I have limitedly engaged the reasonings here, in part, because of the general tone of a few.
I purposely engaged this reasoning as an arrogant, smart ass. As a reflection of the attitude or types of reasonings I have seen here and on the other boards by a few.  Making points in the style of “funny”retorts… It seems that when it gets a bit too much of the taste of one’s own medicine the boys run away or cry foul. I do know that in the end I am responsible for my own actions, but hoped maybe this may change some perspectives of how this type of reasoning feels to others. I know and see the vibe was felt to have more tolerance.

360, you reason rather passive aggressive or rather aggressive passive (in MN we call it “minnesota nice”).  You said I have insinuated your points. I disagreed with your points. (where we are, psychic energy focused”, feng shui –gestures of good faith, scraps from the table,…)….and the main point about the glue holding it together.
Just because you now say that my points (or what you call insinuations) are a waste of energy doesn’t make it so. It is a matter of perspective indeed. Knowing what power they actually have. You may have me clocked as insinuating your point after you didn’t answer the american culture question. I answered the question with my opinion of the answer.
”As Starshyne pointed out - "symbol-rich freemasonry that designed this nation" - which harkens to the soul of this nation, symbolisms, ritual that are the stuff of the cohesive glue of the culture, just as they have been of all empires past.”
I think you may have now changed your mind about the glue?… but to me this has been your main point and that Obama/change/hope are just another chapter in their plan. I disagreed with your perspective. Thus I disagree with whatever points you make in support of that premise.

It is not just about being “removed from our ability to make a difference”. It is also about being removed from our responsibility. As you know via the enlightenment we have been and are privileged. We have a responsibility to address the arrogance, individualism, greed in the manifestations of sexism, racism, classism, etc….
Otherwise, in the inverse it is like saying… who can blame us for being racist and sexist… the onus is really on the system or the ones that put the system in place. In my opinion the “john” is just as much responsible as the pimp. See, its this mentality … it is a thought process that remains untouched… it is this thought process which puts the blame outside of oneself to an elusive order (what can we say with certainty is the plan or part of the plan)… in which one does not recognize the privilege and nature of “having a dinner party” discussing the conjecture of what the master plan of “them” is.  Treks through history can be rewarding. Our white European history can inform us the privilege and status we now have in this paradigm. After so many years, we have yet to change that. Collective responsibility.

“i must think of change on the terms of "the way it is and not how i want it to be" (to paraphrase immortal technique).”
I have learned much from people like Immortal technique. Although, he has a different ancestral history and experience than we do as whites.
I know others have as well… but I have BEEN pissed off for some time now about the way it is and not how I want it to be (that’s why I said the work has not changed)… the ideology of supremacy signing me up on the dotted line of privilege and benefits in this society has pissed me off for some time. Its been something I don’t want which is easy enough to say in word…but much work in the realm of “change” in ingrained consciousness in the pealing back of layers of privilege and arrogance and attempts in finding ways of legitimate action to do away with the paradigm. I no longer see “us” and “them”. I know Rootsie has written a few articles on here about that. We are them because privilege has said so. This could bring up a whole other conversation as to if we are in the rightful position to make judgments about the mind frame of a light skin black leader or blacks as a supporting populous of this leader. I feel that from my white perspective, it is best for me to put my work in engaging the issues of racism, sexism, classism that have very real every day implications. These things underlay(hidden/the secret society) the political issues .

Well lets just go to DC and get Tim McVey-ish on them?! Since the problem is within the symbols & rituals, lets go do it up alqaeda styleE!
About feng shui…actually I was going to bring up some other stuff about feng shui, but that would probably send you off on a zeitgusto seizure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feng_shui

Interesting isn’t it… Zeitgeist that is… I was invited to a couple of dinner parties that the main theme of the party was to view this movie. There are many people aware and lets (boo!) HOPE it doesn’t stop there…where we intellectually stand in awe of an imaginary bird in flight while a real-time mac truck smacks us. I think it is ego… like look they are not that much of a “secret society” or they are a “secret society” and I have them clocked every step of the way… who really cares… is it really relevant that we see the symbols and rituals they intend…. Is it really relevant that we recognize their ceremonies?  Isn’t it illusions? They don’t actually “have the power” so the pomp and circumstance of it all is an illusion. I think that doing ones work in being ones best and putting forward ones best to others is a far large task that takes much energy… instead of putting energy into what is an illusion…. Are we conduits? …kind of like “short circuiting the positive and charging the negative”, eh?

“it IS being used as a part of who WE are, as a definition of WHERE we are at.”
Is it true though? Where are we? People want a change; people massively had an exchange with government like it hasn’t been in a great while. It is not just going to go down like a big gulp slurpy from 711. People are engaged. If even through an illusion, I feel that people are engaging the idea of change, hope, making things better… I feel that people that you speak of, who buy the illusion, are few…there is much noise out about holding obama accountable…(obamameter…http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/)/daily news debates. I do feel though there are many, many who are not engaged through the illusion, and I feel that we have to engage it through dialogue and action about what is change, hope and making things better…. ”WHERE we are at”… in ourselves, in our house, neighborhood, community, etc.. the work has indeed not changed.
It is not like “we have arrived... Hallelujah”. Race is being discussed in many different ways and places… the “dream yet unfulfilled” is brought front and center. Neither will people so easily suck on the lollipop of more war.

You didn’t answer my question “What American culture are you speaking of please? What is THE American culture?” Instead, you reply talking about “common heritage”, what common heritage? So now we are talking about heritage rather than culture. You bring up heritage so you can talk about symbolism more. “Our common heritage” is “a melting pot of heritages”. This is avoiding the question I asked. So I will answer my own question then. American culture is ego/self-centered/arrogance/greed of power (if you can tell me what one word for that would be…great!)… what is the glue that holds that together is not statues, calculated dates, etc… the glue is the isms of racism, sexism, classism, etc…People don’t stay plugged in because they just love the beat of the star-spangled banner so much… I said they have failed miserably in having the symbols and rituals be “the cohesive glue"…the rituals and symbols are not what holds it together… where do pppl plan their vacation get-away? Hedonistically on Lincoln's lap? … so I am saying, figuring out the ins and outs of their ceremonies, statues and puppeteer-ing is an illusion that diverts energy from addressing the real…maybe because what we do share still is that “common heritage” or “culture”  you speak of which is ego, greed, self-centeredness, arrogance, etc…
“THAT is our collective heritage, our psychic energy focused”
 Psychic energy focused?… no, not to me. Not in the way you are defining collective heritage… that’s called, our psychic energy disabled. Psychic energy focused on an illusion… we are neutralized/benched buddy or as Rootsie said…standing on the sidelines bitching…Psychic energy focused on an illusion…pouring water on rusty sparkplugs. "Our collective heritage" has been about promoting our psychic energy focused on arrogance, greed and self-interest and the isms are the waves/wires.
Scraps off the table? That’s the point again… they don’t have the power to even throw ppl a milk bone.
Like Rootsie has said, there have been every-day-people, that have been doing there every-day work for a long time… that is how things have moved and shifted… if even slightly. I don’t give “power” to empire. So Hitler was a puppet? and the holocaust a plot? So that FDR could have the acclaim of uniting us in a common cause? Change is on the table because that is what “we the people” have been pushing for… it is not biz as usual… I can give you a number of examples where people have been diligently working in “speaking truth to “power”… is it so far-fetched to think the ppl have had successes and people are upset by the mismanagement, so the pressure is on?
Again, I feel that giving power to this order by being immersed into its structure and function of symbols
“…but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice”
So how does that justice come? Taking apart the structure. Feng shui-ing it… first you have to know what structure you are messing with. The illusional structure… or the one based in reality…. I am guessing a good angle (pun intended) may be found by back tracking “injustice”. What is the source of injustice? I think chipping at the mortar called racism, sexism, classism, etc… may be a good start in getting at the blocks of ego, greed, arrogance, etc.
“my comment about feng shui  was about re-arranging a house which is already built - which is what the house-cleaner obama is doing in the white house, not re-arranging feng shui where power relationships are questioned at their root. i thought this was cute:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/16/obama-chic-decorate-white-house-tough-times/”
I may be a girl…but…”Cute”, shoot…not!
I thought that was indeed what you were saying. That putting Obama in the white house was a power move? To cool the masses through “a necessary good faith gesture”.  I am saying that people are not so stupid as you might like to think nor as easily duped. This is what Rootsie has been saying. So we should be concerned about figuring out and “AIR-ing” (they have no power but the waves we provide) their energy of illusional pageantry. It is an illusion. By getting ppl to suck into an illusion, negative energy is circuited. I think we would better off engaging things like change and hope. Re-circuiting the negative and magnifying the positive… the concepts of hope and change are not illusions. We indeed are energy channelers. It is biological and environmental. What is worthwhile engaging?

Feng Shui, LOL! Great that you brought that up!!! Might help connect the dots.
I feel that feng shui is more than "just necessary good faith gestures". It is INDEED about energy movement and improving life by facilitating the movement of energy... may be expanded on to discuss the "time for change"... as this is all about energy.
LOL ...but seriously some metaphysical points to consider... the top ten of a "space life"...#5 is especially good!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5atOfOlZ6XU

As Starshyne pointed out - "symbol-rich freemasonry that designed this nation" - which harkens to the soul of this nation, symbolisms, ritual that are the stuff of the cohesive glue of the culture, just as they have been of all empires past.

I pointed it out… I really just restated your main point. You are now putting a slight spin to what I am saying in your interpretation of my quote. Harken? What in the world does “harken” mean… a bit dramatic, heh? Harken…. To listen to attentively (Webster says so). So a freemasonry that listens attentively to the soul of this nation, symbolism…yadayada… a bit dramatic, not? … to make a point about how invasive and calculating they have been. I am not trying to fault dramatic… as I know my posts can be like so…. because I too like to choose words that generate feelings... but this does hit to the heart of the critique I am making… which is that getting stuck on the symbols…running around them…pointing at them…and finally regurgitating the same fear in the way of giving power through words such as “harold HARKEN angels sing”…its kind of like having a love for Horror movies…maybe I am biased, some ppl do…free will, as it is…but it’s a bit ridiculous when there is real work to be done and change is on the table of community dialouge ….  Besides…if this is the case,  I think they have failed miserably in having the symbols and rituals be “the cohesive glues that holds the culture together”. What American culture are you speaking of please? What is THE American culture?

People have to be aware of the issues and then in an organized manner address them the best they know and through what means are accessible to them. While I feel it can be an effectual ways for change, organizations in particular are not necessarily needed to generate that change.
I look at the presidents as all along the same continuum. Not as a superman…and I have to say to me there is little difference between those that think he is/should be and those that are ranting about him not being. The issue to me is about the discourse taking place. Obama, as president, has changed the dialogue. Not made right or arrived “hallelujah”. MLK3 even said his father’s dream is not realized and to me that is exactly the “talking point” brought front and center with this presidency. Hope and change are not slogon by-gones of an election. I do feel people are going to hold the Obama administration accountable. Look at the Anti-Israel protests in Chicago a few weeks ago in which ppl brought it to the front steps of his home. Again, the dialogue is on the table: race, hope, change, no war machine… people have to engage and utilize the word "change" in the discourse.

Nothing has changed in regards to the work that needs to be done… the dialogue has shifted and it’s up to us to be in that dialogue. Leslie recently posted an excellent article about some of the issues. We have to keep talking about the work and the words and work at making changes in our own way, in our own day-to-day to dismantle supremacy… to me its rather old news whether or not this fits a sorcerer plan, of course it does (trilateral agreement/one world money/and actually I think a contrived "Utopian collapse" is the planned driving force)…but of course they don’t REALLY get to “win” in the end … call me stupid…but that’s HOPE isn’t it? Speaking of organization, I do think there is a “higher level” universal connection between people that is based in wanting the best for all, wanting to be their best, know what blatantly right and what blatantly wrong is, and see the true beauty in the world in which we live. That to me is the organization of change in which one can function in their immediate day-to-day life and if not, I can’t think of a better way to wait on the end of the utopian collapse fairytale… maybe ones would earn some points with Jesus on the side.
There was a current in which this election ran… could any of us stop it? Was it not the will of people even if misguided… how do we then “guide these zealots into the light?”  BTW…Some people only wanted Bush out of there and are just pure ecstatic about that fact alone.
This exchange between the government and the governed has not always been an exchange. Slavery and the need for a civil rights and woman’s mov’t are just a couple of obvious examples. The last 2 elections sure didn’t feel like an exchange… People, misguided or not, have engaged in the politics, in a way it hasn’t been for a great while. We have to engage in the dialogue about the issues and move from the symbol. Can we change the symbol? Or Can we change the issues?
Volunteerism, once again I personally am not concerned with the man who brought it up or who initiated it…all on the same continuum. As well, I am not getting wrapped up in figuring their plan…so what. How should it go?... should be the question? I am speaking about the issue being brought front and center. The issue of volunteerism has been quite obviously tied to the Obama administration in the last few days and the dialogue generated surrounding it. It may very well be a means to prime the “unsuspecting masses” to be willing to go off and fight some more trillion dollar wars, scratch that…actually I don’t think so. I think people are smarter than that. I feel that the “stupid ones” might actually have a volunteer experience in a different area of life in which they have had no exposure and see the injustice and disparity and thus be moved to also join the dialogue about what necessary change may look like and subsequent action or at the very least …did a tangible task. Very few volunteers I know (guess what …some have been volunteering since Reagan…so where did it all begin?) are on the gig of “look see…what I am doing” but simply feel strongly about what they do. For all, it’s not some halfway side gig that ones do on MLK day or for Xmas soup kitchens. Most of everything I have learned from others that is lastingly valuable to me has been through the teachings of “volunteers”.

“this DOES however open up a crucial space for us to recognize how much we can organize locally and make better, more active decisions about our lives and our communities. just as the bush administration opened people's eyes to the utter corruption of our system, the obama administration may open our eyes to our own power of not needing "them" to effect the change that we want.  an empire is a full time job, and EVEN with all their surveillance and obama's "black widow*"(btw - how f'd up is THAT name for a big brother operation?), etc. - they can't control all the people all the time.”

--- Exactly…… is that not a first step…a “change” in discourse?

go play with your pal andy then... drill in his head this age of aquirius... and the rising of symbolism power
what ya say gives the best buzz...uppers or downers?

Take it from Skeeter...Utopian collapse...so why bother, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmnKCE99sYE

I actually like the fairytale with Mack the turtle man and the "plain little thing" he did...
Yertle the Turtle...
http://www.andstuffso.com/?page_id=88

In some ways, I may stand in the middle of what you both are saying. I feel ok with that. I have my opinions, but yet don't know much with certainty. Rootsie is tapping into a very important, basic thing in regards to what this is all about. There is indeed something just as whimsically Armageddon about waiting on an “apocalyptic collapse”. Even more so, a one-dimensional stance that “it is all a sham” actually gives power to the symbol you proclaim. To me, there is little difference than those who you sight as “obama worshipers” and yourself. You are just as frantic in proclaiming him the pinnacle of whatever. I don’t believe that…nor have I read Rootsie say that… and most of all I feel that there are many that feel the same way.
The end of supremacy comes in tangible work and yes, maybe boring, hard work. I mean look at all the Che memorabilia for ex…to be “down in the struggle” has come with its etiquette and fashion and sensationalization. I think that what Rootsie speaks of is actually addressing privilege… In this day and time, there is a privilege stance mirrored in the sensational revolutionary or all-star activist hippie with a blow horn chanting it’s all a setup. Most genuine work I have seen comes with little parade and fanfare… but is like lava circulating underground and erupting in spurts which may get mass attention do to the effects… but is only concerned in doing true to purpose in being a part of the natural force of the universe....rather than saying I know how the mystery of the universe works. 

Now to speak to the symbolism, I do see it. Yesterday’s ceremonies illustrated the ideas of what we have come to know as symbol-rich freemasonry that designed this nation. Biden’s whole speech was centered on the architecture of the location…he used the symbolism of the architecture to speak to the history of the US and the people whose vision built it, the puppeteers of a nation… Obama, slightly contradictory to Biden, spoke about the people standing between the monuments that are the real root of the US… I felt that this part of his speech was a response to Biden’s and as such,  I can’t help but feel it was an off-script statement. I do feel that Obama is not fully aware of his designed role in this and I think as he sees it fully… he will be assassinated and maybe that is the plan. I also can’t help but recall the Y2K celebration in DC and Clinton’s seemingly “out of left field speech” about a post-racial society (one of the last in his admin.). It seems that this now was priming for what was yet to come through the next Dem. Prez. But still, I know all I have to say is pure conjecture… just like Rootsie said we don’t know how this will all go.

Do we really need to? Is the power in one man or the ideals of the designers? Like Rootsie said … we can’t underestimate the intelligence and power of the people. Today, Obama is urging people to volunteer …to do real work in our society… I don’t think that is pretty curtains on the windows of the “illuminati master plan”. Instead I think that is a necessary move. Experience is a true life teacher.  Most of what I have learned that I find valuable has been through experiences. Now, I do know the double-edge of this… on the flip side of the experiences of volunteerism is the do-goodism…missionary vibes… which exactly points to the work everyone must do in engaging in the dialogue. Ones who see this as an ineffective demise to supremacy would seem to be concerned about what is going on in their backyard? What is the tangible work we should be doing?

What we do know… is where we are. The discussions should be about how we continue to work within this new structure… or outside of it? Is working outside the structure possible? Truly, we are tied in it no matter how much we hate it. I think it requires savvy and fully knowing you don’t have to compromise and being willing to engage ideas. Infiltrate the infiltrators if you so say.
 The work is there to be done like it has always been… it almost seems that the ones who think Obama a set-up are just as disabled as the ones they accuse because they give Obama the head position, give the power to the fever. We have to remain proactive rather than reactive. The course of work in dismantling supremacy thus far, cannot and should not be changed but furthered. Not everyone believes that we have arrived… actually I think the ones I encounter in my day to day tend to think the opposite. Sure this affects neo-liberal hippies and appears to be of their design. But how does this affect conservative or borderline conservatives/liberals? Have you had conversations with any?

I have found the real-everyday-work-dialogue changing, even slightly…Like “oh my, we are going to actually live up to diversity, we actually have to face those brown and black skinned people, what do we do?” The change Obama speaks about has been sort of ambiguous. I think this makes the ones I just spoke of uneasy and thus open to the directions people suggest change takes. I usually also don't tell people what to to do, but it requires ones like you, that share similar thoughts to be there saying what that change really means in dismantling supremacy. We have not arrived. Oakland, this New Years, broadcast it to the nation.

How do we work?… how do we utilize and further the dialogue rather than raving on symbols and set ups?  That doesn’t feed or free people. Self efficacy frees people. There is tangible every day ways we can impact. This may be the necessary step to further the sight of the ones you sight as being wrapped in the symbols of illusion, by in some way leaving the room open to hope and tangibly utilizing new opportunities to tap into social changes Obama has said he wants to see open up. I don’t think “change” was solely the part of the ploy to get him elected. That dialogue is on the table and it will stay there as long as people keep urging for a better way… this may be a necessary step for the pressure to be lifted from people and thus be in the position to sight the tentacles/implementations of supremacy.

No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates
October 02, 2008

http://i1.democracynow.org/2008/10/2/no_debate_how_the_republican_and

JUAN GONZALEZ: Tonight, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri will host the first and only vice-presidential debate between Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and Delaware Senator Joseph Biden. The debate will be moderated by Gwen Ifill of PBS.

Senator McCain and Governor Palin have been sowing doubts about how fair Ifill will be because of a book she’s writing that’s called Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. The McCain campaign and right-wing pundits allege that Ifill might be biased in favor of Senator Obama.

What’s missing, however, is any concern about the fairness of the very structure of the debate. The Obama and McCain campaigns jointly negotiated a detailed contract dictating the terms of all the 2008 debates. This includes who gets to participate, as well as the topics raised during the debates. But the contract remains a secret, and the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation created by the two major parties, has refused to release the contract to the public.

AMY GOODMAN: Open Debates is a nonprofit committed to democratizing the presidential debate process. Last month, Open Debates and nine other pro-democracy groups called on the Commission to make the contract public.

George Farah is the founder and executive director of Open Debates, author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates, joining us from Washington, D.C.

So, George, well, what are these rules tonight? What will they abide by, and who is making them?

GEORGE FARAH: Unfortunately, Amy, we don’t know the extent of the rules, because, precisely because, the Obama and McCain campaigns have absolutely refused to release the detailed contract that dictates the terms of tonight’s debate. We only have limited knowledge.

With respect to the new rules that we do know about, because the campaigns are terrified that both Biden and Palin will make a major gaffe during tonight’s performance, they have severely restricted the response times, so each candidate only has ninety seconds to respond to a particular question and then, only two minutes afterwards, to have some sort of discussion. This is in sharp contrast to the amount of time that was given to Obama and McCain during their debate.

And, of course, Amy, you’re not going to see any third party voices in tonight’s debate. The Republican, Democratic parties, who exert near absolute control over these public forums, have determined and made sure that no third party voices are ever seen on the debate stage and can challenge their dominance of our political system.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, walk us through how we got to this stage, who originally was sponsoring these debates years back, and how this secretive nonprofit organization gained control of them.

GEORGE FARAH: We used to have a fantastic, genuinely nonpartisan presidential debate sponsor: the League of Women Voters. From 1976 until 1984, the League of Women Voters hosted our most important public forums, and they made sure the debates served the public interest rather than the interest of any political party. And they had the guts to stand up to the two major parties.

In 1980, for example, former Republican Congressman John Anderson ran as an Independent for the president of the United States. President Jimmy Carter adamantly refused to debate him, but the League said, “You know what, Mr. President? Too bad.” And they hosted a presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and John Anderson that was watched by over 40 million people.

Fast-forward four years later, the Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan campaigns actually vetoed sixty-eight of the moderators that the League of Women Voters had proposed for the three debates. What did the League do? They issued a scathing public press release castigating the candidates for abusing the process, and the Reagan and Mondale campaigns were forced to accept aggressive moderators.

Again, four years later, the League of Women Voters were refusing to implement any contract that was negotiated by the George Bush and Dukakis campaigns. They had negotiated the first secret contract, a twelve-page memoranda of understanding, that dictated who would participate and how the format would be structured. The League said, “This is an outrage!”

AMY GOODMAN: You mean that that was longer than the initial proposal for the $700 billion bailout?

GEORGE FARAH: Nine pages longer. And they absolutely refused to implement the contract. Well, guess what. The parties did not like the fact that an uppity women’s organization, pro-democracy, was telling their boys who could participate in their debates and under what condition. And so, in 1987, they created this private corporation called the Commission on Presidential Debates. It sounds like a government agency; it’s not. And every four years, it awards absolute control to the Republican and Democratic parties over our political forums.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And who sponsors this organization?

GEORGE FARAH: Well, that makes things even worse. Unfortunately, much of the money that finances the presidential debates that are hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates are private corporations that have regulatory interests before Congress. Anheuser-Busch has spent the most money of any company in the United States on presidential debates, which is partly why every four years we get a debate in St. Louis, and we don’t have a debate this year in New Orleans, which is dying for a debate, and massive civic groups were demanding that a debate be held there to highlight some of Katrina’s problems.

Another consequence of corporate sponsorship is that the corporations are able to give a contribution this way to both parties. You know, we have limitations in this country. Corporations can’t give direct contributions to the candidates. Well, the Commission provides an end-run around. When a corporation gives money to the Commission on Presidential Debates, it knows it is giving money to both the Republican and Democratic parties, supporting their duopoly over our political process and excluding third party voices that may be hostile to corporate power. And all four third party candidates that are on ballots this year are sharply critical of growing corporate power.

AMY GOODMAN: Who are the co-chairs of the Commission?

GEORGE FARAH: Well, you’ve got Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk. These guys have run this presidential debate process for twenty years. They first incorporated in 1988. At the time, Amy, they were the heads of the Republican and Democratic parties. And they still—they still run our presidential debates.

And it shouldn’t be surprising that these guys are willing to sacrifice the integrity of the political process to serve partisan or private interest, because they’re registered lobbyists. Paul Kirk has lobbied on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. And Frank Fahrenkopf is the nation’s leading gambling lobbyist; he is the president of the American Gaming Association. These are the guys deciding who gets to participate in the most important political forums in the United States of America.

JUAN GONZALEZ: But now, there have been occasions when a third party candidate did get in. Obviously, Ross Perot managed to get in some of the debates back in ’92. Now, what have they been doing in terms of that?

GEORGE FARAH: Well, Juan, in 1992, the only reason Ross Perot got in the presidential debates is because the candidates refused to exclude him. That’s it. If the candidates had wanted him out, if Bill Clinton had wanted him out, he would have been out.

Four years later, though, when Ross Perot ran again, he was polling exactly the amount he was polling prior to the debates in 1992; he was polling at nine percent. He had $36 million in taxpayer funds. And yet, he was excluded. Why? Because behind closed doors, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole struck a deal.

Bill Clinton agreed to exclude Perot as long as Bob Dole agreed that there would be only two debates instead of three debates, that they would abolish follow-up questions, and that they would schedule those debates opposite the World Series. Bill Clinton was winning by about twenty points in the polls, and he didn’t want anyone watching these debates or any difficult questions challenging his authority.

And that’s exactly what happened. Perot was excluded, despite $35 million in taxpayer funds. The debates were held opposite the World Series, resulting in the lowest viewership ever. No follow-up questions. Only two debates. And the American people had no idea, because the Commission on Presidential Debates secretly implemented the contract and took all the flak.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to look how the two major party presidential nominees talk about the financial crisis and the Treasury’s $700 billion bailout and how the third party candidates address the issue. Let’s begin with an excerpt from the first presidential debate last Friday between Senator McCain and Senator Obama.

      SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Number one, we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got oversight over this whole process. $700 billion potentially is a lot of money. Number two, we’ve got to make sure that taxpayers, when they are putting their money at risk, have the possibility of getting that money back and gains if the market and when the market returns.

      SEN. JOHN McCAIN: We have finally seen Republicans and Democrats sitting down and negotiating together and coming up with a package. This package has transparency in it, options for loans to failing businesses, rather than the government taking over those loans. We have to—it has to have a package with a number of other essential elements to it.


AMY GOODMAN: So, the two major presidential party candidates agree on the bailout. Now, let’s listen to some of the other presidential candidates who were not included in Friday’s debate, what they had to say about the bailout. This is Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr.

      BOB BARR: Now we have the federal government, the Bush administration, coming to us, the taxpayers of this country, and saying, “We want you to bail us out of the problem that we’ve created over the last ten years.” You open the door to this, you throw open wide the barn doors here, this raid on the federal Treasury, this raid on the taxpayers of this country, you’ll know for a fact that it will happen again and again and again. Already, others are lining up. The automobile industry is already lining up for its bailout. The Republican and the Democratic parties are complicit not only in causing this problem through their bad policies, their bad legislation, but also in proposing this bogus solution to the problem.


AMY GOODMAN: That’s Bob Barr, Libertarian candidate for president. We also interviewed Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader last week. This is some of what he had to say.

      RALPH NADER: It’s not clear at all why a bailout is needed. That’s part of the stampede in the pack and the panic that Bush and Paulson and Bernanke are pushing Congress toward. You know, it’s eerily reminiscent, when you listen to Bush yesterday, of how he stampeded the Congress and the country into the criminal war invasion of Iraq in 2003. I mean, look at all his statements: this could do this, this would do that, farms failing, small business, tada, tada. The first question we have to ask as citizens is, why is there a need for a bailout?


AMY GOODMAN: That’s Ralph Nader. And finally, this is Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney talking about the bailout.

      CYNTHIA McKINNEY: First of all, we need a moratorium on foreclosures. Secondly, we need to renegotiate all adjustable-rate mortgages into thirty- or forty-year loans. We also need to make sure that we redefine credit so that credit can work for small business owners and individuals and not against them. We also need accountability in the system—openness, transparency and accountability.


AMY GOODMAN: George Farah, it sounds like it would be a very different debate about the most important issues of the day, if these third party candidates were included.

GEORGE FARAH: Absolutely, Amy. Thank you so much for highlighting the significance of third party inclusion. There is no doubt that often the Republican and Democratic parties take positions, in large part due to the corporate interests that finance their campaigns, that are directly at odds with the opinions of either the majority of Americans or tens of millions of Americans. And these debates, which are designed to inform voters so they can make substantive decisions, should be airing the ideas that are supported by the vast majority of Americans that the two major parties are excluding.

And historically, that is the role that third parties have played. Historically, it has been third parties, not the major parties, that have supported and are responsible for the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, public schools, public power, unemployment compensation, minimum wage, child labor laws. The list goes on and on. The two parties fail to address a particular issue; a third party rises up, and it’s supported by tens of millions of Americans, forcing the Republican and Democratic parties to co-opt that issue, or the third party rises and succeeds, which is why the Republican Party jumped from being a third party to being a major party of the United States of America.

When you exclude third parties from the election process, third parties that the vast majority of Americans would like to see in the presidential debates, you’re not only denying those people the right to choose who they want to run for president and who they want to vote for, but you’re denying the very fundamental and critical issues that, in a generative democracy, we need to have aired in from of tens of millions of voters.

AMY GOODMAN: George Farah, I want to thank you for being with us. Your website?

GEORGE FARAH: Opendebates.org. I’d appreciate if if everyone took a peek at it. Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: George Farah, executive director and founder of Open Debates, author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates.

Health is more

than health care.

What's making us sick
in the first place?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UNNATURAL CAUSES: Is Inequality Making Us Sick?
[http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001pwiGAPMU8wbd4fZoIcQpA4TOZf7xa04YbSe4_yW7qXAV--qAHYRmglBFt4Mj3FZg33nCMqK-zFZLEuLpVJE0rtXYVKdJmh56HuYuFiAH-lCmE6cFV4aX7ufi2ea8HLRc]

PBS Broadcast this week

Thursdays at 10PM (9PM Central)
March 27, April 3, 10, and 17

Check local listings

*
MARCH 27: In Sickness and In Wealth (56 min)
*
APRIL 3:When the Bough Breaks (28 min) and Becoming American (28 min)
*
APRIL 10:Bad Sugar (28 min) and Place Matters (28 min)
*
APRIL 17: Collateral Damage (28 min) and Not Just a Paycheck (28 min)
Please distribute at will and help spread the word to colleagues, constituents,
members, community, friends and family.

www.unnaturalcauses.org
[http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001pwiGAPMU8wbd4fZoIcQpA4TOZf7xa04YbSe4_yW7qXAV--qAHYRmglBFt4Mj3FZg33nCMqK-zFZLEuLpVJE0rtXYVKdJmh56HuYuFiAH-lCmE6cFV4aX7ufi2ea8HLRc]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

© 2007 California Newsreel
[http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001pwiGAPMU8waa7S9p3bQspv0uqPxyieM2SOUc4KOtvhIEVUBcMeb5KUGrglGCctQguEMnfVFHK_VYjPTi7IMXNrur--d0ZKxI4d2NRJ7CKVuKQuBBjwHKAg==].
All rights reserved. Produced by California Newsreel with Vital Pictures Inc.
Presented
by the National Minority Consortia of Public Television. Public Impact Campaign
in association with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Health
Policy
Institute.

http://aimovement.org/mckiernan.html

http://www.citypages.com/databank/21/1002/article8432.asp

http://www.aimovement.org/csi/index.html

http://nathanielturner.com/jmarionsims.htm

     Thank you sis for adding to this reasoning. Indeed white women were also experimented on and the history of slaves and white women is intertwined. I wonder though and have a hunch that this experimentation on women also predates the time of US slavery? It has definitely been ongoing experimentation with the development of such drugs as pitocin/twilight sleep in the 1950’s. With the ongoing racial disparities in healthcare, it would not be a stretch to say that there was/is mistreatment/experimentation on a higher rate of non-white women; still I have yet to find information to support this.
      I am just beginning to learn about the history of obgyn.  I had recently read an article about one of the most common tools used nowadays by OBs and midwifes, the speculum. The pap smear that a lot of women have yearly done could only be performed with this tool. The story of its history is considered “controversial” but its development has been attributed to the experimentation on poor and enslaved women.
http://nathanielturner.com/anarchas_story.htm

     Thank you for the clarification of what you were meaning here. As a women, reading this article made me feel that these women are out of control, out of accord with the natural web,flow, and beauty of life, birthing. And that you as a man were saying well now who will control them? Women given an option and run amok….so who will control them?
      I agree with you that this is the idea of by controlling women one can gain control over the whole family. I don’t feel though that this is an issue of the residual effects of willie lynchism. We are talking about “elite women”, a majority white women. The degree of control and inoculation with this pathology is different for white women. The history of the field of obgyn is laden with practice of experimenting on non-white women to learn about these practices that these “elite women” are now using as a means of controlling their birthing. To make blanket statements attributing this to now the effects of willie lynchism is not accurate.
     When attempting to address the ingrained thinking of the white patriarchal structure in my thoughts I find it is important to be clear in the statements I make because so easily, by a next persons experiences and perspective, general statements can be taken to be loaded and reaffirming of the very white patriarchal structure I would like to claim I am working at dismantling.

Greetings all,
     Childbirth definitely presents itself as a possible point of transformation and awaking for a woman. It is all about giving up control, and if there is another person a women should be relinquishing control to, it is the baby, the principles of creation. Giving up control in this way is highly spiritual. Giving up control of your everyday body processes can be a frightening and overwhelming vibe that is why it is considered painful or feeling like a near death experience as one sublimates with and through. Only a woman knows what it feels like to have no control over ones body in this way.  It is out of place in my opinion for men to joke about or make statements about women in control or who’s controlling them. When in actuality this is another symptom of the dominate white patriarchal design. Is it about the ball game or is it about a woman trying to assert control in a world where she feels controlled or is it about her trying to attain what is considered success/demands by western standards (juggling job and youth)? I feel that the scheduling around a ball game (while it happens) is a bit sensational.  I feel that a majority of these women that schedule births do so for scheduling around a job, significant other, or other children. Does it make it right or acceptable, no. But it does indicate where western feminism has arrived. Not only will women be the corporation exec’s that exploit other women world wide, they will exploit their own selves.
Yes the pathologizing of childbirth is yet another symptom of our collective disease.
But not all of us pathologize childbirth. I feel for as many “schedulers” of child birth there is many that are trying to go with the natural flow, realizing that indeed it is safer with better outcomes and that childbirth is not a disease.  There has been a growing demand for doulas and midwifes. 12 years ago I never heard of a doula, I never heard of midwifes in the hospital. Nowadays there are efforts to make hospitals more home-like in attempts to embrace the idea that indeed childbirth is a normal and natural process(not saying hospitals are the ultimate best route either)….digging our way out of where the sterile white patriarchal model of the last hundred years or so left us…nurses I worked with would tell me stories of how commonplace and standard procedure it was for birth (around the 1950’s) to be an assembly line, where women would be strapped up on gurneys and put into “twilight sleep” to give birth.
This article highlights women choosing birth dates, as having worked in labor and delivery at hospital for a couple of years…. the majority of scheduled inductions/cesarean sections were scheduled by white male doctors.
As well, by observation a large number of doctor- attended- labors would turn into inductions/caesarean, quite literally every other one, and I know that a lot of that would have to do with the dr’s scheduling. I worked night shift so they would want to get these women “out of the way” to make way for the scheduled inductions/caesareans forthcoming in the daytime. As far as when dr’s are in control, this is so common place and ordinary! Still I am not advocating for women to make choices that are counter-natural either…and it is a matter of privilege that some women are even given the option.
As a mother of four (all hospital births) one with a dr. and three with midwife, I feel that one of the four births had a crazy story attached to it, of course it was the birth the dr. attended (my 1st child). A lot of that had to do with my choices and ignorance about birthing at that point. I had a male nurse attending me a majority of my labor, new to childbirth and not knowing what to expect, I was shocked by the sensations I was feeling. I wanted to go with no interventions/medicine….well every time I would have a contraction and said how I was feeling, I would be prodded by this male nurse, telling me well you don’t have to go through this you can have pain medicine, after so long…I gave in to his sale pitch of a little pain medicine and not an epidural….I really didn’t know what it was, although it did go into my back. Subsequent years later after working in the hospital I learned it was a partial epidural and although you still feel the actual birth and thus have more control with pushing, it still has associated risks. I had a female dr. that did show up for support at the very last minute…I was let known I was interrupting her meeting. I was pushing by the time she came in, which worked well for her as later on I felt that she abnormally rushed the delivery of the placenta.
 Now my middle two births in the hospital were great with no intervention/pain medicine with midwifes attending. My last birthing was also with a midwife and she was wonderfully supportive. I wouldn’t say that one was crazy, it was different. Not because of the hospital or the midwife, but because of something interpersonally had I to face and accept. I was going through the labor with no interventions/medicine and with the baby nearly crowned my contractions all out stopped. We tried all different types of measures to get them going again, to no avail. In retrospect, I know the cause of them stopping was an issue within me that had to be worked through. Being at the point of a nearly crowning baby and no contractions, I ran the risk of bleeding to death, the intervention of “induction”, a shot pitocin is what got the labor going again, and shortly after the baby was born. Midwifes and doulas are learning more about the role ones frame of mind and personal situation plays in ones birthing, and I feel there are ways to work through those issues to alleviate the need for interventions, but it takes the woman to have trust and confidence in her midwife to fully express where she’s at. I feel that is also at the root of the women who want to schedule the birth for whatever reason, unresolved issues.
There is such a great need for race/culture specific caregivers, so that women can feel comfortable and at ease with their healthcare providers.
Like many other issues in working at dismantling this white patriarchal system we have to learn from the wholistic ancient and indigenous ways of life. A saying I have been hearing a lot lately that I like….”we have to naturally care for our bodies, it is where we live”.

So very true what you say.....there is also such a thing as working within our place in it...and that is what I am trying to focus on....not only questioning and talking but in how we live our lives....I don't have the answers but I know it must be done...through my stumblings I learn....but this not something new to me....or it is not just "now" that I feel inspired to do something. I was providing a link for putting money directly into the hands of a black grassroots community group I have first hand knowledge of.....of which who are now displaced because of what has happened there. They were an established business and hub of community organization.  My suggestion of this group is in the same vein of what Rootsie put forward in the indy links, providing alternative options than such orgs as the red cross. What I was speaking of was, yes we should financially support black-led orgs......but at the same time take action on what we demand, cut our excesses...and find a way to make our daily life occcupation work towards justice.