Daily Kos

Tag: radicalism

Vast Majority of World's Muslims Moderates (Gallup Poll): Didn't Believe Us First Time 'Round?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:13:28 AM PDT

MuslimMatters's teenage staffer, "Anonymouse", discusses the recent Pew Survey that destroys all the stereotypes that neocons/right-wingers/LGF-lovers have been creating. Anonymouse was born and raised in Canada and is finishing her high-school years. The following is her article

In Case You Didn't Believe Us the First Time 'Round

I dunno about you, but I'm getting bored of all these "revelations" that the majority of Muslims condemn terrorism, are not "radical," believe in democracy (or at least, don't mind it), and all that jazz.

Anyway, in case you don't believe Muslims telling you that most Muslims don't condone terrorism, aren't radical, believe in democracy, etc. maybe you'll believe the Gallup poll telling you that most Muslims don't condone terrorism, aren't radical, believe in democracy, etc.

The Great Gallup informs us that:

Sudanese radicals demand teacher's death

Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:57:35 AM PDT

Per the AP story earlier today, thousands of men have gone into the streets of Khartoum this afternoon to demand that the government execute the British teacher whose class of 7-year-olds named their class mascot, a teddy bear, Muhammad.

The teacher, Gillian Gibbons has been sentenced to 15 days in jail, to be followed by deportation, for what most UK Muslims seem to be describing as a huge overreaction to a cultural gaffe.

Y'all can read the story and google for more information and background. I am going to rant and rave below the fold.

Marx/ Prashad/ OPOL: Radicalism in a neoliberal age

Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:20:33 AM PDT

Crossposted at Docudharma

This is a defense of OPOL’s diary "Why I Am A Radical."  Some of the respondents thought that OPOL wasn't "really a radical," others thought that   our "solution" to present-day political problems should focus on the election of Hillary or Obama or Edwards or whomever, more others just cheered another well-decorated OPOL diary.  Here I wish to set radicalism on the bedrock of economic thinking incited by Karl Marx in the Preface to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," and compare the words of OPOL to those of Vijay Prashad, from his book "Fat Cats and Running Dogs."

Poll

How would you describe yourself politically?

3%2 votes
0%0 votes
1%1 votes
1%1 votes
0%0 votes
10%6 votes
43%24 votes
29%16 votes
9%5 votes

| 55 votes | Vote | Results

To the Dailykos Radicals

Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 01:31:53 PM PDT

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.   I read OPOLs diary, Why I am a Radical carefully several times,  and it was pretty good until I got to the pictures.  We love those pictures here, since they shift the message to a more visceral plane, from those pesky words that have to be decoded and put in the context of other words, and evaluated on their merits.  

Pictures are so much easier.  It takes us back to the days of comic books with heroes and villains when we had no doubt about which was which.   So, we lightly surf on the connecting sentences as the wave of rage grows with each image into the crescendo of the group solidarity of being part of an inexorable force.  We are children again,  cheering on Superman and WonderWoman,  all members of the club of courageous fighters for good and justice against the forces of evil.  

Why I am a Radical

Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 04:21:04 PM PDT

(crossposted from Docudharma)

It’s simple really.  Radical problems require radical solutions.

Radical

  1.  of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
  1.  thoroughgoing or extreme, esp. as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.
  1.  favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.

Dictionary.com

The other night I was telling my 84-year-old father (21 years career Army) about the march in Washington.  I told him that we are going to have to rise up against our government oppressors if we have any hope at all of taking our government back.

"As long as you do it with the ballot box," he said.  Of course he’s been taught this all his life...and so have I.  Be patient.  Work within the system.

We Can't Wait for Bipartisan Solutions

Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 07:23:00 PM PDT

"We need a consensus."

This is what Joe Biden said a little while ago, when asked by Keith Olberman if he would appoint a Republican to head up the Pentagon or the Department of Homeland Security.  I don’t have the exact language, but he seemed to imply that nothing would work unless it had significant support from Republicans.

I was floored.

If there is anything that has been apparent since the Democratic takeover of Congress, it’s that many and probably most of the current Republican members of Congress will NEVER work with Democrats for the good of the country.  Since the rise of Newt Gingrich, the majority of Republicans in Congress have demonstrated that they don’t care about the good of the country.  Grover Norquist is inadvertently one of the most honest of conservatives, and when he referred to bipartisanship as date rape, he wasn’t revealing just his own personal view, he was describing the mindset of much of the Republican Congressional caucus and its allies in think tanks, among campaign hacks and activists, and in a sizeable chunk of its electoral base.  

It’s a realization many of us had come to long ago.  It’s one of the reasons many of us ended up at Daily Kos, the knowledge that George W Bush, his allies in Congress and the people who push them in to power will use unscrupulous means to attain, maintain and exercise power.  They know they have to conceal their unscrupulousness from the public.  While the Republican party has veered farther and farther to the right, the American people haven’t really budged.  In fact, on individual issues, the American public is more liberal today than it was 10 or 20 years ago, and far more liberal than it was when Lyndon Johnson crushed Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, which provided the mandate to enact our major civil rights legislation and the most major extension of the social welfare state since the New Deal and World War II.  Republicans involved in organizing and running elections and selling their policy positions to the press and the talking heads know that the American public is far to their left.  But they conceal their radicalism through clever marketing scams like Frank Luntz’ Contract on America and the pabulum of "compassionate conservatism."  

Further obfuscating the dangerous radicalism of a main current in current Republican politics is that most of their office holders, at least in the past, appeared to the keepers of beltway conventional wisdom as genial men, the type who David Broder or David Ignatius wouldn’t mind chatting up at the Safeway in Georgetown or while waiting for a flight at National.  They seemed like good guys, and on the major organizing principle of our politics after World War II—the Cold War and the long fight against communism—they made common cause with Democrats.  While nasty people like Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy were scurrilous red baiters, and the Republican party was full of people who made common cause with reactionary Southern Democrats to fight unionization and the full inclusion of blacks in to our nation’s public and economic life, they weren’t fundamentally hostile to cooperation with Democrats on any and all issues.  

But Bob Michel retired, Bob Dole was attacked by the right for doing his job and actually passing legislation, and Newt Gingrich became the leader of the Republican party.  People like David Broder never saw or understood what happened and continued to indulge their idiotic fixations on making a fetish of bipartisanship.  Joe Lieberman and his ilk confused moderation with centrism; as the Republicans moved farther to the right, Joementum followed them, thinking there was virtue in being equidistant from the middles of both parties, but showing that someone who’s deepest principle is appearing to be above a passionate partisan love of our country can be played like a rube from the backwoods facing his first big-city grifter.  And people like Joe Biden, who haven’t figured out that the hatred that fearful conservatives mustered against commies and blacks has now been directed at tolerant and non-authoritarian Americans, and that these haters control and intimidate all but a few of the once proud Republican moderates, act as if we’re still in the Cold War and everyone in Congress is committed to a higher good.  

Senator Biden, please look around, and realize that the solutions to our nation’s woes, the answers to our challenges, aren’t bipartisan.  The involvement of people looking for solutions and to meet our challenges could eventually be bipartisan, but current evidence suggest otherwise.  No more than four House Republicans have voted for any of the most meaningful pieces of legislation dealing with Iraq.  Only four Republicans have joined the Senate Democrats on Iraq.  The Republican Study Group in the House engages in delaying tactics almost every day; to see one reason why the House—which has passed significant legislation—isn’t doing more, look at how many bullshit procedural votes the Republican offered last week.  In the Senate, the Republicans continue to use the filibuster and cloture votes to bottle up almost everything the Democrats try to accomplish.  The Republicans go along with just about everything Bush and Cheney shove down our nation’s throat.

And unfortunately, a consistent minority of Democrats buckle under and accept what Bush and the Republicans shove down our throats.  

A few weeks ago, in his dissent in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, which partially rolled back Brown v Board of Education, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote of change on the Supreme Court:

The Court has changed significantly since it decided School Comm. of Boston in 1968. It was then more faithful to Brown and more respectful of our precedent than it is today. It is my firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today's decision.

Stevens was discussing a change in American politics in which so-called conservatives have become radicals whose views are now divorced from the mainstream of American politics and life.  The same radical turn that Stevens observed on the Court is evident in the radicalism of the Bush administration and its allies in Congress and the Republican party.

In electoral and representative politics, those of us at Daily Kos have known about this change for some time; as Markos (justifiably) crowed this morning, we’ve been right on just about everything for five years, while the establishment drones and too many timid Dems tried to find the truth in between where we were—and we were eventually joined by about 80% of the country on the war—and where the Republicans were.  But the Republicans’ politics are so skewed, they have gone so far from reality, that we have now arrived at the point where it’s probably impossible to have any reality-based solutions to our national problems and challenges that can be accepted by the Republicans.  

As Stevens pointed out in the Seattle schools case, as we see on the Iraq votes, the majority of Republicans are radicals, or are too beholden to their radical leadership, radical money interests and radical activist base to step up and do what’s good for the country.  Democrats like Joe Biden, who’ve served a long time in public life, have a hard time recognizing that the Republicans no longer can or care to act in the interests of the country.  Therefore, we must recognize that until the Republicans change, the answers to our nation’s most pressing needs and challenges—getting out of Iraq and fixing our foreign and defense policy, combating terrorism, addressing global warming and environmental devastation, changing out energy policy, implementing universal health care, shoring up the economic security of the middle class, expanding opportunities for the poor and disadvantaged, and undoing the damage of the "unitary executive" and the assault on our civil liberties—will not be bipartisan.  Demanding bipartisan solutions to our problems requires us to wait for the Republican party to heal itself.  We can’t wait, and it’s time all our Democratic politicians and policy wonks and pundits and campaign and strategy people stop expecting the Republicans officials and party leadership to join in and work for the good of the country.  

I’m floored that this is still a mystery to Joe Biden.

A Post-Consumer, Post-Capitalist Society: Saral Sarkar’s Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism?

Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 12:32:47 PM PDT

This is a review of Saral Sarkar's Eco-socialism or Eco-capitalism couched as a response to the exaggerated promises of the eco-capitalists.  Sarkar has taken on the exaggerated promises of all who would suggest that the world can be turned into a Disneyland of consumer fun, and proposed instead a Spartan world economy where basic needs are met while ecological realities are taken seriously.

Poll

capitalism will last --

38%33 votes
22%19 votes
38%33 votes

| 85 votes | Vote | Results

No, you will not get to say that you were right

Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 05:21:02 PM PDT

A message to my friends and colleagues (and you are both) who argue for things such as (1) that we should impeach Bush now, (2) that we should defund the Iraq war now, (3) that we should refuse to support nominated Dems who are so conservative that they will compromise with Republicans, etc.

Bad things will happen in the future.  Plenty more may die in Iraq.  We may bomb Iran and kill millions.  We may never take a step towards solving global warming.  Bush may try to declare martial law due to a flu pandemic.  He may try to cancel the 2008 election.  Democrats may roll over and fail to stop Republicans from enacting truly atrocious policies.  Democrats may often be too cozy with monied interests.  Even if some of this doesn't happen, things comparably bad to most of it inevitably will.

I've taken a radical view at times and I've taken some solace from the notion that when bad things happened I would at least be able to look back and say that I was right.

No, when any of that happens, you will not get to tell the rest of us that you were right.

This diary is about why, if that is part of what you imagine about politics, you should give it up.

(more)

Poll

What sort of progressive (or sympathizer) are you?

23%211 votes
25%228 votes
15%136 votes
8%77 votes
3%31 votes
1%11 votes
10%92 votes
10%93 votes
2%25 votes

| 904 votes | Vote | Results

Reactionary Radicalism: An Old Rant Revisited

Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 11:41:59 AM PDT

(It's been almost a year since I first wrote this rant; Sydney Blumenthal's recent publication, How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime, combined with the ever-increasing "heat" I have been feeling on a real-world, professional level in reactionary response to my radical writings on the Internet and elsewhere have prompted me to revisit this piece and re-post it at MyLeftWing)

The Ward Churchilling of the Radical Left: It's OK When Libruls Do It!

(originally posted at Progressive Independent)



Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

"I was determined that my Radicalism should not be called in question."

--Charles Dickens, 1870

Sidney Blumenthal: "How bad is he?"

Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 07:38:57 PM PDT

I love Keith Olbermann, and I can't wait to see his takedown of Bush tonight (the midnight rebroadcast of Countdown for the West Coast). But Sidney Blumenthal is positively surgical in dissecting our true "long national nightmare." Here's a snippet to whet your appetites:

In its brazen, cold-blooded and single-minded partisanship, the Florida contest turned out in retrospect to be an augury not an aberration. It was Bush's first opening, and having charged through it, grabbing the presidency, he continued widening the breach.

In Memoriam: Murray Bookchin ("left-libertarians" take note)

Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 12:04:20 PM PDT

(Crossposted at Green Mountain Daily)

Author, radical political theorist and founder of "Social Ecology" Murray Bookchin passed away in Burlington yesterday at the age of 85.

New American Radicalism

Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 02:53:42 PM PDT

I don't know about you, but the status quo just isn't cutting it for me. While I'd like to believe progressives are going to sweep the nation and usher in a new area of engaged, pluralistic, egalitarian democracy. . . I have my doubts.

It's when I am most doubtful that I become more radical. As I am not sure I'll ever reach the Molotov-cocktail-tossing stage, my radicalism is confined to ideas.

Radical ideas.

You don't have to agree with all of them...

Feminism is for Everybody

Wed May 24, 2006 at 07:34:31 PM PDT

This book review originallu published at www.YPSL.org

Feminism Is For Everybody

By bell hooks
Published by South End Press, 2000
$12.00

In the introduction, bell hooks (who chooses not to capitalize her name) writes that she has trouble explaining what feminism is about to people who have only heard about it third hand, believing feminists to be a lot of angry lesbians. She wanted a little book to be able to hand them and say "this is what feminism is about." That is what {u} Feminism Is For Everybody sets out to be.

Moving beyond stereotypes of crew cut hair and Birkenstocks, hooks defines feminism as "a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." By that definition, men as well as women have something to gain by feminism. And by defining patriarchy as the problem, not men, she sets the record straight about feminism's aims.

Why haven't we kidnapped Patty Hearst?

Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 09:53:51 PM PDT

This is a query, not an attempt to incite anything. But I'd like to hear how the Kos community answers this question. Namely: Why hasn't there been more violent political protest in the last couple of years in the United States? Why, compared with the situation during the Vietnam War, or with the brief frenzy of right-wing militias during the 1990s, has this been a period of largely subdued protest, verbal and symbolic? [Updated to supply a more provocative title. Gotta compete with them alpha diarists. --DS]

We're An Army! (With Poll)

Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:12:30 PM PDT

David Horowitz has published a new book called The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America in which he details 100 (don't ask) subversives on our college campuses.

I haven't read the book--but I certainly am going to (as soon as I find a way of getting a free copy; I sure ain't agonna pay for it!  It comes from Regnery, after all).  On the publisher's web page is this tag line:

Coming to a Campus Near You: Terrorists, racists, and communists--you know them as The Professors.
Oh, goody!
Poll

How Many of the 60,000 Have You Encountered?

31%12 votes
15%6 votes
7%3 votes
44%17 votes

| 38 votes | Vote | Results

Dare we call it genocide?

Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 02:44:08 PM PDT

Intro: When the left minimizes the effects of racism, it looses credibility
Section: race and politics

::

Advertise on the Liberal Blog Advertising Network.

Hate ads? Subscribe.





Support Bloggers' Rights!
Support Bloggers' Rights!


On Mothertalkers:

It's Twins for Angelina Jolie!

TV watching AT the dinner table: yea or nay?

Student mock elections

How To Find Part-Time Work

Hump Day Open Thread

On Street Prophets:

Things I've Learned Reading Blogs

John Edwards To Endorse Barack Obama

Twas Coffee Hour..

Faith and politics with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky

News from the 'Net