Sunday Open Thread 04-05-15

Good morning 99percenters and happy holiday, whatever holiday it may be that you celebrate. If you do not celebrate a holiday on this weekend then I bid you a great Sunday morning.

Today's Open Thread will be about site meta. There are plans in the works that will affect the left-o-sphere in general and very possibly and probably this website. I can't be any more specific at this time as it is very much in the preliminary stage but it will be an exciting development. I'll will keep you informed as I know more.

The move to have volunteers participate in writing the daily Open Threads has proven to be a welcome success. With that in mind I'd like to open the schedule for members to take certain days of the weeks, every week. As of right now, gulgal98 has taken Wednesdays, BigAl has taken Tuesday or Thursday (yet to be determined which), I think mimi volunteered for Thursday earlier and I'll wait to get verification of that from her. Tentatively here's the schedule:

Monday: Open
Tuesday: Big Al
Wednesday: gulgal98
Thursday: mimi
Friday: NCTim
Saturday: Open
Sunday: Open

The Open Thread can be about any thing that you want to write about, it can be as short or as long as you want. There is no set time to publish but generally it's best post around 9:00 AM eastern time, 8:00 AM central, 7:00 AM mountain, and 6:00 AM pacific. Those publishing times are not written in stone and are flexible. Also the scheduling will be flexible, if a person can't make it for a certain day we will have a stand-in, and also we could designate a floater or a floating day. We also have a scheduler whereas an Open Thread can be loaded up in advance.

If you'd like to participate in the OTs please let me know here in this diary or send me a PM or email. As the schedule fills up I'll update it here.

I'd like to thank all the membership for participating in this site and making it a successful first two and a half months. I'll now open the floor to any and all questions you may have about this site and it's operations. Thank you again.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Spirit - I Got a Line on You

Spirit - Nature's Way

Spirit - Dark Eyed Woman

Spirit - I'm Truckin'

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

I thought I was the only one who was old enough to remember this group! Shok The drummer was a lot older guy who was the father of the lead singer, if I remember correctly. Nowadays that probably would not be unusual, but back then it was.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Big Al's picture

are even now.

Am I the only one who still doesn't really believe this is happening?

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

I am aghast that these two may the choices for the American people. Personally, I do not think Hillary will survive the primaries. I still think she will implode.

Meanwhile she sits all cloistered away having no real policy positions while all the other potential candidates are lining up theirs. Heck, the Republicans have already hijacked the inequality narrative even if their solutions are the same old crap that does nothing for the average American. Once Hillary actually comes up with any policy positions, she is going to appear weak and uncreative with her "me too" positions. Her camp is doing a horrible job so far. But then I do not care since I refuse to vote for either.

I am tired of defensive voting for the lesser of two evils. Let the chips fall and maybe then we can get this country back on course.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Big Al's picture

which means we'll probably get Bush. As many have suggested over the years, maybe it would be better to
go ahead and have another Republican president to stir some activity from the left. I'm sticking to the boycott idea.
I still think we should expose the fraud of democracy in this country, using that election to boycott the system, make
some waves. I read this morning where the "enthusiasm" for the 2016 presidential election is well below that of the 2008
election, which means the turnout might end up below 50%.
That's over 100 million eligible voters not voting. Astounding.

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

just because you think that's the only way to get "the left" united and active, I boycott YOU. Smile (heh, don't be upset, I am a cake baking mama in real life and love sugar pie and whipped cream)

No way, I would wish myself a Republican President into office, even if the potential Democratic next President would almost do the same thing as a Republican.
Boycotting to vote is a solutionl?

What laws you have in the books? Are there any that say, if even just a couple of ten thousand people would show up for elections to vote, that those elections would still be valid? If there were something that would say, if less than 30 percent of the population would show up to vote, then the vote is not representative of the population's will and thus invalid, then a vote boycott would an idea. But are there laws like that?

Exposing the fraud of democracy? Sure, it's already done in the blogoshere over and over, isn't it? So, just being aware of it, is not enough to have a solution to end the kabuki theatre the elections represent.

There must be a legal way to make the kabuki theatre end its stage performance. Wouldn't that mean you fight it on the "legal front"? And if the answer were to be yes to my question, how many voters would be able to recognize, if they were to be mislead and betrayed again by legislation that just engages in a new stage setting for the same kabuki plot? Seems to me the "boycott" is all about a movement that pressures the "legislature and the courts". It's them who are the enablers or bystanders of "kabuki democracy drama" without giving the audience the democracy they deserve, or not?

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

I will probably vote for a third party candidate, but there is no way that I can vote for a hawk in good conscience and then continue to participate in a Peace vigil.

Honestly, I do not think there is that much difference between Hillary and Jeb on the big issues.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

mimi's picture

would really push for changes in the electoral college that would make a Third Party viable and would force the two big ones to go into a coalition with the Third Party. I just can't understand why those changes in the electoral college (rather big ones, I guess) can't be accomplished. It looks to me one is forced to try the same thing over and over again and believe in a different result. Makes one crazy on the long run, doesn't it?

up
0 users have voted.
shaharazade's picture

(how's that for double speak) has declared that money is speech politically. There is no way a third party can even afford to get on the stage to challenge the entrenched one party corporate state. Even local city and state races have so much money and influence poured into them that even running for dog catcher requires the backing of the powers that hold the big purse strings. Then there is our corporately owned media even on a local level they catapult the propaganda and make and break our political choices. Same with ballot measures the multinational corporations and their orgs. lobbyists and spinners can squelch all resistance to their agenda with their deep and twisty pockets. We here in Oregon a solid blue state with Republicans that are so nuts they never win, are at the mercy of the corrupt Democratic machine. On every level their is no relief as voting third party does not affect the preordained inevitable onslaught of the corporate for profit, one party under money government, we now have.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

over Jeb Bush? It sounds like you would vote for Clinton to keep Bush from office.
The lesser evil approach to voting. I refuse to play.
The point is, we don't live in a democracy so what are we voting for? To give the power to one of the
two corrupt major political parties over the other, temporarily until the next election. Until we end the
fraud, voting is a waste of time at the national level.

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

a democratic electoral system, which I think you don't have. I have no problem voting for a third party, even if the way your electoral college and campaign finance system is, that's a vote lost probably. People get pressured and hated for the third party voters and that is something that has to be changed.

I wouldn't cave in to that pressure and rather become a non-voter than a voter for the lesser evil.

But I consider working on a movement that changes or completely replaces the current electoral college and campaign finance system (and by that I don't mean some minor issues, but radical changes) more important right now than voting at all. All I understand from watching things, is that there are thousands of activists wanting changes without having a way and solution of how to accomplish that. So, I think, you would accomplish that by pushing for changes in your system. That's probably a movement issue outside the party.

But you know that I am not allowed to vote, so it's easy for me to say that. I would have no appetite at all to vote for either HRC or any Republican. I wouldn't even have an appetite to vote for a "Better Democrat", because I can't believe anymore that in this system the "Better Democrat President", we would hopefully elect, actually will be able to change the whole political landscape. I really think you need more than a reboot, you need a new operating system on your hard drive so to speak. I dunno. I am completely without any trust in anything.

up
0 users have voted.

Just vote for a 3rd party candidate. ANY 3rd party candidate. Close your eyes and pick one.

The two-party system wants you disengaged and apathetic. Not voting fits right in with their plans.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

I've tried the third party route, doesn't work either. The system will not allow third parties to
compete. Even if they could, this is not democracy, electing 535 mostly one percenters to represent
the very rich. They are concerned with the lack of voter turnout, it highlights the fraud that is
America, the Global Force for Good. A boycott could possibly highlight that to the country and the world
that all isn't as it seems in the Land of Oz.
It may not be a solution, but it's an attempt at something besides the status quo.

up
0 users have voted.

They are concerned with the lack of voter turnout

I'm not seeing it. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think so.
What's more, we've all seen voting boycotts in other nations. They never seem to do anything.
The political system doesn't require real legitimacy. It only requires the appearance of legitimacy, and you don't need a lot of votes for that.

At least with a 3rd party vote you are registering your displeasure of the leading candidates. By not voting you are more likely falling into the apathetic catagory than protest catagory.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

about possible mandatory voting. They know voter turnout is a problem. The ruling class can't hold up this Imperial
Empire without the illusion that it's the best democracy on the planet, which it's far from. I think with 100 million
people not voting we have to fight back against the notion that it's all about apathy. People just do not believe
voting matters and there's a reason for that. It's true unless the goal is one major party over another. The most third
parties ever get in a Presidential election is maybe 1 or 2%. I think Ross Perot and John Anderson had higher percentages
but there's no way a third party candidate can challenge for President. So voting for say Jill Stein is symbolic, which is
what a boycott is also. I'm just proposing that a presidential election boycott might have more symbolism because we
could include over 100 million people in the equation instead of just 1 or 2%, while more strongly highlighting the fact that
this system is broken.

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

That is where I stand. I think I can make a better statement by voting for someone outside our two parties than to boycott the elections altogether.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Big Al's picture

We've already tried third party voting for decades and nothing has come of it. It would be like thinking
we can build a movement within the electoral system by starting at the lower levels, winning elections with
the right people, then expanding until they had more power and influence for their issues. Sounds just like
what the pragmatic progressive democrats at Daily Kos have been saying for years.
We have to take down the power that rules us and it won't be through elections under this system.

up
0 users have voted.
shaharazade's picture

actually likes it when people do not vote or participate politically. It makes it easier to keep the dialog between the faux partisan warfare and makes them once elected to just crank up the kabuki.

I read a great book in 2001 by Joan Didion called Political Fictions. It is a series of essays she wrote while covering political campaigns in the 80's through the 90's for the NYT's Book Review section. She dispels many of the fictions of American politics including the myth that non voters are apathetic. She also made the point that not voting benefits the political fictions of both sides and delivers up their dream constituency. This book was part of my motivation to become politically active in partisan politics. I highly recommend it as even though it is about another era it's premise still rings true. Perhaps even more then when she wrote these essays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Fictions
"Didion records the election of George H.W. Bush and his defeat by Bill Clinton, the Republican takeover of Congress in the 1994 elections, Clinton's impeachment, and the 2000 race between George W. Bush and Al Gore

"In the Yale Review of Books, Jessica Lee Thomas wrote, "The scariest point Didion seems to be making is not simply that politics is a nest of lies, but that we buy into 'the story' like any good novel."

Who Stole Democracy?
By John Leonard
Published: September 23, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/23/books/who-stole-democracy.html

''When we talk about the process, then, we are talking, increasingly, not about 'the democratic process,' or the general mechanism affording the citizens of a state a voice in its affairs, but the reverse: a mechanism seen as so specialized that access to it is correctly limited to its own professionals, to those who manage policy and those who report on it, to those who run the polls and those who quote them, to those who ask and those who answer the questions on the Sunday shows, to the media consultants, to the columnists, to the issues advisers, to those who give the off-the-record breakfasts and those who attend them; to that handful of insiders who invent, year in and year out, the narrative of public life.'' ........And so is Didion on pure Zen target when she tells us that American democracy has been abducted. "

I recommend this book as it still guides/haunts me politically regardless of the continuation and advancement of the by-partisan destruction of our political process.

up
0 users have voted.
shaharazade's picture

actually likes it when people do not vote or participate politically. It makes it easier to keep the dialog between the faux partisan warfare and makes them once elected to just crank up the kabuki.

I read a great book in 2001 by Joan Didion called Political Fictions. It is a series of essays she wrote while covering political campaigns in the 80's through the 90's for the NYT's Book Review section. She dispels many of the fictions of American politics including the myth that non voters are apathetic. She also made the point that not voting benefits the political fictions of both sides and delivers up their dream constituency. This book was part of my motivation to become politically active in partisan politics. I highly recommend it as even though it is about another era it's premise still rings true. Perhaps even more then when she wrote these essays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Fictions
"Didion records the election of George H.W. Bush and his defeat by Bill Clinton, the Republican takeover of Congress in the 1994 elections, Clinton's impeachment, and the 2000 race between George W. Bush and Al Gore

"In the Yale Review of Books, Jessica Lee Thomas wrote, "The scariest point Didion seems to be making is not simply that politics is a nest of lies, but that we buy into 'the story' like any good novel."

Who Stole Democracy?
By John Leonard
Published: September 23, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/23/books/who-stole-democracy.html

''When we talk about the process, then, we are talking, increasingly, not about 'the democratic process,' or the general mechanism affording the citizens of a state a voice in its affairs, but the reverse: a mechanism seen as so specialized that access to it is correctly limited to its own professionals, to those who manage policy and those who report on it, to those who run the polls and those who quote them, to those who ask and those who answer the questions on the Sunday shows, to the media consultants, to the columnists, to the issues advisers, to those who give the off-the-record breakfasts and those who attend them; to that handful of insiders who invent, year in and year out, the narrative of public life.'' ........And so is Didion on pure Zen target when she tells us that American democracy has been abducted. " Joan Didion

I recommend this book as it still guides/haunts me politically regardless of the continuation and advancement of the by-partisan destruction of our political process.

up
0 users have voted.

I know how important this is to you, but I too have to come down on the side of voting third party as the best form of protest. Even if just one voter votes the MSM will never allow it to be framed the way you state it, they'll still claim it to be legitimate. A third party will never have a chance if people don't vote for them and I have a feeling that if the general comes down to Bush v. Clinton we'll see a big uptick in third party voting this election.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

I understand. Perhaps in ten, twenty years third parties might have some impact.
I'm no longer willing to be patient.

up
0 users have voted.
JayRaye's picture

I will use my right to vote always. Between Bush and Hillary, I will vote third party.

Fool me once, shame on you: Clinton 1.
Fool me twice, shame on me: Obama.
Fool me three time? : Clinton 2
NO WAY!

up
0 users have voted.

Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons

gulfgal98's picture

I think this is a very important discussion to have. It opens the door for further discussion of strategies to counteract the well entrenched oligarchs.

From what I am reading here, most of us to not want to face the horrible choice of Bush or Clinton. We also acknowledge that whatever choices we do get, they will be the result of the vetting by big money. So we want to make a statement that we do not like the choices that we have been allowed. Your way of making that statement is to boycott the elections. It is a high risk maneuver in that it makes the unspoken statement that people do not care about their government and elections. I think that is why so many of us cannot buy off on it.. However, I can see the potential for it being a high reward strategy. However that only works when the numbers are huge (significantly fewer voters than 2014) and the potential for such huge numbers in a Presidential year are very low. The other strategy that most of us are advocating is to vote third party. The risk is lower and the reward is also lower. But if a third party candidate takes over 5% of the total votes, I think it does make a very big statement because it does trigger a critical mass of engaged voters. Either way, we are making a statement with the status quo, but by voting third party we also serve notice that we have not dropped out. We are engaged, but not engaged in their red team versus blue team game.

A critical mass never has to be over or really near 50% to have an impact. It just has to be a large enough amount to get attention.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Big Al's picture

but I'll just say again that it's been tried, voting third party hasn't made a difference.
Getting 50 million people to participate in an ORGANIZED boycott might be a different story.
And I'm only talking about the Presidential election between the repubs and the dems.

up
0 users have voted.
Shahryar's picture

if 3% vote 3rd party instead of simply not voting then you still only have x amount of voters going for Dems or Reps.

Although I'd love to see lots of both. That 37% number for the last mid-term was hilarious. If the number should stay at 37 for the 2016 election (it won't, but fun to imagine) and some of that is 3rd party...

but of course, at this stage the vote is only a diversion.

up
0 users have voted.

If it does come down to Bush v. Clinton, it'll be more proof of just how broken our political system is.

And it'll never be fixed as long as people want to be "pragmatic".

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

You gave me the opening to post once again how I feel about pragmatism. Thanks!

Pragmatism is the refuge of cowards. Pragmatism rewards the status quo and the status quo is unacceptable.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Pragmatism is the refuge of cowards.

up
0 users have voted.
Shahryar's picture

2008 election - D 256, R 178
2014 election - D 188, R 246

back when the Dems stood for something they always had big majorities in the House....until Clinton.

The Senate's gone from 59 (or 60 for long enough but no...mustn't pass legislation, besides "blue dogs") to 46.

So how is the so-called pragmatism actually pragmatic?

up
0 users have voted.
shaharazade's picture

when after you vote you still get the same damn thing youn voted against. The proof is in the pudding and the pudding you end up with is not pragmatically edible. It's still toxic regardless of the lame transparent political excuses they hang the outcome on.

up
0 users have voted.

the periodic lag in the site performance and double and triple posts some folks have been making. The performance lag at certain times is due to the RSS news aggregator, there is an automatic updating program that runs in the background called a cron job. When a cron job runs it scours the internet for all the news feeds that have been inputted into the aggregator, this puts a big load on our site and slows the performance down during the duration of the cron update, the updates usually last a few minutes and run at least once an hour. If you happen to log in, change pages, post a diary or comment during the updates you'll get a noticeable lag in the time it takes to load a page. I noticed dkmich making a double comment post this morning and stating the she got impatient in waiting for the comment to post and clicked the save button twice. I'm usually pretty quick to follow up and delete the extra posts but I'm noticing it happening more and more.

The solution is to disable the aggregator service and the site will run much more smoothly and will reduce the page loading time. My question is does anyone really use the aggregator anymore and would anyone miss it if I disabled it. I think the benefits warrant the disabling. Any input?

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

instead of two? I admit when I came here for the first time I thought your news aggregators werea terrific service. Though I admit too, I haven't used them yet. So, I don't know what to say. The World News aggregator is nice to have, but it's more important that people can post without difficulties.

up
0 users have voted.

to be two aggregators is actually just one, all the aggregator services are part of one program. In my personal opinion the better performance we would notice outweighs the usefulness of the aggregator, but I hate to take away features that may make the site more appealing or that some members may actually use. That's why I'm running the idea by the members before I actually disable it. In reality though, the aggregator just makes it convenient to keep up with the news, you can do the same thing by visiting the various sites.

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

The news aggregator is a nice feature, but I can see how it could be a maintenance issue for you JtC. I am guilty of being impatient and double posting. I can also see that when we get a lot of people participating, it could happen a lot more often. As the administrator, you probably should make that call.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

maintenance issue for me, there's no work involved in maintaining it, it's a site performance issue. I'd just as soon disable it because I think the speed of the site is more desirable to the membership than having the convenience of an aggregator. Basically what I'm doing by bringing this issue forward is to get a feel for the community's opinion.

up
0 users have voted.
shaharazade's picture

up
0 users have voted.

has agreed to take one of the Open Thread days, it doesn't matter to him which day so I'll leave it open until we get more volunteers.

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

up
0 users have voted.

Thursday it is.

up
0 users have voted.

link

The internationally recognized government of Libya says there are more than 5,000 fighters allied with the Islamic State operating inside the country -- far more than previous estimates -- yet it doesn't want the U.S. to expand its Middle Eastern air war there because it's unlikely to help.

But don't they realize that we have magic, humanitarian bombs that cure everything from religious extremism to the common cold?
If our magic bombs don't work in Libya, where else are they not working?

up
0 users have voted.

link

"I am proud to participate in the battle to liberate Tikrit," an Iranian fighter a picture of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei pinned to his chest told Reuters. "Iran and Iraq are one state now."

An advisor Khamenei said something similar last month: "Iran is an empire once again at last, and its capital is Baghdad," Ali Younusi told a March 8 seminar.

I don't think this is what the neocons had in mind when we invaded in 2003. Also, if we can't find peace with Iran this is going to get very dangerous.

up
0 users have voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

Warning: Might need a barf bag for this one, Folks!

Screenshot -- Boehner Kissing Pelosi -- Upon Passage Of Doc Fix.png
[Photo Credit: CNN, Pelosi and Boehner]

I have no comment about this image except to remind Everyone that this victory hug and kiss was in celebration of having scr*wed over millions and millions of senior citizens who are enrolled (or will be) in the Medicare Program.

This is one of several photos that I'm considering using when I post on the upcoming Sequester/Grand Bargain.

(Just kidding. I'd probably choose a photo that is a little more toned down than this one. What a disgusting display of hypocrisy! Yeah, those Dems really do 'fight for the little Guy.')

Wink

***********

Regarding boycotting voting--if our corporatist media weren't sold out, I could possibly support such an action. However, just as the Dem's Third Way/DLCers always distort the results of elections (saying the Dem Party was too leftist, when that's a "untruth"), I would be afraid that the MSM would never, ever acknowledge the illegitimacy of an election here. Look at Florida.

(Never mind that they offer commentary regarding legitimacy/illegitimacy about almost every other country in the world.)

So, as usual, Mr M and I will probably vote for Stein--if she runs.

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

mimi's picture

and will abuse visual manipulation of people's mind with this in response. (can't help it, that Boehner kiss just triggers my reflexes).

In this Feb. 15, 2011 file photo, President Barack Obama kisses author and poet Maya Angelou after awarding her the 2010 Medal of Freedom during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington. Angelou, author of "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings," has died, Wake Forest University said Wednesday, May 28, 2014. She was 86. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

Visuals often ... are made to close your eyes and let your imagination go your own ways ...imho.
Oh, and I remember Boehner talking at the occasion of receiving the gavel from Pelosi. He sounded drunk. But Pelosi behaved.

I know you would like that one, do you?

oh, wait, err, that was the meant to be the other way around... where did I leave my Pelosi hitting Boehner over the head with the gavel video?

Do you really want to remind you of that? .... /Running, running away.

No offense, I am just kidding and being silly. That's the only way to survive Boehner kisses.

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

When Nancy Pelosi said to embrace the suck, she meant it literally. Lol

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Unabashed Liberal's picture

Grand Bargain -- 3rd Thumbnail Photo.png
[Photo Credit: Grand Bargain Watch, DonkeyHotey's Photostream, Flickr]

pointed out that I'd have to at least wait until Dems have started to more vocally ramp up the faux crisis over the October 1st deadline for the Fiscal Year Budget, or a lot of Kossacks wouldn't know what the heck I'm even talking about (IOW, why I'm bringing up the subject of Dems using the Sequester for additional Medicare and/or Social Security cuts).

Clearly, this will be the Powers To Be's last 'good chance' to eviscerate the Social Safety Net, before the next President assumes office.

I am mindful that (mostly) the crowd over there is extraordinarily partisan, so I'll be careful not to cause them too much anxiety.

Crazy

(Love the smileys!)

Mollie

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.