You are viewing djwilson

About this Journal
Links:
LABOR AFL-CIO Now EdWise (AFT) Schoolhouse Rock JD2718 Labor Notes Laborstart Teacher Voices Working Life
POLITICS Alternet Barack Obama Daily Kos Progressives For Obama PWW Z Net
SPORTS/MUSIC/ETC Homestar Runner Harley Women Jesus Radicals Modern Buddy Steelers Fever
WAR 2 Dinar Calm Before The Sand Deeper Than War IAVA Michael Yon The Sandbox Vet Voice
Me/My Husband Myspace Writer, Bowler, Revolutionary
Charitable Giving Best Friends Animal Society Doctors Without Borders Fisher House Habitat For Humanity
Current Month
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30
Nov. 1st, 2008 @ 08:33 am The end
Folks, this may well be the last entry of this journal. Reading all the bullshit being written by white "radical" dudes about how they won't vote for Obama has really been the nail in the coffin. Basically this blog is my last connection to the "radical left/counterculture". I still associate with folks on the far left personally, but these folks are actually involved in real struggles, not infoshops, ISO/anarchist meetings, punk culture and "radical collectives", all things which I believe really warp your outlook on the real world.   I may write something someday about my reasons for and experiences with withdrawing from all of this, but I don't have the time now. Until then, my last pitch, from Progressives For Obama:

10 reasons for real progressives to vote ObamaCollapse )

About this Entry
Oct. 23rd, 2008 @ 08:30 am so awesome
Pinups For Pitbulls!

About this Entry
Oct. 22nd, 2008 @ 08:11 pm To all the "I'm much too enlightened for Obama" crowd
believe me, you are no friend of the working class, even Noam Chomsky thinks so:

CHOMSKY: Well, I would suggest voting against McCain, which means voting for Obama without illusions, because all the elevated rhetoric about change and hope and so on will dissolve into standard centrist Democratic policies if he takes office. However, there is a difference, and it's been studied quite closely by political scientists. There's a strong difference over time. You don't see it in any particular moment, but over time the general population, the large majority of the population other than the very wealthy, tends to do considerably better under Democratic than under Republican administrations. And the reason is sort of what you said: they reflect different elite constituencies, and the differences are quite striking and very noticeable. So if that's what matters to you, you know, that's usually a pretty good guy if you're voting. It's not that the Democrats represent public opinion. They don't. In fact, like the Republicans, they're pretty relatively right of public opinion on a host of major issues, including those of most importance to the public. In fact, what's happening now, it's interesting it's not being discussed. It's very striking; it tells you a lot about American democracy. For years, decades, in fact, one of the leading concerns, if not the top concern of the public, has been the health care system, which is understandable. It's a total catastrophe. It has about twice the costs of other industrial countries and some of the worst outcomes, and it's painful for individuals. If you've ever spent a little time at an ER watching people come for a bad cold, then you can see what it's like.

...

CHOMSKY: Well, to say it doesn't make any difference who wins is simply to express your contempt for the general population, 'cause it does make a difference. A lot of what they say is correct: the two parties are effectively factions of one party, the business party, but the factions are somewhat different. And as I mentioned, over time the differences show up in benefits, working conditions, wages, things that really matter to people. So yes, there's a difference. It's a narrow difference, and the spectrum within the political system is well to the right of popular opinion, and certainly the public is well aware of it. So 80 percent of the population say that the government is run by, I'm quoting, "a few big interests looking out for themselves, not the population." And they can argue about the details, but the picture's essentially correct, and they don't like it. Nevertheless, there is some difference and you have to make a choice. If you're in a swing state, you have to ask: is this difference enough for me to pick the lesser of the two evils? And there's nothing wrong with picking the lesser of the two evils. The cliché makes it sound like you're doing something bad, but no, you're doing something good if you pick the lesser of two evils. So is it worth doing that? Or is it worth trying to act to create a potential alternative? For example, should I vote Green because maybe someday their party will be a real alternative? Should I express my disdain for the right-wing orientation of both parties by not voting, let's say? Or should I pick the lesser of the two evils, thereby helping people? Okay. That's a decision people have to make.


About this Entry
Oct. 1st, 2008 @ 08:06 am Harlem Childrens Zone
Why we need Obama in office: the Harlem Children's Zone



Obama wants to expand the program to 20 cities across the US:

Called "one of the most ambitious social-service experiments of our time," by The New York Times, the Harlem Children's Zone Project is a unique, holistic approach to rebuilding a community so that its children can stay on track through college and go on to the job market. The goal is to create a "tipping point" in the neighborhood so that children are surrounded by an enriching environment of college-oriented peers and supportive adults, a counterweight to "the street" and a toxic popular culture that glorifies misogyny and anti-social behavior.

Make sure you're registered and VOTE OBAMA, go to Vote For Change for registration info.

About this Entry
Sep. 28th, 2008 @ 10:15 pm Sponsor
My husband has been volunteering for Barack Obama in New Hampshire for a few days every other week. He's been putting in 12+ hour days doing whatever needs to get done and is looking for folks to sponsor him. No, he doesn't get the money, the money goes straight to the campaign. Here's his pitch:

"Remember when you were a kid and you did some charity walk-a-thon where you got sponsored by all of your neighbors who agreed to donate $1 for every lap you walked around some high school track?

Well, I have a similar proposition for you.

I'm committed to spending as much time as possible volunteering for the Obama/Biden campaign in the swing state of New Hampshire (in fact, I'm in Nashua right now). Now ideally I'd love for all of you to join me here in the Granite State or at least join the movement in whatever battleground state is closest to you. But for those of you unable to come out and volunteer to make phone calls, knock on doors, enter data, and do all of the other stuff leading up to the election that will allow us to boost our turnout and win on November 4th, I'm asking you to sponsor me.

I'm asking you to donate $10 to the Obama campaign for every day I spend up here.

It makes sense, because for all the work I do, I eat about $10 worth of campaign donuts and drink $20 worth of campaign coffee every day I'm here.

So please, if you can't give your time, please donate through my fundraising page and sponsor my volunteer time. If I can work 10 hours a day up here, surely you can give $10."

Bill Fletcher, on why we need to support Obama:
"I remain steadfast in support of the Obama candidacy. I do so because I am clear what the candidacy represents and what it does not. One does not have to support a candidate only because s/he represents a fundamental break with the past. Supporting candidates must be decided based upon an assessment of the moment, specifically, the overall balance of forces and the openings that can emerge through the victory of a specific candidate. In that regard, real politics are not the politics of anger and symbolism, but are the politics of coalition building with a long-term objective of changing the balance of power and, ultimately, introducing a new practice of politics.

In order to construct a real strategy, we have to be clear as to what stands before us. Throughout the months of the Obama campaign many activists - myself included - have cautioned against the deification of Barack Obama. Not only has the deification been a problem, it has led to the failure to recognize that receiving mass attention and gaining mass excitement does not equate with a social movement. Yes, people are in motion, but the motion is far from clear. They are looking for something different, but the objectives have not solidified. Rather, the mass base for the campaign rejects the corruption of the last eight years, but also rejects the velvet-covered steel bat of the Clinton era. This, however, does not translate, for example, into a movement against neo-liberal globalization. It is a sentiment for change. This is what distinguishes the candidacy - and its supporters - from a mass social movement.

We, on the Left side of the aisle, can build upon this sentiment if we reject symbolic politics of anger, and, if we are prepared to actually build progressive, grassroots electoral organizations that ally with other social movements. With regard to the symbolic politics of anger, frankly, we should have had enough of 3rd party candidacies that express our outrage with the two mainstream parties. Of course we are outraged, but our outrage, whether through third party candidacies or even many of our street demonstrations, is simply not enough. If we are really angry, then this must translate into a strategy based on the actual conditions we face in the USA.

click here to buy & benefit BC click here to buy & benefit BC click here to buy & benefit BC click here to buy & benefit BC click here to buy & benefit BC click here to buy & benefit BC

To do any of this means building an electoral organization, something that too many of us shy away from, perhaps because we do not believe that it amounts to REALLY progressive political work. Lacking organization, we are condemned to howling in the dark, hoping to get someone's attention."



About this Entry
Sep. 26th, 2008 @ 10:55 am Veterans For Obama
Cool Vets For Obama vids:







About this Entry
Sep. 26th, 2008 @ 10:48 am Wow
Sarah Palin=Clueless!



About this Entry
Sep. 21st, 2008 @ 10:45 am Union/Charter School partnership


Union-friendly charter school opens in South Bronx

Green Dot currently operates 18 public charter high schools in Los Angeles’ highest-need communities that consistently graduate students with high levels of achievement, including six opening this fall as part of its restructuring of Locke High School in the Watts area of South Los Angeles. Its schools have no more than 500 students each and they implement a college preparatory curriculum for all of its students. The firm has produced solid results for its students, graduating 98 percent of its seniors with three quarters of them going on to four-year universities.

“The Green Dot School in the South Bronx represents a new progressive vision for public schools in America,” said Steve Barr, founder and chief executive officer of Green Dot Public Schools. He added, “All schools should be small and autonomous, where every child learns and graduates college-ready. Schools should have the best paid union teachers who believe in our children as much as we do. We believe this type of partnership can create sustainable education reform throughout the country.”




About this Entry
Sep. 18th, 2008 @ 04:57 pm (no subject)


About this Entry
Sep. 12th, 2008 @ 01:34 pm (no subject)

About this Entry