http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/18/ex_cia_analyst_ray_mcgovern_beaten

It's interesting that you hate government, yet love your political party, while I like government and hate my political party.

Some analysis of this incident: http://videosift.com/video/Peace-Activist-Ex-CIA-Analyst-Beaten-Arrested-for-Protest

It's interesting that you hate government, yet love your political party, while I like government and hate my political party.

A misconception my friend, no doubt fueled by my own words at times. Limited government that protects rights (and private property, which is the cornerstone of liberty) is vital and necessary. I love guv when it works and stays in its playpen. We don't have to have daily gladiatorial combat for food and gasoline.

It's all the rest of guv that annoys me. To me the State will always be, "the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." The bigger the government the smaller the citizen.

Re this sift: there is a level of practicality involved in these events. It could just as easily been Ron Paul speaking, so it's not necessarily Hillary Clinton's fault. However, she saw the whole thing and said nothing, whereas Paul might have protested the treatment. Even Obama may have acted in a more practical manner than just ignoring it. It was just Hillary's "bad luck" she was talking about the right to peacefully protest as this poor fellow was roughly carted off for that very act.

As for political parties, I'm aligned with the one closest to my beliefs that also has a measurable impact. As much as I admire libertarianism, the Libertarian Party (LP) remains a barely-known, misunderstood micro-entity. There's a reason the Pauls are Republicans and not card-carrying LPers, and I salute them for it. Change in the major parties comes from within.

Up until FDR, both major parties understood the meaning and intent of the Constitution. You could argue that 25% unemployment was a national emergency in the 1930s and justify some of FDR's actions. But most of what he started is still with us today.

After FDR, only one party even "pretended" to follow the Constitution, the other abandoned it for rule by men (or popularity) instead of by law.

From my perch, you hate the 'Crats (??) because they're not left-wing enough. Am I correct?

*quality

People need to see this.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Skeeve.

I hate* the 'crats because they aren't left at all. Their constant efforts to triangulate allow conservatives to move the 'center' further and further to the right. There is nothing remotely left wing about the current democratic party. Obama received far more corporate funding than McCain. Do you think Karl Marx would find Obama's healthcare gift to the insurance industry 'socialist' in any way?

I'd be curious to hear you explain why you find FDR's New Deal unconstitutional? Why is it that the New Deal was so much more successful in dealing with depression than current 'free market' deregulatory policies that have not only failed, but made things worse? (Deregulation of the energy sector, financial sector, banks, mortgage industry, derivatives, etc.)

*hate is such a strong word. Let's substitute "exceeding disillusioned".

I thought this was America.. Isn't this america??

I've seen shit like this happen on both sides of the aisle so this really isn't a slam to one party or another, but politicians in general.

Hell that's even a stretch, it's more a slam against overzealous security, IMO It's not like Hillary steepled her fingers demonically and said, "go forth my minions and rough up some hapless innocents, muhahahaha"

This persistent delusion that our "side" is always virtuous and true and the other "side" is actively plotting our demise is so fucking childish and needs to end.

punditry fail, QM

I fail to see what "big gov/small gov" arguments have to do with this video. This has more to do with the business in Wisconsin then political parties or philosophies.

We've come to this point: the corporate state has taken off the kid gloves and now engages in flagrant abuse of all it controls. Whether it's an attempt to ban collective bargaining rights of workers, or accosting those who protest, the adversaries of common freedom no longer give quarter to their opposition. Criminality and lawlessness is their way and they have built for us a culture of corruption.

If anyone still pairs 12 trillion in corporate welfare against the "bucket brigade" called "Main St." and doesn't see class warfare, I don't know what else to say. Post more videos? I'm sorry I don't have time to say more but I've got to get back to filing my taxes :-/

Stunning that the witch never even blinks nor misses a beat.

This just in: Idiot prevented from disrupting the Secretary of State's speech. Shocking proof America is a Nazi state!!!

1. Ray McGovern is hardly an idiot.
2. Does standing in silence disrupt her speech?
3. nazi may = fascist, but fascist does not = nazi


>> ^chilaxe:

This just in: Idiot prevented from disrupting the Secretary of State's speech. Shocking proof America is a Nazi state!!!

"After FDR, only one party even "pretended" to follow the Constitution, the other abandoned it for rule by men (or popularity) instead of by law."

I have not heard anyone big in the republican party support the ACLU which is a conservative organization that supports the constitution in all the cases it pursues. If you don't think they're conservative then you don't actually know what conservatism is.

>> ^chilaxe:

This just in: Idiot prevented from disrupting the Secretary of State's speech. Shocking proof America is a Nazi state!!!


How is he an idiot? A Veteran standing up and turning around silently protesting someone who's speaking, is an idiot? By what warped logic did you arrive at that conclusion?

@Yogi

People generally only care about protesters if they already agree with them.

While people are standing around protesting, hoping society will someday improve their lives for them, they're being out-competed in life by more proactive thinkers.

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Yogi" title="member since May 15th, 2009" class="profilelink">Yogi
People generally only care about protesters if they already agree with them.
While people are standing around protesting, hoping society will someday improve their lives for them, they're being out-competed in life by more proactive thinkers.


I guess you edited you comment because I got a message starting with this "Protesting doesn't change opinions unless you create a mass movement. Engaging the solipsistic far left or far right alone isn't enough."

I'm sorry but you are completely wrong about this...but it's not any fault of your own that you are ignorant about activism since it's simply not covered in schools outside historical discussions of the Vietnam war. For 30 years we funded the Genocide of East Timor with President Carter doubling our efforts. All told 600,000 East Timorese landless peasants and farmers murdered. Half a dozen people working in a small office lobbying the government with no funding to speak of, organized protests that were starting to get embarrassing. Clinton called off the funding...and just like that the Genocide was over and done with and International Humane services were allowed in the country.

This is one example...there are countless others where small protests at company headquarters get them to stop say privatizing water in a 3rd world nation or starving the population. They were not mass movements yet they had a huge affect for the indigenous population all because informed protesters knew who was responsible and knew that even a little protest would get them to back down before it become public. It may not seem like much here and there are no movements reported on in the media to speak of but they do have an influence on people around the globe.

Again this isn't surprising...I doubt many on this sift of people who do pay attention to the media know little about the victories won by small protests, because it isn't reported. In their eyes it really shouldn't be because as soon as you let on that the people do have power they will exercise it and there will be what liberal intellectuals termed in the 60's a "Crisis of Democracy" which happens when you have Too Much Democracy.

@Yogi, If we downplay the countless ineffective protests that waste everyone's time and cost billions, we're cherry picking in order to create a desirable narrative.

Too bad Tea Partiers learned this secret weapon... since protesting is so effective, they're going to be unstoppable.

How many of those protesters who derive their happiness from their hopes for society instead of from themselves are going to be just as unhappy in 2050 as they are now, and as they were in 1970, protesting for the exact same causes?

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Yogi" title="member since May 15th, 2009" class="profilelink">Yogi, If we downplay the countless ineffective protests that waste everyone's time and cost billions, we're cherry picking in order to create a desirable narrative.
Too bad Tea Partiers learned this secret weapon... since protesting is so effective, they're going to be unstoppable.
How many of those protesters who derive their happiness from their hopes for society instead of from themselves are going to be just as unhappy in 2050 as they are now, and as they were in 1970, protesting for the exact same causes?


Sorry but I answered your question...there has been many protests that had great affects without creating a movement. That was what was posed to me I answered it, you want to change the question now to what about the feelings of the protesters who failed or the number that has failed? I don't care move the bar all you want.

I would point out though in the 70's and 80's was the greatest time for change in our nations history...not the 60's. We had the Women's movement, the eco movement, and several others and we can see their effects today. Just take any university, it was 99% white males, now it's half women and mixed races that's an accomplishment and it wasn't won easily.

Small protests have their place as well as big protests, you decided that no small protest has ever done anything and I corrected you.

@Yogi

The countless culture war protests in the US each year that are oriented toward the left-most or right-most portions of society, such as Code Pink or the one we're talking about in this video, don't generally change mainstream peoples' opinions unless they can expand beyond their far-left or far-right base.

As worded, this is almost by definition true (how could it not be true?), but it's useful to note because Mcgovern's protests don't appear to be making progress within that framework.

@dystopianfuturetoday @quantumushroom

Anyone else can feel free to jump on this question, too, of course.

Why ally yourselves with any party?

I have come to believe that political parties stifle ideas the same way monopolies stifle innovation and competition.

Labeling yourself means a large number of people automatically dismiss anything you have to say. It's why media personalities are so anxious to label people. If someone is a Marxist, a Nazi, a Communist, or a Fascist, there's no need to spend any time arguing against them because very few people will even hear them out, let alone consider what they say. Being labeled Democrat or Republican is not as dramatic, but has a similar effect on some people.

Politicians should be supported on a case-by-case, issue-by-issue basis and under no circumstances should you ever show loyalty to them. They are our servants, not our kings. They should be loyal to us.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'clinton, surprise, silent protest, civil disobedience' to 'hillary clinton, ray mcgovern, surprise, silent protest, civil disobedience' - edited by xxovercastxx

I didn't recognize McGovern by name but, having just read his wikipedia page, I do remember him by some of his appearances and statements. Checking the citations led me to this gem.

Interesting dialogue between QM and DFT. Interesting in that QM speaks with clarity - a rarity.

Scoreboard:
QM - 2
DFT - 1,993,392,076

But, obviously security is very immaculate at these events if there was not then everyone would realize that there is no real reason for government except to take our money and give it to the rich because they'd all be dead.

>> ^shagen454:

Interesting dialogue between QM and DFT. Interesting in that QM speaks with clarity - a rarity.
Scoreboard:
QM - 2
DFT - 1,993,392,076


In your opinion, you mean. Last I checked, you aren't the official anything around here...

>> ^xxovercastxx:

@dystopianfuturetoday @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/quantumushroom" title="member since June 22nd, 2006" class="profilelink">quantumushroom
Anyone else can feel free to jump on this question, too, of course.
Why ally yourselves with any party?
I have come to believe that political parties stifle ideas the same way monopolies stifle innovation and competition.
Labeling yourself means a large number of people automatically dismiss anything you have to say. It's why media personalities are so anxious to label people. If someone is a Marxist, a Nazi, a Communist, or a Fascist, there's no need to spend any time arguing against them because very few people will even hear them out, let alone consider what they say. Being labeled Democrat or Republican is not as dramatic, but has a similar effect on some people.
Politicians should be supported on a case-by-case, issue-by-issue basis and under no circumstances should you ever show loyalty to them. They are our servants, not our kings. They should be loyal to us.


This.

Labeling yourself either side makes you an lemming idiot, and therefore dismissible. There is NO possible way that a sane, thinking person, be it man or woman, could agree with everything one side or the other side says or does. It's simply NOT possible. Therefore, labeling yourself either says you're fooling yourself, and thus are a fool.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

Liberals are idiots, as are far right Neocons. They're the bastardization of what our democracy was meant to be, where there can be no in-between.

And so long as you agree with everything they say, they'll consider you open minded...when there isn't a open mind amongst them.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hillary clinton, ray mcgovern, surprise, silent protest, civil disobedience' to 'hillary clinton, ray mcgovern, surprise, silent protest, civil disobedience, irony' - edited by lucky760

@hPOD @xxovercastxx
If you are an independent you have a vote pool of 1 idiot.
If you are in a party you have a vote pool of several million other idiots.
At least if you are in a pool with all the other idiots you MAY get something done that is actually useful.

Of course there is also a very good chance someone will pee in the pool.

I hear you and agree that we are bigger than our political parties and belief systems. "isms" are a decent way of comparing and contrasting different schools of thought, but rarely does anyone fit perfectly into those kinds of pigeon holes. That said, my ideology fits unambiguously into the broad category of liberalism. Ideology comes first. I support the Democratic party only for pragmatic reasons, though I'd certainly vote for a Republican, Libertarian or Green candidate if I thought it would have a positive outcome.

If who I support in elections causes people to dismiss me, that's fine. Those kinds of superficial people usually aren't worth the effort. I often feel pressure from media culture to not say certain things for fear of the judgment of others. In these cases I make it a special point to say them anyway, despite the anxiety that can sometimes accompany non-conformity. If I let the fear of other people's judgments stand in the way of speaking my mind, then what is the point of having a mind, or an opinion?

Despite my grave problems with Obama and the Democrats, they are the only game in town, IMO, which is pretty sad considering I have zero faith in most of them at this point. It's becoming clear to me that if we are going to bring democracy back to Washington, we (the people) are going to have to do it ourselves, Egypt style. All positive social changes start with the people. If we don't make demands of our government and hold them accountable, they have no motivation to change.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

@dystopianfuturetoday @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/quantumushroom" title="member since June 22nd, 2006" class="profilelink">quantumushroom
Anyone else can feel free to jump on this question, too, of course.
Why ally yourselves with any party?
I have come to believe that political parties stifle ideas the same way monopolies stifle innovation and competition.
Labeling yourself means a large number of people automatically dismiss anything you have to say. It's why media personalities are so anxious to label people. If someone is a Marxist, a Nazi, a Communist, or a Fascist, there's no need to spend any time arguing against them because very few people will even hear them out, let alone consider what they say. Being labeled Democrat or Republican is not as dramatic, but has a similar effect on some people.
Politicians should be supported on a case-by-case, issue-by-issue basis and under no circumstances should you ever show loyalty to them. They are our servants, not our kings. They should be loyal to us.

>> ^hPOD:

>> ^shagen454:
Interesting dialogue between QM and DFT. Interesting in that QM speaks with clarity - a rarity.
Scoreboard:
QM - 2
DFT - 1,993,392,076

In your opinion, you mean. Last I checked, you aren't the official anything around here...


I never checked how "official" you are or anyone else for that matter, however, thanks for pointing that out!

I find it funny that whacko righties don't recognize that Fascism is an inherently righty concept. Below definition from Dictionary.com, bolding is mine.

fascism (ˈfæʃɪzəm)

— n
1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3. prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

>> ^vaporlock:

Stunning that the witch never even blinks nor misses a beat.


Not really. She's a very well trained speaker.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Asperger's_syndrome

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

If who I support in elections causes people to dismiss me, that's fine. Those kinds of superficial people usually aren't worth the effort. I often feel pressure from media culture to not say certain things for fear of the judgment of others. In these cases I make it a special point to say them anyway, despite the anxiety that can sometimes accompany non-conformity. If I let the fear of other people's judgments stand in the way of speaking my mind, then what is the point of having a mind, or an opinion?

I'm not talking about succumbing to peer pressure, I'm talking about maximizing your audience. If you're debating a subject, the people who don't want to listen to you are the same people that you most need to reach. Adopting a label that puts you in direct opposition to them doesn't help your cause.

You've spelled out, in several ways, how the Democratic Party doesn't represent you. So why are you a Democrat?

Even if you were to find yourself completely in line with one of the parties, how long do you think that will last? Neither of the big ones stay the course. Let's not forget that in the past the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives. Before that, they were the same party. Today, they're gradually becoming the same party again.

^I'm a fan of Radiohead, despite the fact that I find their new album disappointing. My present disappointment doesn't change the fact that they remain talented and creative musicians with a backlog of great stuff, and the potential to do things I like better in the future.

I generally self identify as a liberal, not a Democrat. In reality, I am registered as a Democrat, I vote for Democrats in elections, and see much potential for good within the party. So for all practical purposes, I'm a Democrat. I'm not ashamed of this and see no reason to hide it.

Why? Because I think it would be easier to reshape the Democratic party into something more, well... democratic.... rather than to build a new party from scratch. If the Greens or some other progressive party want to put something together, I'm open to that. Libertarian and Republican core foundational economic beliefs are so horrible and poorly thought out from my perspective, that I don't see myself voting to give these kids the keys to the candy store anytime soon.

As far as reaching people, my philosophy is to just be honest. Say what you think. Praise those who do good. Criticize those who do harm. In the end, I don't think you can really change other people, they must change themselves, and the more information they have, the better equipped they are to do so. If my voting habits or opinions turn people off, then whatever. I'm not interested in putting on a show or trying to present myself as something that I am not.