Earth Day Bicycles
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
The Democrats have released their plans for their first week in office as a majority party. Firstly, they're saying that they will make changes to encourage ethical behavior. Fine, fine idea.
"On Thursday and Friday, we're going to adopt rules that will change the way the people's house operates to ensure its integrity, to ensure its openness and to ensure its transparency," incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Wednesday.
Fine, fine idea.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Of the other items on their agenda, glaringly missing is direct discussion about and action upon the Iraq Invasion. I know this is just their first week, but they'd do well not to forget what got them in office. Action is called for and action soon.
Of the eight areas they are committing to work on this week, I only see one as critical.
The Democrats say they will roll back multibillion-dollar subsidies for oil companies and work towards energy independence as a goal for the United States. I don't sense the urgency that is appropriate to this issue, but at least they're committed to look at it.
Given that we have committed ourselves to a future based upon the promise of unlimited cheap oil - not to be found in reality - I'm hoping they'll take a serious look at the issue and begin to take significant action.
Again, I'll believe it when I see it.
One of their agenda items is a commitment to a Pay-as-we-go approach to the budget. Would that they'd be similarly committed to a Pay-as-we-go approach to our economy and environment.
8 comments:
I must admit that today is an exciting day for me. I'm not nearly as cynical as I should be.
In my book, even a half-assed Democratic Party beats a full-ass Republican Party.
Yeah, ER...especially when they make promises to the American people that gets them elected and they just ignore their own promises, right?
Welcome to the latest Culture of Corruption and Capitulation, boys!
Yes, their first 100 hour "To-Do List" is uninspiring at best. They're gonna have to tackle the Iraq issue if they want to retain power... Madam Cindy's performance the other day, driving Illinois democrat Rohm Emanuel away from the microphone and taking it over... and the lick-spittle press eating it up!!!! [Sigh] That was rich! Rich indeed. The point is, Democrats are as filled with hot air as Republicans; and Princess Nancy's promise to stamp out the "so-called" culture of corruption while doing nothing to stamp it out in her own party-- rewarding it, in fact! ...Well, all I can say is, "Meet the new boss! Same as the old Boss!!!"
Congratulations on your constitutional coup, gentlemen! I look forward to seeing you all swimming in the same toilet Ms. Pelosi and company will have the rest of us in!
Do I detect a wee bit o' bitterness, fellas? Had too many sour grapes for lunch?
I've no illusions that our system is working significantly better with Dems in charge than with Republicans. I AM aware, though, that the Republicans have been spanked for their malfeasance and we can spank the Dems just as easily if they don't pay attention to the voice of the people.
Perhaps, just perhaps, dissatisfaction with the system as it exists is getting to the point where it's strong enough that those in power - corrupt or not - will be forced to make changes in the system, despite ourselves.
So by all means, let's hold them accountable, let's push for change (so that corporations and the two party system don't have the stranglehold on politics they have now, for instance).
In the meantime, let's push for change in our own lives, for that is where the real power lay. Our own lives, after all, are the only thing we can make real decisions upon. Our own lives are the beginning of policy change.
Pelosi and Reid both mentioned Iraq yesterday--and in terms that appeared to reject the "surge." True, they appear to be trying to walk a tightrope between keeping the caucus together (including the Blue Dog conservative Dems whose elections helped create the new majority) and standing up to Bush on Iraq. And, in the senate, they need 60 votes to override filibusters (and only have 51).
So, this is why democracy is never just about elections. To work, well citizen action in the streets is also needed. In 1964, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights act, MLK,Jr. said, "Now we need a Voting Rights Act." LBJ, who could count votes as accurately as anyone, said, "the votes just aren't there." Maybe in 5 years. King told him that he would get him the votes for this "in the streets." The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965-one year later.
If we the people want to stop the Iraq war (and Gitmo and the torture gulag, etc.), we have to put the pressure on Congress-stiffen their spines. Ultimately, if Bush is determined to go his own way--as it seems he is--they may have to resort to the power of the purse to cut off funding for the war. But Congress is VERY reluctant to do this since it seems to punish soldiers in the field for the sins of their idiotic civilian boss--the Jerk-in-Chief. It took 20 years of dying before Congress was willing to do this in Vietnam.
But pressure on Congress by the people (already beginning as Rahm Emmanuel found out on Wed.) and they KNOW that they cannot ignore Iraq. I expect resolutions urging withdrawal. I expect that Pelosi will find that she has to put investigation and impeachment back on the table and let the leash off of John Conyers. I expect Congress will end up holding up stuff Bush really wants until he changes direction in Iraq.
We vote in new people--but we still keep the pressure on. Politicians, like all animals, place survival first. So, we make it clear that their survival depends on getting us out of Iraq, ending torture, etc.
One thing's for certain: No presidential candidate, from either major party, wants a significant U.S. presence in Iraq in Jan. of '09 and, if we haven't begun withdrawal this year, it will once more be the biggest issue of '08. I think Harry Reid is correct: Bush knows that Iraq is lost and his whole "surge" idea is just a delaying tactic to push off the withdrawal of troops to the next admin. We must remind Dems that they will be better off if that happens NOW---the withdrawal should happen under the same admin. which started the whole illegal, immoral, and VERY unwise invasion to begin with.
Dan, you're right that 'We the People' hold the real power, but that power can ONLY be exercised at the ballot box. And meaningful change IS accomplished within the scope of ones own life, but that change only impacts the larger market if a majority of 'We the People' are making, or moving toward, the same changes. So, expecting politicians to follow the will of 'We the People' for any reason other than the specific threat of losing their seat in House or Senate-- the base of their own personal power --is about as 'Pie in the Sky' as one can get! The Senate and House have never, in the modern era, felt the slightest threat from "We the People" insomuch that they worked FOR the people rather than themselves... on their own ideological breeding program.
No bitterness or sour grapes here, Dan... Just calling it like I see it. Dems are now in the drivers seat. Do I want to see them fail miserably? Not if it means 'We the People' suffer for it. But make no mistake, I most certainly oppose their ideological bent. From my perspective, it's about as twisted as barbed wire, and just as apt to wound the soul of this nation... a wound that may never heal.
And Dude... M W-W! Vietnam was NOT a 20 year war in terms of American involvement.
Actually, I was being generous in counting American involvement in Vietnam as only 20 years, El-Ashley. The U.S. pledged to France in the closing days of WWII that we would help them keep all of their colonies. So, even though Ho Chi Minh's initial declaration of independence was modeled after the U.S. one, we supported the French beginning in 1945. (The first U.S. casualty in Vietnam was Lt. Col A. Peter Dewey, head of the OSS Mission to Vietnam, who was killed in 1945.) Our support of the French convinced Ho to turn to the Soviets and Communism.
We had a smattering of military advisors in 'Nam throughout the 40s and, when the French left (because they had a full-blown war to fight with another former colony, Algeria), Eisenhower's admin. first espoused the "domino" theory of Communist expansion in the '50s. We increased advisors, but could not do this much because of the Korean War.
Our involvement increased with the Kennedy admin. and then REALLY increased with LBJ in 1964 after the faked Gulf of Tonkin incident and the subsequent Gulf of Tonkin resolution by Congress (only 2 senators voting against--one Dem and one Republican). In claiming 20 years, I was counting from 1955 to 1975. Our HEAVY involvement was the 10 years from '64 to '74.
As to your claim that citizen power is ONLY exercised at the ballot box, that is not only false, but against our entire history. Citizen power has always been exercised by ballot, petition, op-eds, demonstrations and other free speech exercise, economic pressure, citizen lobbying (not the monetary corporate lobbying), and, when necessary, mass civil disobedience. Responsible citizenship BEGINS with the ballot--it doesn't end there. We don't elect dictators. They still work for US--and, as Jefferson said, the more often the people remind the politicians of
WHO works for WHOM, the healthier the republic is.
I would respond but Michael has done so much better than I.
Post a Comment