Are you over your hope yet? What did he mean by HOPE? HOPE that someday we might get a true progressive leader? I guess that’s what he meant. But he knew and we knew it wouldn’t be him.
He was asked if he was DLC during the campaign and he refused to admit that he was affiliated with the DLC. Yet, it was clear from his positions. Hillary Clinton is DLC through and through. He and Bill helped to found the DLC. It soon became obvious, in the Presidential Debates, that Obama and Clinton’s policies were nearly identical. That is why, after Obama and Clinton became frontrunners, (which was a foregone conclusion, by the way...more on that later) the debate between them deteriorated into coded race-baiting on Clinton’s part, and sly attacks on Hillary’s nut-crushing ability on Obama’s part. There was nothing else to talk about.
Obama immediately demonstrated his DLC-ness by appointing Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, along with a host of others of DLC ilk. He couldn’t think of one Democrat to make Secretary of Defense. Nor could he think of one Democrat to head the Federal Reserve.
The DLC is the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. It supported the privatization of Social Security and opposed campaign finance reform. The DLC allowed Joe Lieberman to retain his committee chairmanships after he screwed his own party by ignoring the primary vote during the last Connecticut Senatorial campaign. For their courtesy, he became a highly visible supporter of…drum roll…John McCain.
Now, we cannot even count on his leadership in the critical area of providing public healthcare. All he has to say is: people should not be getting rich on the illnesses of others. It would clear up the debate.
So, what was it you were hoping for exactly? Obama to be someone that he wasn’t? Or Obama to be who he said he was? There is no moderate center between Democrats and the right, and that's what Obama pretends he is. As far as I can see, he's just a handhold keeping us sliding all the way down into the right wing well of hate and resentment.
What is it going to take to fire people up enough that they will engage in a prolonged, disciplined campaign to seat a truly progressive President in the White House and to protect that person from the clownish antics of the wingnut extremist cult that has become the Republican Party?
~Deb Lagutaris
Monday, September 14, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
California Parks, alive and thriving
It can happen! California's parks need not close. They need not fail our citizens and our communities, and we need not lose this important heritage.
California's park system is in danger because of the dreadful budget problems in our state. Closure of parks endangers not only the livelihood of those who work in the parks, but also the communities that rely on revenue generated by the associated tourism.
In desperate times like these, old ideas with a new spin can keep our parks out of private hands and open for everyone's benefit and enjoyment. Let the communities take care of the parks.
Communities surrounding parks could establish cooperatives, where the people who work at the park would be funded by park entrance fees. Workers could live at the park in exchange for taking lower pay, and accumulate points based on years of service toward a life-estate ownership interest in a small parcel of land suitable to build a modest sustainable dwelling in, say, five years.
Workers would be chosen by a governing board, at the outset. Once established, the workers themselves would choose new workers based on commitment and knowledge of the park. In this way, those who work there would have a stake in the park as well as the community. To assure that park professionals would have a role, their applications would receive priority treatment.
Title to the park itself would remain with the state, but the revenues would stay with each park. It may be necessary to institute or increase entrance fees to make this model work, but it would be far better than either facing the closure of our parks or turning parks over to the private sector.
Sign our Petition!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/6/save-California-parks-and-communities
Deborah Lagutaris, J.D.
Harris Freeman, M.B.A.
California's park system is in danger because of the dreadful budget problems in our state. Closure of parks endangers not only the livelihood of those who work in the parks, but also the communities that rely on revenue generated by the associated tourism.
In desperate times like these, old ideas with a new spin can keep our parks out of private hands and open for everyone's benefit and enjoyment. Let the communities take care of the parks.
Communities surrounding parks could establish cooperatives, where the people who work at the park would be funded by park entrance fees. Workers could live at the park in exchange for taking lower pay, and accumulate points based on years of service toward a life-estate ownership interest in a small parcel of land suitable to build a modest sustainable dwelling in, say, five years.
Workers would be chosen by a governing board, at the outset. Once established, the workers themselves would choose new workers based on commitment and knowledge of the park. In this way, those who work there would have a stake in the park as well as the community. To assure that park professionals would have a role, their applications would receive priority treatment.
Title to the park itself would remain with the state, but the revenues would stay with each park. It may be necessary to institute or increase entrance fees to make this model work, but it would be far better than either facing the closure of our parks or turning parks over to the private sector.
Sign our Petition!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/6/save-California-parks-and-communities
Deborah Lagutaris, J.D.
Harris Freeman, M.B.A.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
