Spanish elections: A victory for the People's Party

After scanning the article on NPR on the subject, I decided to do some further research. I have previously written about the Occupy Wall Street Movement, a World Revolution and the European Revolution. I thought this topic would relate directly to those issues.

National Public Radio wrote: "Conservatives will be officially sworn into power in Spain this week for the first time in nearly eight years. Since 2004, the country's Socialists have legalized gay marriage, liberalized abortion laws and presided over the country's biggest-ever financial boom — and now downturn. The new year is likely to be marked by extreme austerity and diminished expectations." (http://n.npr.org/NPRI/jN266799891_1142395_1142383_Z.htm) However, what they leave out is the protests in Europe which many activists say correctly that it's not being covered by the media in Europe or elsewhere. NPR is right on one count: that this year will have extreme austerity. The Real News Network has focused on this subject in a number of their videos, along with the protests as well: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7102, http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7095 and http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=6821.

One may ask: What really happened in the elections in Spain? Well, I used the search engine icerocket.com to find an answer to the question. In an article titled "The Pain in Spain," Trisha Craig published on Eurovison, this question is tackled. The article notes the change in policy by the Mariano Rajoy, Spain’s newly elected President. According to the article , Mr. Rajoy "gave his first speech in his new role before Parliament and laid out his plans to deal with the crisis...Some of the highlights of Rajoy’s plan include: Linking pensions to the consumer price index, the only increase in the proposal...Freezing public sector employment except for the armed and security forces and basic public services...Reform of regulatory bodies...Eliminat[ing] early retirements to bring the real age of retirement into line with the official age and not repeal the law raising the retirement age to 67 (that the PP had opposed while in opposition)...Shifting public holidays to the nearest Monday to avoid the ‘bridge’ holidays where any holiday now typically turns into stretch of days off to the closest weekend...There is a focus on eliminating waste, reducing costs and improving services...Rajoy has proposed...a tax cut for firms that hire young workers and women in order to tackle the high unemployment among those groups...[There is also a] lack of new taxes [in this plan]." (http://patriciacraig.blogspot.com/2011/12/pain-in-spain.html) One may ask if these ideas promote further austerity and cutting in Europe. The American-based Heritage Foundation declared that "Spain Votes Out Big Government" (http://jacecar.com/2011/11/podcast-spain-votes-out-big-government/).

Wikipedia had a comprehensive article on the subject better than some of the blogs. Of the six parties, only one, the People's Party got a majority in the government

(All 350 seats of the Congress of Deputies and 264 seats in the Senate were open for slection). That majority was 186 seats overall or 43.87% of the vote, up 32 seats from the previous election. The PSOE, the current and ruling party leaving in December gained, 39.94% of the vote, 110 seats, 59 less seats than the previous election. The United Left, UPyD CiU and Amaiur gained 9, 4, 6 and 7 seats respectfully.

What does that mean for the citizenry? Will they prosper or will they have more problems? A second Great Depression is occuring worldwide, so many are feeling the pinch. Even the writer of this article predicts that when he enters college he will be poor and have no job. One must remember that Spain has between 23 and 30% unemployed.

Welsh Ramblings wrote a blog that in a sense answered some of those questions. Mr. Ramblings wrote: "The election results from the Spanish state illustrate perfectly the political deficit...The centre-left PSOE has been ousted by the Partido Popular, the centre-right Spanish nationalist party founded largely by reformists from the tail end of the Franco dictatorship...it is difficult to believe that the PP has won an absolute majority. The PP is even more right-wing than the social democrats who...implement...the same medicine that the PP is offering...The PP's solution to the Spanish state's woes comprises yet more austerity. They are utterly tied to the same economic model as PSOE. They have made populist gestures about protecting pensions, health and education, and only cutting "superfluous spending" and bureaucracy, but you sense that if resolving the crisis was that easy, the centre-left would have had no problems." (http://welshramblings.blogspot.com/2011/11/spanish-elections-and-centre-left.html)

Spanish bloggers reacted in different ways to the election in their country. Sarah, a citizen living in Madrid, blogged on the election but knew very little on politics. She commented that "the whole country has been really unhappy with Zapatero for a while now because of the economy, the lack of jobs, etc." (http://sarahenmadrid.blogspot.com/2011/12/spanish-elections.html) She said that legalizing gay marriage and abortion within his term she agreed with and were his outstanding accomplishments during his term of office. As a result she did not like the current leader elected by the people wrote "we'll see how it goes." Bloodbuzed's blogspot takes a competely different approach. The blogpost questions the whole Parliamentary system in an article titled "Spanish Elections Results: and the real parliament is..." (http://bloodbuzzed.blogspot.com/2011/11/spanish-elections-results-and-real.html) The blog user named Mr. September writes: "The results of Sunday's parliamentary elections prove...The axiom one person, one vote, is false in Spain...The variations are so disproportionate (thanks to the unacceptable criteria of the circumscription divisions in provinces) that the whole system HAS to be questioned." He proposes that Spanish elections are done with a proportional system to better reflect the will of the people. He later clarifies his view and calls for people to stand up against the injustice: I'm not saying the electoral system has to be a pure proportional one, but it is clear that what we have now doesn't represent equally the voters-citizens of this country. We have to fight to change this."

Who else is fighting for change? The Spanish protestors! They are the same ones I wrote about on August 6th of this year. At the time I wrote: "The world revolution has its roots in France where the “European Revolution” was dubbed by protestors began. According to europeanrevolution.net[v]: “At least 20 of the most important cities in France have their square occupied by youth protesters. Calling themseleves the Indignés…France seems to hold a leading position in the new European Revolution...They demand a Constitutive Assembly to make govern[ments] ‘remember’ that ‘people [are] sovereign’…stress…inequality of o[p]portunities and priorities between represented and representat[ives], between reality and ideologies. They ask [their voice to be heard by the governments].” The demands juts articulated shows that people (possibly in the millions) are serious with their concerns and want a changed world order...To see the impetus for the action in France, you have to go back to the protests in Spain. At one point, protesters called for a world revolution and future reforms as written on Raw Story[vi]: “From Tahrir to Madrid to the world, world revolution," said one of the placards, referring to Tahrir Square in Cairo which was the focal point of the Egyptian revolution earlier this year...Calling for "Real Democracy Now," the protests, popularly known as M-15, were called to condemn Spain's soaring unemployment, economic crisis, politicians in general, and corruption.”...Protests that started in Spain were influenced by young people who called for the end of overarching governments and the creation of democracies across the Arab World. Other Europeans had similar thoughts, causing organized disagreement across the region."

(http://interestingblogger1.blogspot.com/2011/08/grassroots-protests-world-revolution.html?m=1) Those who protested are directly affected by this election. I found a few more sources to back up my analysis at the time which is still valid. The P2P foundation has an article describing the Spanish protestors a bit more. They write: "the #15M or Indignados movement...demand[ed]...“We Want Real Democracy Now.” These demonstrations began the 15th of May, and grew to the largest cycle of mobilizations in the history of Spanish democracy. After 15m, a group in Madrid was inspired by the occpation of squares in the Arab countries, and decided to occupy the Plaza del Sol...This was not marginally supported. 80% support for the protests (by one survey)...The Indignados movement has been represented in the media largely as people protesting in the street...There have also been concrete initiatives to emerge, including the occupation of houses to provide homes to the foreclosed, the organizing of solidarity networks to block evictions from homes, the increase of self-education networks, all emerging from people who have met f2f in the squares...the Indignant mobilization is willing not only to make demands on public policy and fighting corruption, but the squares also serve as a space where people meet each other and then organize to solve common needs." (http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-spanish-revolution-the-internet-from-free-culture-to-meta-politics-summary/2011/11/24) Arfues.com, which republished an op-ed from the German paper, "The European" echoes those sentiments. From the op-ed one could believe that the movement is opposed the the socialist-run government: "Spanish government not only kept ignoring all the ‘indignant’ movement, but also kept fortifying the establishment. The President of the Congress, José Bono, told in a TV interview that both major parties, Socialist and People’s parties, should get along more, and that all other minor parties should be kept outside the parliament. And then the government changed the electoral law in order to require all those parties without representation a minimum of endorsements in order to allow them to enter the electoral race in November 20th...After years and years of telling everybody that changing the Spanish Constitution was not only difficult but impossible, after the international requests to fix the Spanish sovereign debt issues, both parties accorded to modify it, and they did it. In less than two weeks and without any parliamentary debate...the privatizations of the ‘cajas’ and their conversion into ‘normal’ banks, not only the people knew that those ‘cajas’ vaults’ were empty, but that the managers and directors are getting billions in bonuses and compensations." (http://arfues.net/2011/11/25/the-demands-to-build-a-statist-cage-op-ed-for-the-european/)

I did a little research into the movement, finding a site about the European Revolution. On europeanrevolution.org it states: "WE DEMAND A TRUTH DEMOCRACY WE DEMAND TO BE THE ONES THAT TRULY CHOOSE THE COURSE YOU POLITICIANS ARE THE CAPTAINS WHO NAVEGATE BY THE DIRECTION OF THE CITIZEN...We are united for something stronger than a political party We are united because our INDIGNATION for your complicity with the financial corporation that steal our lives We are united by the SHAME for your corruption when you should be a role model We are united by SATIETY for your spent and false speech that nobody believes anymore."

From the opinions of Spanish bloggers, activists and others one may wonder what the duty of the new leadership is in Spain. A few blogs have answered that question. The admin of GetafeSpain.com writes in an article titled "Al Gore of Spanish politics": "Mr Rajoy must summon super powers to lower Spain’s unemployment rate, reform the banking system, enact long-awaited labour reforms and bring about growth." (http://getafespain.com/news/will-victory-be-a-poisoned-chalice-for-spains-new-pm) Another blog, Casey Pop's blog writes of different duties for new leadership. In a blogpost titled "Today's Spanish Elections May Say Something about the French and American Presidential Elections in 2012" the author states: "it is the largest majority the party has had since Spain became a democracy after the fall of Franco and it means that the PP will be able to rule without forming any coalitions with the Greens or other minority parties...The right campaigned hard on the need to put into place a rigorous austerity program to try to save the country from default by reducing the government deficit and reassuring banks who buy Spanish bonds that the country is serious about putting its fiscal house in order...The new Popular Party prime minister will take office on the 20th of December...his job, he says, is to try to keep Spain out of recession, and to reduce unemployment and the deficit at the same time (not an easy trick)." (http://casey-pops.blogspot.com/2011/11/todays-spanish-elections-may-say.html) Also there is another blogger who comments on the electoom as well. At the end of an article about Germany there is a mention of the Spanish elections: "Of anything they will be worth today's Spanish elections, if the winner when being known the official result is calling to Berlin to know that he has to make, they will respond him that the same thing that was making the loser, to clip, to brake, and to try to be disciplined or otherwise, he is left without credit, without ratio of solvency, without structural grants, and with a sanction of 1000 million Eurus for excessive unemployment."

(http://blagusadas.blogspot.com/2011/11/who-this-it-was-of-context-european.html) But this does not tell about the protestors.

The consequence of this election with rule by the People's Party is definately from the protesting itself in Spain and elsewhere in Europe. 72% of the people turned out, but many were very skeptical. This election will not only affect the worldwide movement against economic inequality and austerity (interlinked) but will likely lead to more protests in the country.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Up close and personal: Participating in NYC’s Occupy protest

You may have heard about the Occupy Wall Street movement, also called the 99% movement. Contrary to some media reports, when you go to one of these protests you will get people from all walks of life to participate. This includes homeless people, hippies, older experienced activists, young college kids, international people and police participating. This means a realm of political and social beliefs is present.

The diversity of the movement was proven through my experience. Early in the morning, at about 9:00 A.M., I came near Zuccotti/Liberty Park with my family. There were two entrances, both with New York Police Department (NYPD) officers guarding them, meaning you had to go through police checkpoints. Once inside, once could observe twenty people sitting on benches in the park and occupying about 1/4th of the park. Half of the park was being power-washed by Brookfield workers and the other 4th was open space. One must take into account the nature of the protest itself: it has more longevity, different orientation and feel toward social dynamics, not just a one day march. One can get a feeling that people know each other and talk to each about their ideas.  As a result, it’s much more a movement about sharing ideas, not just demonstrating. This sharing goes on that doesn’t happen at usual demonstrations, housing sharing at encampments (not in New York) and overall it becomes like an alternate family, a social network.

Speaking of sharing with others, the first person I talked to called himself D.J. about what had happened and he mentioned a number of interesting points. He argued that there was a psychological reason to bring the walls in. There were (and probably still are to my knowledge) NYPD fences around the park, doubled up with another fence parallel around the whole park. It’s a bit hard to explain, but if you look it up, you can see what I’m talking about. Continuing with D.J., he believed the police wanted to intimidate the protesters with a huge presence, so they would leave. After that comment, he walked away.

There were two people that walked up to us (me and my family), hugging and welcoming us. When we told them we came from Baltimore, both of them thanked us for coming. In a conversation about Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, each one had a different view. One was an African-American male possibly in his 20s was reasoned, saying it was it was horrible the tents were taken down. He also noted it’s not going to get better since Mayor Bloomberg’s girlfriend is on the Board of Brookfield Properties which owns Liberty Park (note this is an unconfirmed report). We asked him of the day’s events and he mentioned a march later in the day to Macy’s to protest the buying of fur, which seemed to not be related to the original message of the movement. However, the older African-American lady decried Bloomberg, saying he should be killed. I could tell she really hated Bloomberg with a passion. The younger African-American who I mentioned earlier calmed down the discourse even though he didn’t like Bloomberg either. He spoke of Bloomberg having his money evaporate instantly.

Activity was low at that time of the day, so we left and went to Battery Park. What happened after that is something I’ll mention in a future article. Anyway, we came back to the park about an hour and a half to two hours later. The place was lively with the beating of drums which some critics say is ridiculous and won’t lead to meaningful change. These critics don’t realize the sound of the drums will attract people to join to cause and become part of the movement. People were beating with their drums and I decided I’d join in. For a little while banging a pot lid and a padded soup ladle together, a feeling came over me: I was more than something generated by my beliefs; I was part of a movement. We walked around, scanning it out, and then we left the second time with a family friend. What happened after that is material for a future article as well. That wasn’t all that happened to me.

The third time, coming back near the park, there was a noticeable difference: increased police presence. It seemed something was going to happen. Later I figured out it was probably just usual police posturing to scare occupiers. At one point, a group of 200 or more came by shouting their support for women’s rights and the Occupy Movement. The family friend started to become paranoid about the police presence. The rest of my family looked in one direction at what they thought was a police buildup throughout the day. Meanwhile, I looked the opposite way and saw a startling site.

A person, an older white male, was asking people for donations to OWS (Occupy Wall Street). He was also holding up a sign that opposed American military intervention in foreign countries by listing statistics on who died, since 9/11, along with other information. Suddenly NYPD officers rushed in; handcuffed him and he yelled: “I didn’t do anything wrong!” After they told he was charged with assaulting another, he yelled once more: “I didn’t assault anyone!” Camera took pictures of this affair while someone else on a notepad wrote down what he was saying. Less than a minute later, you’d never know he was there. A middle-aged man commented to me: “Isn’t it a police state?” speaking of America in general. I stated that I agree, even though it was a stretch to say that one incident made it a police state. Previously I had been debating the issue and now was the time to confirm it was a fact. I talked a little more with the man on the subject.

By this time, our family friend got so paranoid and thought that the police would surround us. So we left that corridor in front of the park. On the corner overlooking the park we watched and listened to the General Assembly. I wanted to participate, but it wasn’t possible with the paranoia of the family friend. We crossed the street and the marching occupiers came toward us (we joked) literally! They turned and went to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Earlier we had commented on the excessive security in the area around the NYSE. One would have to go through two checkpoints to even get in front of the stock exchange. Our family friend kept mentioning how much these tactics by the NYPD reminded him of fascism, saying it was very similar. After a while, he left and was off on his merry way. Then we followed the occupiers down to the corner overlooking the stock exchange, then back to the park.

This time we entered the park, not going on the perimeter. The police pressure has diminished dramatically. There were no police at either entrance into the park, only Brookfield workers. At first glance it was lit up and it looked like there was just a bunch of tourists in the park. Later it was apparent there was even more activity than before. In a sense there were a number of different stations addressing certain aspects of the protest itself. One area was more serious, called the “think tank,” where a knowledgeable man was talking about the Egyptian Revolution and how it was not calculated well by the activists in the country. I would believe that other revolutions worldwide were discussed there, revealing the impetus for the protest. Also, a former police officer, Sergeant Louis, I believe, was there. He was the one who was arrested in a nonviolent action in Philadelphia was there to talk. He called Bloomberg’s actions close to a dictatorship. He also recommended that when people participate in civil disobedience, they should offer to cut themselves so unnecessary injury does not occur as they struggle. A person named Michael of Philadelphia Weekly was also there and I introduced myself. He said I could send my blog to him and this gave me great joy that people respect political bloggers.

Finally, we went to the weekly story time, organized by an activist who said the stories presented would be given to Eve Ensler, the author of the play The Vagina Monologues and she would compile them into a book. She was a clean-cut, simply-dressed woman who seemed to be a college graduate or in college. Stories ranging from international occupiers to those from other protests in America were told. Each was personal to the occupier.

This brings me to another concept, the human microphone. NYC has noise ordinance, so those in Liberty Park couldn’t get a bull-horn. That’s why they came up with the human microphone. It’s the first time this idea has been used in a movement or demonstration.  “Mic check,” a common tactic that has been used to interrupt numerous political figures (President Obama, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Karl Rove, etc…) occurs with human microphone. When one is participating in the human microphone you fell more involved than just listening on the side.

Back to the stories. Some were seasoned veterans (one had been to the Occupy Wall Street movement in the Pacific region) who then came to New York, another was a college student who decried imperialism as the greatest terrorism ever, another was a high school student and another was from Ecuador and talked of his work with a student-led movement there. That’s just a sampling of the stories, the ones I can remember. Also at night, intellectual discussion and heavy-duty political discussion was more common. The level of intellectual discussion was elevated to a higher level, in part about political philosophy.

Before we left, I stumbled upon an American Indian activist who gave us his paper (for one dollar donation) and the Occupied Wall Street Journal. Then he talked of the Occupy movement representing other cultures as well and how he had to be there in solidarity. After that we left the site and I uttered: Goodbye! Goodbye! This experience left a lasting impression on me, something I’ll never forget. The future historians will remember this movement and say it stood up for something that was right, for what was needed: fundamental change.

A new political spectrum: solving problems of the left-right system

Almost every blog ends up with a battle over the current political spectrum that has liberal at one end, conservative at the other and moderate in the middle. There are other extremes mentioned like radical and reactionary, but it is too limiting. Another problem is the current system used was created during the 1790s in France, denoting a “left” and “right.” The new spectrum I created is below:

From a number of sources, including definitions I created myself, there is the definition of each term on the eight-pointed spectrum above. 

I’ll start with the terms Aristocrat and Democrat. The idea came from Noam Chomsky’s book titled Secrets, Lies and Democracy. Mr. Chomsky writes that “Thomas Jefferson…made a distinction between two groups—aristocrats and democrats. Aristocrats “fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.” This view is held by respectable intellectuals in many different societies today, and is quite similar to the Leninist doctrine that the vanguard party of radical intellectuals should take power and lead the stupid masses to a bright future. Most liberals are aristocrats in Jefferson’s sense…Henry Kissinger is an extreme example of an aristocrat. Democrats, Jefferson wrote, “identify with the people, have confidence in them, cherish them and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interest. In other words, democrats believe the people should be in control, whether or not they’re going to make the right decisions. Democrats exist today, but their becoming increasingly marginal.” 

When the word ‘Democrats’ is mentioned, I am not talking about those of the Democratic Party. If one looks at the party platforms and compares them, you could consider the Republican and Democratic parties to be one big party with two parts, having some differences, but not many. Also one could say that both of the so-called major parties are separate, but so similar that the terms “Republican” and “Democrat” don’t mean anything. If one is to interpret this correctly, think of Democrats in the Jeffersonian sense, as those that want the people in control, not some elite class. Do not think of the word “Democrat” in this political spectrum as those that cave in on certain issues in the federal legislature, do insider trading legally for the most part and get money from special interests. Those that are running in the 2012 election for “the 99%” as shown on Occupy the Ballot’s website would encompass Democrats (in the Jeffersonian sense). More evident of this is in the working document of OWS candidates, which can be seen below:

 

In my reading of different internet postings, I read once that one person characterized the world as divided between those for and those against corporations. As a result that was incorporated into the new spectrum in the words corporatist and Non-corporatist (or Anti-corporatist). I’ll start with non-corporatism, which many call “Anti-corporatism.” One blog owner mentioned[i] what they defined this term: “I am a radical anti-corporatist. I think all should be free to organize to further their own ends, but not by implic[i]tly and malignantly conspiring to reduce the interests of everyone else.” I searched the internet and looked for more information on this term. Another person on topix briefly mentioned it: “I'm anti-corporatism [because] capitalism eventually leads to corporatism especially in America where everything has a price tag on it.”[ii] I kept going through topix and found more material. While I don’t agree with the viewpoint expressed toward the Occupy Wall Street protesters from the topix forum, some of the text still applies to this discussion: “I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm anti-corporatist. I'm against too much power in the hands of too few people who control all the levers of power, no matter who those people are.”[iii] Finally, I looked at The New Moderate blog. One person below the article commented: “I’m increasingly an anti-corporatist. Sure, plenty of corporations make plenty of worthwhile products, but 1) they’ve become far too influential with our elected representatives, and 2) they’ve essentially become winner-take-all games, with the CEOs often earning 1000 times more than the average employee.”[iv] From all of these sources I have concluded that if one is a non-corporatist they are: against grand combinations such as monopolies and trusts, but think that everyone should be able to organize businesses or whatever whenever they want but in a way that benefits others, against an plutocratic-type government with the wealthy wielding major power and reducing the influence of the corporations on the political process. 

 

From all of that, you are probably still wondering what a corporatist is. A University of Massachusetts report gets us a little closer to the answer. It argues that John Maynard Keynes was a corporatist, while defining the word.[v] From the pdf, I picked those words to define this term and a person who embodies this term would:  

•    “decisively reject the traditional theory of perfect competition” 
•  “[accept] the ongoing trend toward increased reliance on public corporations, and argue that the government should…accept the current movement toward cartels, holding companies, trade associations, pools and other forms of monopoly power [and] should proactively assist and accelerate this trend in order to regulate and control it”  
• “[say] The state [should] set goals for these corporations and evaluate their performance, but not manage them directly.” 
•  “[support]...self-regulation [of big business in order to create]…the ultimate corporatist institutional arrangement.”

In the definition of this word, I am not promoting a conspiracy; rather one showing that one who believed these ideals would want a government that benefits big business in some way or another, as well as for their one benefit.

 

The issue of corporatism is on many people’s minds ever since the beginning of this economic crisis which one could call the second Great Depression. However, armed conflict is a major problem that must be put into the political spectrum through the terms “War Hawk” and “Peace Activist.” I’ll start with the latter term. In a facebook comment, one can get closer to its definition. One user states[vi]: “[that in today’s world] the wars rage on costing trillions of dollars and millions of lives.” The same user on Third Party Forum’s facebook group writes of the goal to “eradicate[e]…war by restoring democracy in America.” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting had an article about peace activists, mentioning a rally in April where people “were speaking out on a…timely issue (wars in Afghanistan and Libya), and connecting them to the budget and near-government shutdown in Washington.”[vii] According to a few excerpts from Chris Hayes articles linked on Third Party forum, one can get closer to defining the word at hand. Mr. Hayes inadvertently defines the term as those who oppose “pre-emptive war and occupation” along ending those wars that damage out country’s well-being. From these excerpts, I define a peace activist as one who opposes occupation of other parts of the world, opposes armed conflict (most if not all of it) and wants to take money out of the military budget to help each other at home. 

You are probably wondering what a war hawk is, since I’ve already defined a peace activist. Last year, I wrote about War Hawks and the Tea Party.[viii] More relevant to this discussion as of now is who the original “War Hawks” were: “A group of 10 individuals who…wanted war with Britain [and they corrupted the] President of the United States, James Madison [to go to war with Britain].” Today, that same ideology stays in place with those of this term as those that do not want to cut the military budget and those that want to go to war, increasing the expenditures on the national budget. Those of this position defend themselves saying troops must be worldwide for “national security” or “defending our interests.” In addition, those that support war in any shape or form would fall into this category as well. 

  

While the term “war hawk” and “peace activist” epitomize the struggle over the issue of war, it isn’t enough to complete the spectrum as a whole. Libertarians (Market Anarchist) and Coercive Collectivists must be included as well. Market Anarchists is defined on page 27 of David Miller’s book titled Political Philosophy as those that “claim we could contract and pay individually for the services the state now provides, including crucially for personal protection. In the absence of the state, forms would offer to protect clients and their property, and this would include retrieving property that had been stolen, enforcing contracts, and obtaining compensation for personal injury. So if my neighbour steals something that is mine, instead of calling the (public) police, I would call my protective agency, and they would take action against the troublesome neighbour.” 

William Levinson tacks on some other ideas to this term. He defines these people[ix] as those for equal opportunity, an all-volunteer armed forces, encouraging private citizens to learn how to use firearms and those that are practical recognize the need to pay taxes for collective national defense. In addition, those of this term find flag burning offensive but not punishable by law, say there should be little or no gun control with citizens using weapons for their self-defense as well as the country as a whole against foreign enemies, the government must issue weapons if does not want to restrict military service and people have the right to pray in a school or anywhere else as long as it doesn’t disrupt others. Also these people are for private retirement accounts and pro-choice. In opposition, he defines a “Coercive Collectivist” as one that wants "a higher, nobler, and kinder world based on the sanctity of the Crowd and the villainy of the single person,” those that want flag burning to be illegal, want private security forces and want mandatory school prayer. Furthermore, those of this term believe that there should be mandatory participation in a government retirement plan (like Social Security), want a return of the draft, in support of affirmative action, exclusion of certain racial/ethnic groups and in favor of compulsory abortions. To clarify, one must realize that the person who came created the scale between “coercive collectivist” and “libertarian” was leaning to the side of libertarianism, so he made the other side sound worse. Even so, I believe the terms make sense, but I made some modifications.

This eight-pointed political spectrum as a whole, combining the ideas of those across the internet is a comprehensive way to tell where you are on the political spectrum. In the middle can be whatever term you please, which I leave open to the discretion of the one using the spectrum. In the end, I hope this spectrum solves the problems of the current failures of the political system.

---

[i] http://khanneasuntzu.com/

[ii] http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/mgvm3/loud_and_clear/

[iii] http://www.topix.com/forum/city/portsmouth-oh/TJ31PD9PM9CSKGPHJ/p3

[iv] http://newmoderate.com/2009/10/07/corporatism-and-communism-too-close-for-comfort/

[v] http://people.umass.edu/crotty/JEI_Keynes-corp.pdf

[vi] http://www.facebook.com/notes/nicole-nichols/do-you-have-a-story-to-tell/10150274899909789

[vii] http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6545

[viii] http://hermannview.tumblr.com/post/1448332035/will-the-tea-party-people-become-the-next-war-hawks

[ix] http://www.stentorian.com/spectrum.html

Grassroots protests: A world revolution?

On Facebook, the owner of a page talked about a so-called "world revolution." I said I'd write an article, but I never got around to it until now. Looking through articles, videos and posts across the internet, I have found events that eventually fit into a puzzle of directly connected pieces.

It is accepted by some websites across the internet that a world revolution is a “world socialist revolution” envisioned by former American news reporter and philosopher Karl Marx: “When Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels implored workers of the world to unite, they announced a new vision of international politics: world socialist revolution...the struggle for world socialist revolution.”[i] The difference between world socialist revolution and world revolution is one that distinguishes the organized revolt.

There is no way it is a world socialist revolution. The revolution consists of protests against governments across the world[ii], a revolt against powers that be, the ruling class or leadership class of just about every country. Some revolts that started as peaceful are becoming more violent and some going the opposite way. Some in the U.S. even call for a peaceful second American Revolution on Facebook[iii] (a violent revolution against the government is illegal under federal law). The page does not explain its purpose completely, but is pretty obvious that the creators believe the current U.S. government is crooked. In the Mideast, which I call the Orient, people are angry with the dictators or oligarchies that remain so they are arming themselves with deadly weapons. In Libya, a protest against Muammar Gaddafi became inflamed when NATO and support of the “industrialized world” was added in a situation that has become a civil war. It is debatable if the protest was violent to start with as countries like France may have started the violence with secret intervention, but it is obvious that Libya has descended into civil war. Also, in the American-backed dictatorship in Yemen seemed to be led by armed activists as the revolution continued. However, only a few days ago, protestors have told “people to be patient and continue their peaceful revolution until they oust all "remnants" of the regime.”[iv] I went all the way back to what gave me the idea for this blog, a Facebook post I commented on:

The world revolution has its roots in France where the “European Revolution” was dubbed by protestors began. According to europeanrevolution.net[v]: “At least 20 of the most important cities in France have their square occupied by youth protesters. Calling themseleves the Indignés…France seems to hold a leading position in the new European Revolution...They demand a Constitutive Assembly to make govern[ments] ‘remember’ that ‘people [are] sovereign’…stress…inequality of o[p]portunities and priorities between represented and representat[ives], between reality and ideologies. They ask [their voice to be heard by the governments].” The demands juts articulated shows that people (possibly in the millions) are serious with their concerns and want a changed world order. These mobilized citizens do not want a international order planned out by the elites since the early 1900s. Certain ideas, like the Federal Reserve (formulated by private bankers and big business in 1913, before it was introduced to Congress as the Federal Reserve Act) advanced this idea. To see the impetus for the action in France, you have to go back to the protests in Spain. At one point, protesters called for a world revolution and future reforms as written on Raw Story[vi]: “From Tahrir to Madrid to the world, world revolution," said one of the placards, referring to Tahrir Square in Cairo which was the focal point of the Egyptian revolution earlier this year...Calling for "Real Democracy Now," the protests, popularly known as M-15, were called to condemn Spain's soaring unemployment, economic crisis, politicians in general, and corruption.” These protests may have been organized by Anonymous, the organization that uses hacktivism (combination of hacking and activism) to complete its objectives. The organization has two major goals: making the internet free for the people of the world and punishing those that try to box the users of the world wide web in. The group had a video on LeakSource[vii] about how to prepare for a world revolution and what to do to go against the world elite. Underneath the video was the infamous saying on the internet that is feared by the leadership class, encapsulating the hopes of the protestors (bolded sayings) :

“We are Anonymous

We are Legion

We do not forgive

We do not forget

Expect us!"

The convergence of hacktivist groups (such as Anonymous and Lulz Boat), active citizenry across the world and advocacy groups has created a World Revolution. Some have called 2011 the year of revolution[viii] and I can’t agree more. Protests that started in Spain were influenced by young people who called for the end of overarching governments and the creation of democracies across the Arab World. Other Europeans had similar thoughts, causing organized disagreement across the region. International underground organizations seized on this opportunity and tried to convince internet users worldwide to protest against the global elite by creating short YouTube videos in some cases. An example is Global Strike[ix] (made by Anonymous), which explained how to stop the world leadership class and asking YouTube users to create their own videos in response.

The ways to stop “the system” from overpowering you is so simple as the video points out, actions everyone could do, such as (groups that came up with these ideas are bracketed) :

- Not buying anything for a week [Anonymous] (My take: It could face opposition from consumers internationally who just buy and buy)

- Storing up food, not buying it [Anonymous] (My take: Like the previous idea, this one could also face opposition from those who love capitalism and just want everything. But a concentrated effort could solve this problem)

- “Stop supporting companies that you know are harmful.”[x] (My take: This is easy to do, all you have to do is be an informed citizen and if you buy products, then you must choose companies that will lead to a better future.)

- Growing your own food [Anonymous] (My take: Many people do this already with side gardens, victory gardens, backyard gardens, live on farms, etc… So, it wouldn’t be the hard to transition.)

- Go out on the street and protest against the elite [Anonymous] (My take: I believe that many Americans are used to the culture of surveillance, born out of the age of “terrorism” and would be afraid to participate. I am not so sure myself if I should participate in this activity since I feel I could be labeled as something I’m not.)

I have tried to do all of these listed items to the best of my ability. I’ve forced myself to not buying anything for a week (I am fiscally conservative with my money, so I don’t spend much anyway). Also I grow my own food and I am protesting by writing this article to educate people about the #worldrevolution[xi]. When I buy products I always try to use those products that are not from companies that abuse their workers or commit other abuses, are American-made and definitely not made in China as another listed item suggests. From my own analysis, certain groups don’t want people to buy anything because the money is controlled by the world elite. Federal Reserve Notes, the money I am referring to, is legal tender in America (“This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private”). U.S. dollars are printed by a private bank, an action that isn’t allowed by the U.S. Constitution.

I believe that from everything that has happened, it is now the time to “say no more…will the many allow the few to ruin our planet and our lives....We [the people of the world] can change things.”[xii] People must act against those who push a non-democratic “new world order” and push for government that work for the people, not the secret governments that exist across the planet which could lead to a one-world government as some have theorized.

So, now you if you want to learn more about this “world revolution,” I found pages on facebook that advocated for it that you can use for more information:

- WORLD REVOLUTION

- Global Liberation Network

- World Revolution: Real Democracy (where I found out about whole world revolution)

- World Revolution News

- World Revolution, the world is changing

- In a facebook search more pages can be found[xiii]

In addition, Twitter has a number of people tweeting about the subject. Here’s a list of users I complied, that talk about this information, including:

- @revolution_info

- @GlobalRevol (sorry it’s in Spanish, if you are not good at Spanish)

- @EchteDemokratie

- @15MayRevolution

- @olgarodriguezfr

- @Zed_Lepplin (to some extent)

- @takethesquare (connecting Spanish Revolution and trying to apply it to the world)

- @AcampadaEDI

- @namorix2

- @AcampadaEDI

- @armandonoticias

Hashtags #worldrevolution and #globalrevolution on Twitter you can use for information.

---

[i]http://www.answers.com/topic/world-revolution-1

[ii] http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=121048771311260&set=a.121048767977927.28274.121048357977968&type=1&theater

[iii] Facebook page of American Revolution 2011

[iv] http://www.newsyemen.net/en/view_news.asp?sub_no=3_2011_08_05_40413

[v] http://www.europeanrevolution.net/

[vi] http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/20/spanish-protesters-cheer-for-world-revolution-as-ban-on-demonstration-takes-effect/

[vii] http://leaksource.wordpress.com/anonymous/#comments%20

[viii]political fail blog page about world revolution [A page that has since been deleted from the website]

[ix] http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Anonymous-Global-Strike-July-2011

[x] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lbBrAs9T7E4J:www.politicalfailblog.com/p/worldrevolution.html+-+%E2%80%9CStop+supporting+companies+that+you+know+are+harmful.%E2%80%9D&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

[xi] twitter hashtag, #worldrevolution

[xii] POLITICAL FAIL BLOG

[xiii] http://www.facebook.com/search.php?q=world%20revolution&init=quick&tas=0.9820292391995158

Al Gore and George Bush: Was there a real difference?

I was discussing with an adult who works at the NIH about Ralph Nader. The adult said: "Ralph Nader caused Al Gore to not be President." I responded: "Well, what about the Supreme Court's ruling?" He said in return: "It was Nader. That's why I don't support Nader anymore." That conversation inspired me to write this article about the 2000 election. First I'll go into the positions of both candidates (Bush and Gore). Then I’ll compare them later on.

Before I get into analysis of Democratic and Republican candidates in 2000, I’d like to address an issue that rattled the elections that year. Some say, including my dad, that Ralph Nader was saying that Al Gore and George W. Bush were very similar and that’s why you should vote me (gaining Mr. Nader over a million votes). Politifact did a review of the statements by Mr. Nader, who wrote in an editorial for the New York Times: “I have indicated that there are 'few major differences' between the two parties not that there is 'no difference between Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush,' as Mr. Kennedy wrote. Second, I have never said that I would vote for George W. Bush, whom I have strongly criticized across the country, if forced to choose between him and Al Gore." This got the idea in people’s heads that Mr. Nader was saying they were the same candidate. Mr. Nader implied that he thought Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore equally objectionable. In a news conference in 2000 he said: "It doesn't matter who is in the White House, Gore or Bush, for the vast majority of government departments and agencies. The only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door.” Four days before the election in Philadelphia, he repeated the same thing: “It's a Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum vote. Both parties are selling our government to big business paymasters. ...That's a pretty serious similarity." At the end, Politifact concluded: So no, Nader never explicitly said "it doesn't really matter whether Gore or Bush is president." But his talk of "Republicrats," "Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum," and "one corporate party" left many people — friend, foe and impartial observer alike — with the impression that that's what he believed. We find Nader's statement that he "never said" it to be Barely True. To disprove or prove Mr. Nader’s statements, I looked at the funding of both of the candidates.

I wanted to have a view of how both candidates for President in the 2000 election got their funding. I started with the Federal Election Commission first, saying that by September 30th, 1999, George W. Bush had about $57 million in recipts, $19 million in dismebursements and about $37 million on hand. Al Gore had about $25 million in receipts, $14 million in disbursements and $10 million on hand. But that isn’t enough to prove Mr. Nader’s statements about both political parties. In on article by Common Dreams, it says certain actions by Mr. Bush, a Texas oil man, are for “the benefit of...corporate and fundamentalist sponsors.” But that’s not enough to show specifically who Mr. Bush’s sponsors were. The Miller Center wasn’t that specific either, stating: “Although new to national politics, Bush was practically anointed as the Republican standard-bearer by the GOP establishment in early 1999 after he proved to be a one-man fundraising machine that scored a record $68.7 million the year before the election.” I looked and looked for another article or articles about who exactly donated to his presidential campaign. I couldn’t find any exact articles. But I did find an OpenSecrets report of the 2004 election that stated that corporations such as Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch as well as other big companies were some of major donors to Mr. Bush’s campaign against the Democrats (John Kerry and John Edwards) that year. Finally I found a site that exposed Bush’s contributors in the 2000 election. Luckily the website’s creators had grabbed an OpenSecrets report from that year and from other analysis concluded that “[the] Agribusiness [gave] Bush $2,148,624...[the] Oil & Gas [industry gave] Bush $1,463,799...[the] Construction [industry gave] Bush $3,472,82...[the] Real Estate [gave] Bush $3,661,372...[the] Automotive [industry gave] Bush $1,019,581...Drug companies [gave] Republicans/Bush 73% of $13,800,000...The ten corporations that funnelled the most soft money into Bush’s campaign, according to FEC data, are as follows: AT&T directed 62% of its $4,479,653 in soft money donations to Republican groups...Seventy-six percent of UPS’s $2,662,994 in soft money went to Republican groups, along with a whopping 79% of Philip Morris’ $2,565,880. Verizon Wireless funneled 63% of $2,874,921 to Republican groups. MBNA America Bank put 82% of $2,193,550 into Republican campaigns. Enron...gave 76% of $2,015,853 to Republican warchests, mostly through the RNC. Merrill Lynch devoted 74% of $2,000,025 to Republican groups. Pfizer Inc...diverted 84% of $1,810,572 to Republican campaigns. Bristol-Myers Squibb gave 84% of $1,751,442. Fedex gave 65% of $2,095,328...Dell Computers executive Michael Dell...personally donated $250,000 to the RNC...Afinity Group, Inc chair Stephen Adams has...invested $1 million in soft money in Bush’s campaign...Aurora Capital Partners chair Gerald Parsky...[has] personally given $200,000 to the RNC...Cisco CEO John Chambers...gave $310,000 in soft money; Charles R. Schwab of Charles Schwab Investments...gave $270,000; and Leach Capital’s Howard Leach...gave $120,000.” That sounds like he was in with the Big Corporations. But that’s not all.

Al Gore also got numerous donations from big companies as well, described on the website I mentioned earlier. For Mr. Gore: “[the] Agribusiness [gave]...$240,350...[the] Oil & Gas [industry gave] $95,460...[the] Construction [industry gave] $920,938...Real Estate [industry gave] $1,213,310...[the] Automotive [industry gave]...$79,085...Drug companies [gave]...23% of $13,800,000 [or about $3.1 million, more than any other big company].” After Mr. Gore decided to concede in December after the 2000 election recount, saying that he welcomes George W. Bush as the President, donors decided to turn their back on him. However, iIn the process more donors were revealed. Brainer Dispatch wrote about this in an article, detailing a few examples of Al Gore donors: “Vinod Gupta, an Internet entrepreneur who contributed $318,000 to Gore and Democratic committees...Trevor Pearlman, Dallas venture capitalist and former trial lawyer who contributed $161,000 to Gore and the Democratic National Committee during this election cycle.” An analysis of the money donated isn’t all that will invalidate or validate Mr. Nader’s widely misinterpreted point in the 2000 election. The political views will prove if both candidates were in one big corporate party or if they were completely different.

First I looked at the Republican candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, George W. Bush. Here’s a list of some of George W. Bush’s political views before he became President (I picked ones that would make a comparison better):

• Ban partial-birth abortions, and reduce abortions overall. (Oct 2000)

• No tax money for abortion, but no Pro-Life Amendment either. (Sep 2000)
• “It’s time for a change” in Washington. (Oct 2000)

• Make budget biennial; reinstate line-item veto; target pork. (Jun 2000)
• Local control with consequences if racial profiling occurs. (Oct 2000)

• Against gay marriage, but leave it to the states. (Feb 2000)

• Ignored Byrd hate crime bill despite plea by Byrd’s family. (Oct 2000)
• Death penalty for deterrence, not revenge. (Oct 2000)

• Death penalty for hate crimes like any other murder. (Oct 2000)

• Miranda [rights] should be waived in some situations. (Jun 2000)

• More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War. (Aug 2000)

• Zero tolerance on disruption, guns, & school safety. (Apr 2000)

• Improve education with local control, accountability. (Sep 2000)
• Tax money to religious schools OK, if they’re teaching kids. (May 2000)

• Better to drill ANWR than import oil from Saddam Hussein. (Oct 2000)

• Replenish energy supplies with new domestic coal & pipelines. (Oct 2000)
• Weaken Clean Air [act] (Nov 2000)

• Internet filters, ratings, & parental monitoring for kids. (Oct 2000)

• Promote abstinence in schools and via churches. (Apr 2000)

• Africa’s important but not a priority; no nation-building. (Oct 2000)
• China is an American competitor, not a friend. (Feb 2000)

• US should humbly empower other countries, not dictate. (Oct 2000)

• Less intervention abroad and unilateral nuclear cuts at home. (Sep 2000)
• Reform UN & IMF; strengthen NATO. (Apr 2000)
• Regulatory style: like Reagan, get government out of the way. (Oct 2000)

• Ban soft money, but no public financing of elections. (Oct 2000)

• Full disclosure and no giving limits. (Mar 2000)
• No corporate or union soft money. (Feb 2000)

• Would sign, but would not push, gun restrictions. (Apr 2000)
• Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips. (Apr 2000)
• Restrict teenage smoking by tough state & federal laws. (Mar 2000)

• Give seniors choice, not bureaucrats; give incentives too. (Sep 2000)

• Be world’s peacemaker instead of world’s policeman. (Oct 2000)

• Rebuild military so it can fulfill mission to prevent war. (Oct 2000)
• Gays in military OK; “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” OK. (Sep 2000)

• Post-Cold War: remove weapons & high-alert; build SDI. (May 2000)

• Make INS more “immigrant friendly”. (Jun 2000)

• Put U.S. interests first and execute goals with good team. (Oct 2000)

• Don’t treat Social Security like it’s a federal program. (Nov 2000)

• Privatize Social Security to take advantage of stock market. (May 2000)
• Don’t eliminate gas tax; ask OPEC to increase supply. (Jul 2000)

• Yes, wealthy get tax relief, but 6M poor will pay no tax. (Oct 2000)
• All Americans deserve tax relief; no more “fuzzy numbers”. (Oct 2000)
• No national sales tax or VAT. (Feb 2000)

• Israel: America should be a stronger friend. (May 2000)

Al Gore’s positions when he was running to became the next President:

• Ban partial-birth abortions, except for maternal health. (Oct 2000)
• Opposes partial birth abortion, but opposes banning it. (Sep 2000)
• Right to choice, regardless of economic circumstance. (Mar 2000)
• Wrote in 1984 that abortion is arguably taking a life. (Jan 2000)
• Paying down debt reduces government intrusion. (Oct 2000)

• Pay off the national debt by 2013. (Apr 2000)

• Ban racial profiling by Executive Order. (Jan 2000)

• Find some way for civic union; but not gay marriage. (Oct 2000)
• National hate crimes law is needed, absolutely. (Oct 2000)

• Intensify the battle against crime, drugs, and disorder. (May 2000)
• Death penalty for deterrence, but carefully. (Oct 2000)

• Lead a national crusade against drugs. (May 2000)

• Loosen restrictions on medical marijuana. (Mar 2000)
• Tougher drug policies; fight drugs in Colombia. (Mar 2000)
• “Revolutionary plan”: 50% more for public schools. (Jan 2000)

• Release oil from Strategic Petroleum Reserve. (Sep 2000)

• For Kyoto; for national parks; against drilling ANWR. (Nov 2000)
• Abstinence Ed in the context of comprehensive Sex Ed. (Sep 2000)

• Gore supports vigorous intervention abroad (Oct 2000)

• Strong defense for world leader; tie defense to other issues. (Jan 2000)

• Fair trade: standards for child labor & environment. (Aug 2000)
• Build a rule-based global trading system. (Aug 2000)

• Spending increase? “Absolutely not”; balance every budget. (Oct 2000)
• McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform will be first bill. (Oct 2000)

• Ban soft money and provide free broadcast time. (Sep 2000)
• Campaign finance reform will be very first bill to Congress. (Aug 2000)
• Free TV and radio for candidates during campaigns. (Mar 2000)

• Pledges to add not one new federal position. (Oct 2000)

• Tough gun laws & so much more, to stop child tragedies. (Mar 2000)
• Zero tolerance for guns at school; raise age to 21. (Jan 2000)
• Let FDA regulate cigarettes; fight teenage smoking. (Mar 2000)

• Build-down military to smaller but more effective. (May 2000)
• Nation-building is part of world leadership. (Oct 2000)

• Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is unfair & hasn’t worked. (Sep 2000)
• Build less powerful SDI; to keep ABM treaty & START III. (May 2000)

• More immigrants to alleviate labor shortage. (Mar 2000)

• Voluntary school prayer is ok, if teachers aren’t involved. (Sep 2000)

• Create Retirement Savings Accounts. (Aug 2000)

• Tax cuts to benefit middle-class, not just the rich. (Aug 2000)
• Eliminate estate taxes for the little guy, not the wealthy. (Jun 2000)

• “Digital Cabinet” of high-tech advisors. (Sep 2000)
• Broadcasters required to assist with “Democracy Endowment”. (Mar 2000)

• Create e-government, interactive access for all citizens. (Jun 2000)
• Internet self-regulation OK: privacy policy on all web sites. (Oct 2000)

• Regulate Internet privacy & child access, but not content. (Mar 2000)
• Universal Internet access should be a national priority. (Feb 2000)

• Genocide is a strategic interest & warrants intervention. (Oct 2000)
• Don’t let OPEC take advantage of Americans. (Sep 2000)

• Iraq: support Saddam’s opposition, until he’s gone. (May 2000)

Looking at both lists of political views, it seems there are some differences between both candidates. I created a chart of the views of both the candidates so you can compare them easier (all the red boxed items are ones that are similar)
I believe that on one hand Mr. Nader is right that both parties got lots of funding from corporations as I described earlier, but they were not same exactly. Some positions were completely different, as Al Gore was more in favor of an online government, while George W. Bush didn’t even mention it. It varied. In conclusion, I rate Mr. Nader’s statement as mostly true since there was many similarities on certain issues, however they still aren’t completely the same.


P.S.
Even Ralph Nader spoke about Mr. Obama in these words: “Well, I think Barack Obama is in training to become panderer-in-chief...And it’s quite clear that he is a corporate candidate from A to Z...He — you know, he’s letting the corporate-dominated city of Washington, the corporations who actually rule us now in Washington, determine his agenda.” (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/18/ralph_nader_on_barack_obama_it)