[Austin-ghetto-list] Bottom feeding of brainfood

[Roger Baker]

Connie Clark wrote:
> 
> > > Roger Baker wrote:
> > >
> > > > According to Mike's thinking, I should take care
> 
> to quote only from the
> > > > references that Mike E. considers politically
> correct -- and according
> > > > to his cartoon stereotypes of what my politics
> should be, and what I
> > > > should read?
> 
> Somehow Roger, from your past responses to my links or
> posts, I get the same impression from you!!  If I
> don't repeat Green Party line, you (and others)
> insinuate that I'm hopelessly duped, and totally
> naive.
> 
> CC


First of all I'm a narrow-minded asshole, just as a pre-emptive disclaimer.

I advocate an alliance with all groups working for peace and better long
term relationships with the rest of the world, and am willing to march
side by side with Republicans, liberals, gays, whomever, in the name of
peace. The peace march of about 1000 yesterday was largely young
students, with more ISO socialists than Greens, likely. 
There were a smattering of flag-waving Bush supporters -- maybe 15 or so
in a group.

I'm often at odds with details of the "Green Party line". These
positions are, however, at least clearly spelled out in the national
Green platform (including stuff like ending the drug war), and the
various state platforms at

http://www.greens.org/na.html

And, BTW, do I seem like the kind of fellow who wouldn't question ANY
orthodoxy, or bite ANY hand obstructing what I see as the path to truth
-- and speaking freely within a human civilization based on greed
clouded by self-deception? 

(This human tendency toward mass denial is quite easily demonstrated by
our world energy policy. But aside from that, if you merely knew that
many otherwise sane people actually believe that god is wiretapping all
their thoughts and adding up the plusses and minuses to decide on
whether to cast them into a fiery hell to take his supposedly just
revenge when they finally die -- to me that constitutes sufficient proof
in itself that humans must be regarded as a species quite willingly
guided by the most irrational kinds of self-deception).

Nobody knows the Democratic Party line because there is no Democratic
Party position on most important issues -- aside to maximize corporate
soft money intake through the  efforts of Terry McAuliff, Clinton's old
bagman, and the Democratic Leadership Council. It has been quite a long
time since the Dems have even mentioned campaign finance reform.  

The Dem's position on the recent acts of terror appears to be to support
GWBush. Their top leader is Al Gore, who has been mysteriously silent on
this and every other political issue. We don't even know whether he is
on speaking terms with Clinton yet.

meanwhile, one report on Nader's position on the terror attacks can be
read at

http://www.mndaily.com/story.php?date=20010926&storyID=3938

The Greens also recently posted a more detailed position on the recent
terror attacks, which is in my e-mail somewhere. That said, I have
arrived at my political points of view over decades, with the help of no
one group. I say what I think. It is a credit to the Greens that they
have not expelled me so far for speaking my mind, but it is probably
more of an indication that I have chosen to be associated with a party
that often reflects my thinking. I dump them in a second if they get out
of line and support crazy barbaric wars and stuff like that. 

And I'll also probably shut up for awhile and listen and pretend to do
all the stuff normal people are supposed to do. Being a post-aholic
probably beats being an alcoholic, but it may also mean that you need to
get a life. -- Roger