party crashing

I was commenting on friend & hero ntodd's blog post in which he makes a quick reflection on the electoral process he's just endured. Todd (easily one of the smartest people I've ever met, and a best friend since college) ran for a position in the Vermont state congress as an independent; in this, his first race for office, he lost, but one can only imagine how big a learning experience it has all been.

Anyway, one consideration has been about our two-party system, and the huge odds stacked against an independent or "3rd-party" candidate. On Nov. 2nd, I found myself voting straight-up democrat, sadly ignoring independent/3rd party candidates altogether. Just the idea that our state might vote in another Republican scared me into feeling desperate. It didn't matter what democrat it was, I was going to vote for the candidate most likely to beat the wingnut.

While independent candidates can win races, our two-party system is so strong and entrenched that it prevents just about every great candidate from being considered. But who gets to decide the parties' platforms? The Tea-Party nutjobs that won their elections generally ran as Republicans, not independents. They've tugged the party even further to the right (over the edge). And of course, the Dems have been pulled to the right for the past 3 decades. But, Dennis Kucinich is a Democrat, and he's ultra-progressive compared to most of the rest of the party (on the national front at least). For my friend Todd, the label of Democrat might be an uncomfortable fit, but, these labels can be changed, and at least used.

The moneyed interests that control our government (through their purchased representatives) will resist the attempts of true progressives from crashing either major party. But with enough support from actual people that will actually vote, a major party candidacy can be taken. The question is, how (besides playing on people's emotions, fears, hatred, ignorance, and so on)? For a progressive that truly wants to improve this world, it would rely on how well he or she could inform the public about their own issues, and for them to see that the standard politicians they're electing aren't working on their behalf.

I think that a new model for a progressive politician should include the willingness and ability to make a huge initiative of just informing the public on the issues, their details, nuances, and most importantly, of the agendas involved of those making decisions that are powerfully affecting our lives. Ideally the news media would perform this service, but so often I find the need to turn to internet sources (such as blogs, activist sites, and videos/documentaries, which are often hard to find). The endless lies and manipulations must be countered by endless information, and the Democrats have failed miserably in this department for years now.

If a progressive candidate can communicate to people effectively, giving them fact over fiction, explanation over exploitation, and tirelessly (emphasis on that word), then the people might be persuaded to vote for someone that sincerely cares about them and their world. In our structured political landscape, taking on the label of Democrat - as lame as it can be - could be the key for an independent. Dragging the power of the Democratic party back to the left may be the only way to save this country, and that can only be done if enough people understand our own issues; hell, for some, if they can even get a grip on reality.

(For a look at my pal Todd, check out one of his local TV panel discussions. It's 10 minutes long, and the first 7 minutes is spent listening to others droning along without saying anything. Then Todd speaks. The man is smart. And he has a beard.)

Iraq in Hell

I've been watching some documentaries by John Pilger lately; if you've seen a few British docus, you've probably seen him or at least heard his voice.

Today's selection: 2003's "Breaking the silence - Truth and lies in the war on terror."

Here's the moment where you just have to watch and imagine this has nothing to do with you. Pilger is speaking with Undersecretaries of Defense Douglas Feith and John Bolton (individually, but they're editied together).

JP: Why is it wrong for dictators and terrorists to kill innocent civilians, and right - or excusable - for the United States to do exactly the same?

DF: Well, the United States doesn't do it, and if we did it it would be as reprehensible as the terrorists.

JP: The United States doesn't kill innocent civilians?

DF: Uh, NO, the United States doesn't target civilians.

JP: Hm... Those of us on the outside who look at September the 11th, where 3,000 people died in that tragedy, but then look at the thousands who've died since, wonder about double standards, here. Would you address that?

DF: I think that the um ... I think that the numbers you're talking about are are are questionable, but let's leave aside your numbers but -

JP: Why are they questionable?

DF: I don't accept your assertion that we've killed thousands of uh uh innocent people, but let me give it to you -

JP: There's a lot of studies, and examination of facts on the ground that suggest indeed thousands; I mean in Iraq at the moment, there are studies that are talking about 10,000, but I don't want to get into numbers, but certainly "thousands" seems a fair figure.

DF: I uh I uh don't know that that's true. And I don't accept the assertion.

(Switch to walrus-man John Bolton:)

JB: Well I think that Americans like most people are mostly concerned about their own countrymen. I don't know how many Iraqi civilians were killed but I can assure you that the numbers, that the absolute minimal that it's possible in modern warfare. One of the stunning things about the quick coalition victory is how little damage was done to Iraqi infrastructure, and how low Iraqi casualties were.

JP: Well that's quite high, if it's 10,000 civilians.

JB: Well I think that it's quite low if you look at the size of the military operation that was undertaken.

(Switch back to Feith:)

DF: It's practically an inevitability in war that there are going to be innocent people that get hurt no matter how much care a professional military, a properly-behaved military, puts into avoiding damage into non-combatants and into civilian infrastructure.

(Pilger stares at Feith over the top rims of his glasses.)

JP: Mr. Feith, that sounds fine, sitting here in Washington. But in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, which is my most recent experience, that's not how it looks at all -

Unknown military representative, off-screen: May I interrupt for a moment, I apologize sir, would you stop tape please for one moment?

Unknown: Thank you very much, let me know when you've stopped tape.

JP: Excuse me -

Unknown: I'm sorry I'm doing this purposefully, sir, have we stopped tape?

JP: Are you serious?

Unknown: I was not under the impression, sir...

(end of interview)

That was seven years ago. Today, Iraq Body Count (which only counts civilians that are reported in English-language/translated newspapers and television) has documented figures of 98,585 - 107,594 "civilian deaths from violence" since the start of the war. Counts that take more into account have wildly ranging estimates that top even a million deaths.

Sunday (two days ago, Halloween) was massive, with 64 civilians dying, most of them in an attack on a church. Earlier today (Tuesday, 11/2/2010) there was a series of coordinated bombings in Shi'ite neighborhoods across Baghdad, killing at least 117 (and wounding 322) more.

(FYI: Numbers of civilians killed in Afghanistan range from 8,991 - 28,583, though reporting has been even more scattered than in Iraq.)