

means the Democrat Party to me, and, if
this is a site aligned with that half of
the duopoly - and you want it to rise -
. . . Are Independents, Greens,
Socialists, etc., welcome? to help the
Blue Tide rise?

thanks for the link to your site as well. I will read it.

I guess I am so overly sensitive to the constant first response, when people start talking about anything "revolution"-related, which is the one, that it has to be non-violent revolution. When I observed those reactions online on dailykos, I always felt the suffocation of people, who wanted change, is so palpable, that unless you declare three times before saying anything else, that you are for non-violence, you are considered an evil violent revoluzzer.

I follow you completely on the movements like Idle no More and Occupy. Third world women ... (I guess I stumble over the word again, and Pluto said, I shouldn't, but get the idea behind it)... so I follow you on that too, no questions here at all.

But, as I am not from the US, the image I have in my mind, when it comes to "revolution" is the one of the "November (German) Revolution" in 1918/19,which resulted in the replacement of Germany's imperial government with a republic, the Weimar Republic. Like mentioned in the Wiki link, the uprising (in Kiel and Wilhelmshaven) very close to my hometown, so I have a kind of feeling for those Naval guys):

Sailors' revolts ensued in the naval ports of Wilhelmshaven, on 29 October 1918, and later Kiel, in the first days of November, spreading the spirit of rebellion across the country and ultimately leading to the proclamation of a republic on 9 November 1918.

This rebellion / mutiny was violent and it ended up in a revolution. It gave us at least a republic and a parliamentary system. So, despite being violent, that revolution was necessary to change "the constitution" (monarchy) to a democracy.

Those revolutionaries were inspired by socialist ideas.

The revolutionaries, inspired by socialist ideas, failed to hand power to Soviets as the Bolsheviks had done in Russia, because the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) leadership refused to work with those who supported any type of council-socialist democracy and opted for a national assembly, meaning a transition to a parliamentary system.[1] Furthermore, fearing an all-out civil war in Germany between militant workers and the reactionary conservatives, the SPD did not plan to completely strip the old German upper classes of their power and instead sought to integrate them into the new social democratic system.

Ok, I am a know-nothing in history, but reading through the Wikipage makes me regret I don't know more. All I feel is that the constant insistence that one has to proclaim one is for non-violent actions, sounds to me like the fears back then, the SPD (Social Democratic Party) had about an all-out civil war. Before even being violent, you are already judged as violent, because you failed to say the opposite.

SPD leftists sought an alliance with the Supreme Command. This allowed the army and the Freikorps (nationalist militias) to quell the Spartacist uprising (4–15 January 1919) by force. This fragmentation of the left was a significant factor in its failure to seize power.

And this vacuum after failing to seize power was the source for the Nazis to gain influence and power later on, right?

The uprising was primarily a power struggle between the moderate Social Democratic Party of Germany led by Friedrich Ebert, and the more radical communists of the Communist Party of Germany, led by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, who had previously founded and led the Spartacist League (Spartakusbund). This power struggle was the result of the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II ... Similar uprisings occurred and were suppressed in Bremen, the Ruhr, Rhineland, Saxony, Hamburg, Thuringia and Bavaria, and another round of even bloodier street battles occurred in Berlin in March, which led to popular disillusionment with the Weimar Government.

So, when I envision "revolution" I see the bloody street battles in Berlin and elsewhere in Germany during that time. Why? Because I had an aunt (born around 1908 I think), who thought it was "very exiting" to watch those battles on the streets as a child. I remember people talking about her always to want to join those fighters as a young kid of 12 years or so. She was also one of the two persons in my family who ended up supporting Hitler. Her father (my grandpa on the mother's side) was not. So, all of it splits sharply into families. Not so funny I think, but that's what it was.

I suppose when the immiseration of people gets so deep and terrifying, hunger is even more rampant, homelessness more common, an so on. when there's nothing else to lose, iow, is when people's minds are able to imagine a better world, true justice for each of us, and a direct say in how were governed. as with the zapatistas: ...

I think, if you are hungry and angry, and you get so exploited and oppressed, it will lead to the oppressed pushing back against the violence imposed on them with violence of resistance of their own, especially, if they see no other option.

I can't comment, as I don't know anything about the zapatistas, other then that the Wiki page introduces them as "a revolutionary leftist political and militant group based in Chiapas.. Oh, oh, violent, huh? (No worries, I am not afraid of resistance movements, who potentially can be drawn into violence). So where's the dividing line:
From Wiki:

Since 1994, the group has been in a declared war "against the Mexican state", although this war has been primarily defensive, against military, paramilitary and corporate incursions into Chiapas.[citation needed] In recent years, it has focused on a strategy of civil resistance.

When does the defensive (but violent) war ends and the civil (non-violent) resistance starts?
I never seem to see that line.

Do you hear the angry men singing the song?

Martin Luther King for me was not a revolutionary, Ghandi was also not one in my mind, they were spiritual leaders of conscience to help the people resist against oppression, injustice, exploitation etc., so I consider those movements they lead, peaceful disobedience and resistance movements, not revolutions. May be that is wrong. The fact that they got shot is even more frightening, because they were so peace-loving spiritual fighters. And I like to say that I speak out of my mouth without much sense, as I simply have not the educational background to be more precise in my wording and understanding.

that's a bit of what i mean by revolution. it is harder to imagine just now, but most days, not all, i can still see it coming. and really, what choice do we have as bloggers and writers but showing what's afoot, the pushback movements against the evil, and presenting alternatives so many are considering?

No other choices and I admire all those who can write and blog so well and knowledgeable about those alternatives. I am just more pessimistic and don't see it coming. But then, may be that's just my way of an excuse for "giving up". So, no honor for my attitude. I know that much.

I have so many things to read and bring back into my mind. Thanks, Wendy. I learn a lot here. I see how correct Pluto is in saying I stumble over the words. Jeez, I stumble so often, that I barely walk upright and straight. Sorry for walking like a drunkard...