I mean, how could I possibly do any worse than our candidates.

I don’t have any business interests, I’ve never even visited the White House before (nevermind sat in it for eight years), and I really don’t see the utility in bombing people in submission.

I was clearly kidding, but now that I think about . . . we should just pick an ordinary citizen and see what happens. Like I said, can’t do any worse.

You seem to be a Dem (perhaps a closeted Repub) who plays at this hide and seek. If you’re voting tactically means you’re voting for Obama (or McCain), than please be honest rather than poke at an article because she’s got the goods on your man.

Let’s say your man Obama wins. What exactly has been gained? This tactical/calculated stuff is just another term for lesser of two evils. Pretty status quo.

I agree with this so what’s revealing about it. Nothing in my view unless the author expect Obama to be an agent of “real” change. Also however I disagree that voting for Nader or McKinney will make any kind of “real” difference.

Nader this year will leave nothing institutional behind so that people can organize and build. There was a chance for that in 2004 but the left abandon Nader and well as Nader not competing within the Green Party. Unlike Camajo who was fighting to build up the party, Nader ran solo. This year he’s doing the same.

McKinney at least is competing within the framework of the Green Party which IMO is respectful of their process and is also seeking to build the Reconstruction Party.

The problem here is that there is no cohesion and in 2004, when there was a chance to build upon the 2000 campaign, well the “left” became terminally ill.

If Nader had built a coherent left-wing force then he would be showing some strength for a real challenge in 2008. This year he’s going to be yet another weak voice like Mike Gravel or Congressman Barr of the Libertarian Party — yet another weak 3rd party.

Because of the sheer weakness on the left, my vote this year is going to be tactical rather than thrown away on a “left” that betrays itself.

I can only say that there are many examples of healthier living throughout history and up to the present. Concurrent with those are various contortions of problems we face today.

Most of my posts have been about local solutions and not changing the world order or even expecting a particular presidential race has any real value; though if you’re going to go through the exercise I think voting for Nader makes sense.

Peace and justice is a process not a final state.

That said, I don’t think any Dem or Repub President not aligned with the overarching policies of this country stands a chance of doing much about it. Obama/Clinton/McCain will toe the PARTY line or else. What Obama did in Illinois is pretty much business as usual. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are not out of sync with US policies; they just exemplify them minus the fascade of “kindlier gentler”. That’s nothing if not honest.

People like Wright are the ones really being duped in all this.

But I agree with your assessment of Obama. He’s NO agent of real CHANGE.

Max

I submit that this issue is at the core of American empire. All policies foreign and domestic flow from this understanding. Issues of poverty, racism, conflict and war are all at its core about his issue.

Much of it is centered on land. For over a hundred years American economists and graduate economic programs have tried (and successfully accomplished) to eliminate land (natural resources) as a discrete and essential component to any economic system. By doing this they have played the magical trick that allows just what you’ve documented.

Over 90% of land holdings are privately held by a few percent of the population. Land was made into capital ala a commodity and thus created massive wealth in the hands of a few and incredible poverty. City sites hold the most valued land in the country. Thousands of acres of farm land don’t begin to compare to the wealth of a city block in almost any city - take downtown NYC. A NYC block can tip the scales at a trillion dollars!

So while “ethnic” cleansing was completed - whites moved out of urban centers, wealthy white and poor people (many minorities) stayed behind - in some case gentrification has taken hold, but that’s not the main issue.

Economically, a healthy city generates wealth through imports/ exports. But many of our cities have been, as stated, decayed; not unlike colonies in 3rd world areas. The “wealth” created by cities is not about normal economics (import replacement or export of goods), instead it is the unearned wealth of land holdings by speculators. That’s why most urban cities experience blight and empty business streets. In effect it is modern day colonization whereby the natural resource (land in this case) escapes taxation and gains through the inner city infrastructure that builds up the wealth of land. Iraq is an example of an attempt at colonizing through occupation and reaping the wealth of land (in this case oil); but right under our noses the very same colonization is going on in our cities.

Racism is integral to this. Environmental racism is the warehousing of eco-toxic utilities such as nuclear energy and various other waste products in the Urban centers. But this racism is not purely about color, though people of color have been disproportionately impacted. It is about an unsustainable economic system that is controlled and manipulated by land owners, local media, pols (like Obama) and state complicity through a program of drug addition (needs based social services and property taxation policies) and various incentives for sustaining the city colony.

Make no mistake people like Rezko populate the landscape. If you live in a city you have at least one Rezko, usually more. They run the city, as D. Washington says in the film Training Day, “and YOU just leave there.”