Really, this Joe Lieberman stuff blows my mind. Read (e:joshua,177)

We need a vibrant primary system for our form of democracy to work. Finally we have a primary that energizes people and the looser walks away like a spoiled brat with too many campaign contributions. Lieberman has no cause, his platform is routine election rhetoric. He is simply running because too many special interests have invested money in him.

Why are so many republicans applauding Lieberman? Do they think we need two identical political parties, and a democracy that never disagrees about anything? 60% of Americans think that we need a speedy conclusion to the Iraq War, but somehow the right thing to do is to exclude their opinion from Washington. That is anti-democratic, un-American lunacy.

Primaries are key to the American democratic system. In this country, before TV, primaries were as important as the general election. The vast majority of voters participated in both the primary and the main election. That's the only thing that makes this country's winner take all, plurality election system actually work.

In the general election we can't have 3 candidates, because one of them could be a "spoiler". There is the possibility that an unpopular candidate will win the election with only 38% of the vote. Simply because in a 3 way race the more popular candidate, that would have beaten the others in a 1 on 1 race, can loose the election by having their votes "stolen" by the third candidate. Vibrant primary elections are essential to this type of voting system, because having just 2 candidates to choose from each year just isn't enough.

There are more than 2 types of people in this country. Our winner take all system has failed the people of America, which is why only half of us actually vote. Half of the people in this country stay home because we don't have a candidate that motivates them to get off the couch. Ned Lamont succeeded because he got people off the couch, and the Democratic Party could learn a lot from his strategy.

Instead of competing for a few Republican votes, Democrats need to get more voters off the couch by speaking to their interests. Many people in this country are ignored and disenchanted with the system, but they would vote if anyone actually spoke to their cause.

How can Ned Lamont be a "far left, wacko fringe candidate" when 60% of the country agrees that we should withdraw from Iraq? That is a huge group of voters that agree with him, and we need their perspective to be heard in Washington. What if Ned Lamont wins, do you think we're going to suddenly leave Iraq? No of course not, it just means that we will have a new and essential perspective in Washington.

When we talk about the war, and approving $87 billion for Iraq we will have to reconcile our differences as a nation. We need ALL the varying perspectives in America to participate in this debate, that's democracy. It's the reasonable discussion and reconciliation of different opinions. These discussions need to happen in Washington, if someone is wrong they will be proven wrong during a debate on policy. People agree with Ned Lamont, and their perspective must be heard. All perspectives should be heard, and through the virtue of intelligent discussion the correct answer to our problems will be found.

What's the alternative, having 2 parties that agree about most things before the debate even begins? And what about 30%-60%-80% of people that don't have their voices heard? Twisted logic states that by leaving them out we are doing the right thing for our democracy. Oh maybe in a post 9-11 world we don't want democracy. That's it, we'll be safer and better off without democracy.

This is the first time in many years that the primary system has worked. Usually only 10%-20% of eligible voters even bother with the primaries, this time there was a 40% turnout, double the usual. Primaries tend to be uneventful because the incumbent has so much money and name recognition that they are very difficult to beat. Not this time, the incumbent was so unpopular that the voters kicked him out. That's democratic justice, it's the foundation of our country.

A true patriot does not sacrifice the democratic bedrock of this country, just to promote their own opinion. Joe Lieberman looks like a spoiled brat.

To Bring peace to the Middle East. We must strengthen moderate Arab leaders and their assertion that the US has good intentions.

We need to bring extremists back to the middle, and we need public opinion around the world to do the same. We need to verify the notion that the US is a benevolent country that looks out for everyone's best interests.

This is not possible through military destruction.

Military destruction always does the exact opposite. It proves the militants right, it says that America is a greedy country, and that we do not care if we destroy people's lives to get what we want. It makes people believe that they have to defend themselves from American might, and they must build a military resistance.

To prove the militants wrong, we must live by international law and we must respect human rights and human life above all else. Snubbing the United Nations and rushing weapons to Israel is the wrong decision if we are looking for peace in the Middle East.

Republicans have lost their credibility in making Americans safer. After 6 years of Republican rule does anyone feel safer? The world today is seething with chaos and hatred. Much of that hatred is directed toward the US. Should I feel safer now that more people Hate me? Chaos is unfolding in the Middle East. Are we supposed to believe that War was just going to happen anyway? Or is it our involvement that has created these problems, rather that solving them? The Bush administration has provoked and instigated the violence we see today.

The Bush doctrine is preemptive war. But we forget what war means. What is like to have a bomb dropped in your town, a big explosion in which 12 people die and 30 are injured? Everyone around the explosion stares in disbelief and fear, people pull survivors away from the fire. People's lives are ruined in an instant. Loved ones traumatically die in an act of violence and terror. What does that do to a town? What if at the same time the bridge you take to work has been bombed. The electric plant has been destroyed and the power has been off for days. People are using generators to power refrigerators, and hospitals. Surviving, and helping others survive through gasoline powered generators. While everywhere someone is mourning the loss of a loved one. In Lebanon this is happening right now. Every day.

I fear that nothing is shocking anymore. We have seen so many explosions on TV that we have forgotten the true reality of it. The damage and suffering that they leave in their wake. Over 1,000 civilians have died in Lebanon in the last month. Hundreds of highways and bridges have been destroyed. A power plant on the cost was bombed and the oil the plant used to make electricity spilled onto the Mediterranean coastline creating one of the worst environmental disasters the country has ever seen.

I'm not saying that we are the only ones who are violent. What I am saying is that violence never solves a problem, it only perpetuates more violence and revenge. People do not simply submit to abuse and do what you want them to.

People are not pacified through violence.

Are we safer now that Iran is the figurehead for defiance of the US? Before we went into Iraq, when we named Iran in the 'Axis of Evil', the Iranian government was struggling for legitimacy with its own people. Much of the Iranian population didn't want to live under a religiously based set of laws, and the Iranian government didn't have much power to do anything. But what happens when the US starts being aggressive toward Iran and other Middle Eastern countries? Everyone rallies around Iran's position, strongly opposing the US.

And when more innocent Muslims die, we prove Iran, al Qaeda and Hezbollah right.

Bush and his advisers have never seen war, except for Collin Powell who is ironically a big opponent of the Iraq War. But Bush wants more war, he thinks Preemptive war is a great idea. They believe the US should be starting wars without provocation. Bush says that we should have an aggressive foreign policy. But should the US really be acting like the aggressor, starting wars and killing people around the world? No, the Bush Doctrine is completely un-American.

Now that we've ignored, abused, and discredited the UN are we safer? The UN represents the rule of law in international relations. Without the rule of law, nations resort to force. We didn't want the UN to stop us from invading Iraq, what happens now when we want to stop Iran and North Korea from developing Nuclear weapons? We can't ask the UN for help because we ignored them, now everyone else can ignore them. Force becomes a more likely option, because we don't have an alternative.

I sure as hell don't feel safer.


Thanks e-strip for being my journal

Below is a video from Lebanon, by Kevin Sites, a Yahoo News reporter.

It is easy for the Neoconservatives to claim that military bombardment fits into some grand scheme to bring stability to anything.

But if you see, with your own eyes, what actually happens when you drop a bomb on a town, you realize that war is not a solution to anything. War and violence only inspires hatred, revenge, and more death. War is not a solution, it IS the problem.

Bombarding Lebanon has done nothing but inspire fierce and persistent Hatred for America and Israel.

Solutions are found when people sit at a table and talk to one another, not through death, killing and chaos.

The US and Israel are purposefully instigating a war with the Muslim world. I do not know why. But nobody in their right mind would think that these bombings are reducing the threat of terrorism.

What we are really doing in Lebanon, is giving people another good reason to hate us. We are frustrating them and terrorizing their lives to the point that they will take up arms against us. And we are training militants in combat every day we fight them.

The bombing of Lebanon is completely irrational, unless your goal is world war. America has lost it's mind and its soul.

This is a video from a reporter what happened to be a block away from the attack. He runs over with his video camera and captures the aftermath, going directly to the site and talking to the man whose house was bombed. You can see and hear the chaos that abounds in the small country of Lebanon.

In this country we are very insulated from the effects of our 'aggressive' policies. Fortunately for us we can find videos like this on the internet, so we do not have to be so ignorant, as the war mongerers in Washington would like us to be.

The link is below, don't bother reading the news article, to me it relies on the "official" description of events too much. Personally I don't trust the government to interpret the news for me, they lie too much.

Watch the videos, there are 2, they are both good. The photo essay is good too. The second video down 'The chaotic aftermath of the air strike' is uncensored reality, it is a must see for us sheltered Americans.

See the videos here:



More from the reporter can be found here It's nice to have a few minutes of video from the places we hear about on the news.

Just had a idea.

The casino thing is all up in the air. But we really don't have to wait for a lawsuit, or for Albany to figure itself out, or Washington where the Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton approved the land transfer for the Indians and later resigned under corruption allegations.

We can figure this out for ourselves. The City Council can put a referendum on the ballot one of these elections, and ask the voters support, or do not support an sovereign Indian-operated casino in downtown Buffalo. Yes or no to the casino.

And if we say no, the city agrees to not comply with the casino, by not agreeing to any permits or easements so that the casino can not operate.

And if it comes into question with the federal government, the people of the city voted for it, what can they do? The federal government might be able to override the city government on some things, but the people? the voters? We can't be easily overridden.

Thoughts?