Oil pipeline protest coming to San Francisco

|
(101)

Forward on Climate, an event billed as the largest climate rally in history, will have a presence in San Francisco on Feb. 17. With most activity centered in Washington, D.C., organizers of the nationwide mobilization hope to convince President Barack Obama to reject the development of the Keystone XL pipeline, an extension of a tar-sand oil pipeline that connects Alberta, Canada and multiple Midwest cities.

In San Francisco, protesters plan to surround the U.S. State Department building at One Market Plaza to demonstrate opposition the pipeline project. "Since the pipeline crosses the international boundary with Canada, the State Department has to approve the permit, so symbolically that's why we chose it," explained Taylor Hawke of 350 Bay Area.

More than 70 organizations are partnering to promote the event, including 350.org, the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council, CREDO Action and others. Sup. John Avalos will join student groups, indigenous organization Idle No More, and others in speaking at the rally. Organizers expect a turnout of more than 2,000 with participants traveling to San Francisco from Chico, Sacramento, Santa Cruz and University of California campuses at Davis and Merced.

Jessica Dervin-Ackerman of 350 Bay Area says activists “intend to send a strong message to President Obama that immediate action is needed to stop climate disruption and to protect current and future generations,” and that “the U.S. needs to be an international leader in the diplomacy of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.” A recent HSBC report underscored the role of national governments in fighting climate change, noting that 90 percent of the world’s oil and gas is held by governments or state-owned oil companies.

Some climate activists aren’t waiting until Feb. 17 to get their message across. Protestors from 350.org and the Sierra Club, along with many other organizations, sat outside the gates of the White House Feb. 13 in an act of civil disobedience meant to raise awareness about the Keystone XL pipeline extension. Many were arrested, including actress Daryl Hannah, and released the following day.

Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, touched on Obama’s apparent contradiction on climate change in a recent Rolling Stones article. While the President has made promises to work on wind and solar energy, McKibben said, he’s also emphasized a goal of “producing more oil and gas here at home." The pipeline would financially benefit the Canadian government, which is anxious to export its most lucrative commodity. The tar sands in Alberta contain as much as 240 gigatons of carbon, representing half the amount carbon scientists say can be “safely” burned by 2050.

Big oil companies stand to lose the most if the Forward on Climate movement succeeds. Oil reserves represent corporate assets that lay buried underground, and that’s where organizations like 350.org want them to stay. "The key to everything is this," Hawke said: "From the latest science, we now know that the climate crisis is the greatest moral issue of our time."

TransCanada, the pipeline developer, claims the project would provide tens of thousands of jobs, but the U.S. State Department estimates that it would be closer to five or six thousand temporary construction jobs. A more sustainable approach, says Frances Aubrey of 350.org, would be to create new jobs by investing in renewable energy. The only ones who will benefit from fossil fuels, she added, are the oil companies and the politicians whose campaigns they fund. “Oil companies are willing to change the planet beyond what people can survive,” says Aubrey, “to make a profit.”

Comments

"who decides any big issue of the day?"

The corporations and the military industrial complex whom the politicians of the one party with two names work for.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 3:32 am

"didn't this president get the nobel peace prize for god's sake?"

Yes. It was meaningless. That organization has lost all credibility since. This came after he attacked Pakistan during his first week in office and the thick Obama-bots (who don't keep up) said, "this must be left over from Bush." It wasn't.

I sense that you're still falling for what Obama says. WHY are you doing that? Or is it more of that, "I want to believe....." spell you've allowed him to cast on you?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 3:45 am

and as a reminder, i did not vote for obama in his first term. i see the bigger picture, notwithstanding the unfortunate actions this president has taken. No, it ain't all roses, I grant you that. It ain't utopia yet, not by a long shot. Obama responds to all the people/forces that are out there, and that includes people who think that fighting/killing in purported self defense is the way to go. So let's have our eyes really open, shall we? Naive, I am not, but I do *see* what is going on, and it all comes down to: is "our side, *your* side" willing to get out on the streets, recruit your friends, and make a strong stand, as opposed to ragging on Daniele for not saying that Obama is part of the problem.

Posted by Daniele E. on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 10:21 am

Puts whose money again, where exactly?

Posted by marcos on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 8:08 am

exactly. in my original post i was going to say "no pun intended", but i realized it wasn't exactly a pun, but something a bit more sinister...
i'm not naive about obama, but i do believe that he wants to do the right thing. he leads not so much by a more "radical" stance, but rather by appeasement, if you ask me, taking the median of both "sides". (So maybe one would call that not exactly "leading", but hence my previous characterization of "cautiousness/slowness"). That is why, i feel he will act on the side of what is right environmentally speaking, ie, he will take a bolder stance only if the people do an all out number on this....I wish he would just "say no" to KXL. But he's not like that. But I'll say it again, he WILL say no only if those voices demanding it are overwhelming in their resolve. So get on board.

Posted by Daniele E. on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 9:47 am

Danielle, on what exactly has Obama lead? The best he's done is to exact minor concessions from the Republicans (DADT repeal) after starting negotiations from The Republican position 15 years ago and compromising down from there.

His modus operandi has been to throw all decision making to his opponents and to complain that "his hands are tied."

Posted by marcos on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 10:41 am

and work from there. with the republicans in the majority that's kinda the way it goes in washington, no?
i wish he would take bolder measures, but i am convinced that what we have is better than a republican-led white house.

i don't think obama wanted to be radical. too dangerous, especially considering his race. someone was talking about that the other day, and there is reason to believe that hey if you were the first black president and wanted to survive to see your kids grow up, you might not want to enact this that and the other too quickly if you catch my drift.

some things take time, and it sucks that people die en route to that better time. grow up and accept that fact. and get on with the business of bringing that better time here faster.

Posted by Daniele E. on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 11:04 am

of Congress for Obama's first two years. What was his excuse then? We can judge Obama on his record, not on wishful thinking.

Posted by Eddie on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 11:18 am

whatever! I'm not going to lose energy railing on Obama...there's too much work to do. But I know many of you get your rocks off railing, so keep on doing that if you want to. It doesn't do anybody any good.

Posted by Daniele E. on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 11:39 am

It is not rocks off and railing, it is evaluating what has happened recently and is not contested in the historical record so that we can figure out what's worked and what's not with Obama so that we can quit doing the latter and do more of the former.

Absent a massive show of force that gives them no other option, the likes of which the enviro nonprofits are enjoined from ever mobilizing, they're going to do what they want to do because they think that we're "effin' retards."

Posted by marcos on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 12:02 pm

..."the likes of which the enviro nonprofits are enjoined from ever mobilizing".
You are a pessimist. Or, put another way, you are a wimp when it comes to people power. You sap energy from a movement, instead of helping it along. That is what I see in you.

Why not use your words, your breath to inspire action, instead of lamenting and being cynical?

I see that Obama spoke for the 99% in his state of the union and inaugural speech, BECAUSE of the Occupy MOVEMENT. That is what I saw. I also see that he goes along quite nicely, as you pointed out, w/ Bush policies when it comes to many things...He is leading a country, alas, not the Progressive front. That is another thing I see.

So the only choice we have is to make noise--a lot of noise and build a movement that can't be ignored. That's where I chose to put my energy. I'll leave the evaluating of Obama to you but I hope that whatever conclusions you draw it leads you to the same place i'm at, which is that ultimately, it's all on you.

Posted by Daniele E. on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 12:24 pm

We all know the only things that get their attention, losing their money, their property or their life/limb. I don't see us going for the last, the middle one is problematic, therefore the only thing that they understand that is on the table is losing their money.

What are we going to do to raise the monetary cost of continuing to do business as usual? Short of that, it is all a dog and pony show.

Perhaps if I took happy pills, I could convince myself that reality was otherwise. But based on the historical record, that's how I see it. I wish the case were otherwise but it is not and I'm not going to lie to myself just to feel good. Being dishonest with oneself is the best way to lose.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 12:38 pm

When people start using their muscle and voting for third-party candidates, Dems and Repugs will get the message pretty fast. But we haven't reached that tipping point yet. I believe it will happen sooner...when the price of bread reaches makes it all but out of bounds. That's how revolutions generally get started. Too bad it has to come to that.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 12:56 pm

Cooling my jets until we reach the inflection point, there is nothing more to do now but live your life and enjoy yourself.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 5:57 pm

well, until there's some serious voting reform in the way of ranked choice on a national level, i can't see much progress there.

Posted by Daniele E. on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 7:12 pm

"based on the historical record" you say you can't see anything that would get them to act except killing them, destroying their property, or making them feel it in the pocketbook? Well, what about Vietnam (unless you are talking about the weather underground)? You conveniently forget that it was a mostly a positive movement where people didn't stand for something and came together en masse to make their displeasure known. To stand for peace, not inanity. That's history for you.

So I disagree with your premise, marcos.

It's not a matter of taking happy pills. I think you are attached to your predilection to hypothesize in the negative when things don't go your way as fast as you'd like them to. A lot of people get attached to their complain mode and then unconsciously use that to justify not taking the risk of letting it go in favor of getting out of one's comfort zone. So I'd say think hard about your assumption that "happy pills" is what I'm on. No, rather, it's getting out of one's comfort zone and getting to work, the only way anything ever gets accomplished in this world.

Posted by Daniele E. on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 7:10 pm

The system responded to protest during Vietnam, but after Seattle, the system quit responding to protest. We have to learn to try other tactics in the hope that one of them might work. Adapt or die.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 7:23 pm

Seattle & what came after were short-lived events. One-offs. Plus Seattle was marred by violence. Not the same. Vietnam was a huge, ever-expanding movement that could not be ignored. But let's be fair: people were getting drafted. It really hit people where they lived. That helped grow the movement.

I'm hoping that maybe with the advent of the internet (cause let's face it: that is a new influence today/a new force) people will "get" what's going down in a way that will make them act. Imagery is powerful, and anyway, it is up to us to spread the word.

So who knows what devices will be used? My point is engaging in a negative mind-set only makes *you* part of the problem. It's a weight where there doesn't need to be one. I'm all for "other tactics". I just don't dismiss as you seem to the reality and power and innate potential of people getting together...mystery is good, but you gotta act.

And I much prefer the term demonstration to "protest". There is much more power in demonstrating what you want and what you demand than protesting what you don't want. But that too takes more "work".

Posted by Daniele E. on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 9:28 pm

The government changed the rules of engagement after Seattle and effectively made protest ineffective. We have to adapt to that change in turn.

I'm not seeing much adaptation in practice, and I'm not expecting much from the NGOs.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 10:03 pm

You strike me as very defeatist. "The government changed the rules"..."The government made protest ineffective".

Nobody makes us ineffective. We are either effective or we are not, but we determine that, not the government.

We seem to see life differently. You have made an absolutist argument, ie : "it's done" (as far as "protest").
Maybe, the very thing that you lamented before (who made KXL the gold standard?) is the adaptation in practice that you seek: we have drawn a line in the sand, something to rally around, which helps mobilize people. Maybe that is a smart thing. It's concrete and discrete. A rallying cry. That will put pressure on Obama, make it very uncomfortable for him, provided we supply the pressure.

"I'm not seeing much adaptation in practice, and I'm not expecting much from the NGOs." That sounds to me like armchair activism, and maybe, just maybe your original premise is faulty in which case you can wait a long time before you "see" the kind of adaptation you seek. In the meantime you're just sitting there, smug + if you don't mind my saying, sounding powerless and like a stubborn little kid who didn't get his way and now no longer wants to play because of it.

Seems like you are discouraged because you want to see quicker change given the protests that have already occurred.
You just never know how something will unfold, so if you wanna stay on the sidelines of cynicism, be my guest, but you can count me (and hopefully a lot of other people) out.

Posted by Daniele E. on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 11:20 pm

Lines drawn in the sand are only as effective as there is public support behind them. There is no organic connection between the parade of progressive circus elephants at the NGOs and the American people. Thus, the priorities that they set do not reflect public sentiment. That is why turnout for these actions was so pathetic.

People are smart and learn quickly when their donated time is valued and when it is more productive to spend their time away from work with family and friends.

The fact is that corporate power has dedicated tremendous resources to out flanking popular initiatives. Either we identify the mechanics of that and intervene to neutralize it or we simply cannot compete.

From ignoring 10,000,000 in the streets against Bush I's invasion of Iraq, an illegal war enabled by the Democrat Party, to the example of the government repression of OWS in 2011, the old tools of resistance no longer function and it is incumbent upon us to identify new ones.

Just as science proves that climate change is real, political science proves based on observed data that certain paths of action taken in traditional ways are dead ends.

Yes it sucks, now deal with reality or change reality.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 6:11 am

You should watch this video if you want to understand better. It's not directly related to big oil, but then again, it kind of is:
http://www.facebook.com/video/embed?video_id=314263422009953" width="1280" height="720" frameborder="0">

Posted by Daniele E. on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 12:53 am

Is that video anywhere else other than on data mining FB? I don't go on FB.

(And if you don't know anything about data mining and FB either, google it.)

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 3:26 am

'Forward' on Fracking? Obama Scientist Makes Industry-Friendly Push for Gas Drilling Bonanza
Published on Saturday, February 16, 2013
Despite grave concerns about methane emissions and groundwater contamination signals show that White House push forward with controversial gas fracking
- Jon Queally, staff writer

One of Obama's top scientific advisers has signaled that the White House is poised to make a major push for the controversial practice of known as fracking--which environmental campaigners say is a betrayal of a truly clean energy agenda and evidence that the administration still misunderstands the severity of the climate dangers associated with all forms of fossil fuels.

The signals by Prof. William Press, an astrophysicist who heads the government-funded American Association for the Advancement of Science, were made at both an industry conference this week and in an interview with the Observer in the UK.

"The gas industry is straining to develop underground natural gas reserves across the nation and would love to know the exact rules and constraints by which it can carry out fracking in different states," Press told the Observer's Robin McKie. "Once they know that, they can get on with it....."

Posted by Guest on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 5:02 pm

The Keystone XL Pipeline is already being built in TX and other parts of the Midwest of the U.S.. It's being built by a Canadian company, including Canadian workers.
Remember Dra Jill Stein protested it? And she was arrested during the presidential campaign while others were gushing over their Obama. The sheeple could have voted for Dra Jill Stein or Durham/López and then we would not be talking about any of this. We would be talking about actual progressive policies. But the sheeple prefer to stay in their programmed D/R status quo rut of the one-party corporatist system pretending to be two parties and because of that, we can ensure more detrimental, dangerous climate change.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 5:11 pm

Correction: The Keystone XL Pipeline is already being built in TX *as well as* parts of the Midwest of the U.S.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 5:27 pm

... sounded just like you: scary, shrill, arrogant and condescending.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 5:35 pm

Even if that were remotely true (which it's not), are you so shallow and superficial to base your vote on what "supporters" sound like? You don't base your vote on the stated policies of the candidate like intelligent people do?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 7:11 pm

"Maybe we didn't vote for her because her supporters...
... sounded just like you: scary, shrill, arrogant and condescending."

LOL.

"Scary, shrill, arrogant and condescending" describes all of your smug, arrogant, right-wing shill, shrill and condescending posts on here, so it's interesting you would resort to that as a reason for not having the intelligence to vote for Stein or Durham.

LOL.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 7:22 pm

The goal here is to stay in Power, if you are a political organization. And if gas is $5 a gallon, your party won't get re-elected. That effects donors, and voters now. Climate change is an issue that is less immediate - not less important, just less immediate to voters. So Obama will approve the pipeline because it is politically expedient to do so. It may not even prevent gas from going that high, but it will be one less thing the GOP can use to attack Hillary, or whoever, next time.

Posted by Richmondman on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 6:23 am

Oil and gas companies are always among the industries to spend the most on lobbying. ExxonMobil, BP and Exelon contributed $772,000 to Obama’s re-election campaign and that's just through mid-April of last year (anyone know the latest figure?). To top it off, ExxonMobil donated $250,000 to the Presidential Inaugural Committee. During the 2008 campaign, Obama took $884,000 from the oil and gas industry, more than any other lawmaker except his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain. He was also the top recipient of dollars from BP in 2008. Is it any wonder that he is going all out to push fracking, as Guest above points out? Obama has said that becoming an energy exporter is one of his top priorities. Trust me, he will greenlight the Keystone XL pipeline.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 2:28 pm

not if we have anything to do with it. anyway, i hope he won't, and if he does, that there will be bodies on the line to stop it. but while the oil cos have the big bucks, we have the numbers...we just have to grow our movement, but i believe this is a movement whose time, if it hasn't already come, is fast approaching.

Posted by Daniele E. on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 10:19 pm

You have some strong stuff there. Do you get a good rate on it? It is a local supplier?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 11:59 pm

16 degrees F windchill in Washington DC for the protest!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 9:49 pm

so what do you have to say to that, Demented?

(btw, your name is so apropos ;)

Posted by Guest on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 1:32 pm

Global colding.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 6:04 pm

As for the protest in the District of Columbia, Mr Change We Can Believe In didn't see any of it (not that he would have had he stayed in the District).

He was conveniently away for the weekend at a private golf resort in Florida—playing a round with Tiger Woods no less.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 2:09 am

Barry most likely went to play golf in FL when he heard the demonstrators were coming. He did it as a favor to them I think. Barry didn't think it would be polite to laugh in their faces after they came all that way to save the climate ... better to burn 200,000 gallons of fuel in his weekend 747 jet trip than to hurt their feelings. There was a previous demonstration I forget the date when thousands of people surrounded the White House and for most of that day Barry was also away playing golf. He really seems to like playing golf, just like George W. Bush whose policies he has continued.

I read on another forum from reliable sources that Jill Stein was off to participate in an anti-clearcutting protest after the re-election of Barry. I wonder what Barry was doing that day? Playing golf?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 4:19 am

http://davidswanson.org/node/3970.

The same lessons apply to yesterday's action here. Why surround a closed building on a Sunday of a 3 day weekend? Most of the energy of the volunteer monitors (aka the peace police) was to keep the crowd from spreading into the street and to keep people from congregating and speaking with friends and new acquaintances.

The event improved when it moved into Bradley Manning Plaza, and the turnout was decent. But polite pleadings aren't going to affect the decision making when billions of dollars of profit are at stake. I don't have an easy answer, but I know that it includes no business as usual.

Perhaps the best result of these scripted parades will be the radicalization of a new generation of activists when their (fading) hero Obama approves the Keystone XL pipeline, and young people educate themselves on the limits of the one party with two names electoral system.

Posted by Eddie on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 9:20 am

The fix is already in. Kerry has his marching orders. Obama made it clear in his SOTU that one of the three priorities of his "Fix-It-First" program is "..modern pipelines that can withstand a storm..".
Wat Climate Change.

Posted by Patrick Monk.RN. on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 10:01 am

If we yell at empty buildings long enough, they will relent and we will get what we want.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 12:12 pm

unless you just listen to do-nothing cynics like yourself, marcos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ8CoxnjjZg

Posted by Guest on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 1:43 pm

This is from the video you linked to. Are you really that gullible?

The video description says:
"Environmental activists are claiming victory after the Obama administration announced Thursday it will postpone any decision on the proposed 1,700-mile Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline until 2013."

Translation: Oh isn't that convenient that he waits until 2013. Why wait until 2013? Because by then the suckers will have already voted for him (in November 2012) and sent him money thinking that will do something to stop this nonsense, but Obama doesn't care what they think....because they are not his corporate owners.

Yes, I've seen it over and over. Many people are constantly prematurely "claiming victory." SUCKERS.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 4:03 pm

Well, if Naomi Klein says so, it must be true.

I've done more than you've ever imagined and more of it has worked than you've tried yourself.

Stuff quit working, so I started trying new stuff.

The new stuff that I tried was only kneecapped by the nonprofiteers and labor and used for their own narrow gain.

So I quit expanding the envelope to advantage those who hold me in contempt.

What is to be done? Nothing right now.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 6:17 pm

Marc, you come off like some disillusioned old fart, bewailing his past. Like someone who has failed to achieve anything of consequence in his life. Regret and bitterness is the luxury of the ultimate loser.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 1:06 pm

It is you who were yelling at empty buildings this weekend.

Let me know if the ruling class trembles in their boots and removes those boots from the neck of the biosphere because they are so afraid of what will happen if people yell at their empty buildings.

Please, put your money where your mouths are, show me how it's done, I anxiously await learning from you all how to succeed.

But don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining and insult me when I ask you to quit pissing on my leg because it is not raining at all, okay?

Posted by marcos on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 6:00 pm

"It is you who were yelling at It is you who were yelling at empty buildings this weekend."

Well you know it's best to do your little "protest" when offices are closed especially for a 3 day weekend. In the case of the District of Columbia "protest" government offices were closed as well as other offices in the District and essentially no one was there, including the guy being "protested," uh excuse me, "being pressured." They said they weren't protesting him but merely applying the "pressure" he had requested. (LOL. What damn thick people!)

And who exactly was around Bradley Manning Plaza and the Embarcadero Center area on a 3 day weekend? Nothing but empty buildings. Well that ought to do a lot of good, don't you think?

If these devout Obama believers really wanted to do something called a legitimate protest (not these faux-protests), they would do it in the middle of the work week and when the offices are full of people and they wouldn't ask for a damn permit. But they really don't want to "inconvenience" anyone so they ask for their little "protest" permits (if you have to ask for a permit then it's not a protest, suckers....."may we "protest," police state? may we have one of your little "protest" licenses, please? we promise to not do anything to rock the status quo or criticize any of your corporatist politicians whom we do so love based on our party allegiance of course.")

Yes it is pathetic and hopeless because thick, gullible, syrupy, drippy, delusional people like 1-2 on here never seem to "get it." They are always genuflecting to some D/R/R/D politician they've allowed themselves to devoutly fall for of the one party system. Sad.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 6:38 pm

"i wish he would take bolder measures, but i am convinced that what we have is better than a republican-led white house."----Daniele

Daniele, Obama is a neocon Republican with a purely symbolic D next to his name, but you can't see past that D. His policies are to the right of Bush. He has expanded the Bush policies.

Your comments on this thread are signature Obama-bot, despite your modus operandi denial (which you are clearly in) that you're not an Obama-bot. I have read such comments from the devout Obama believers ever since this man has been office. Talking with them is like trying to talk with a fundamentalist christian. "They want to believe....." (I see arms swaying in the air and tears coming down their faces).

To you, this is about Democratic party allegiance and you've said as much by your, "i am convinced what what we have is better than a republican-led white house."

Until you are able to see past this one corporatist party system with two names charade, you'll stay where you are. And I sense you're quite comfortable there...making excuses, defenses, justifications and blaming things on the other team (which Obama works).

In the meantime...

"You want to believe he wants to do the right thing....He needs tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime. He wants to do the right thing..."

[scream]

I'm not wasting any more time with you because I've learned that one gets no where with Obama-bots. They are no different than the rabid Bush disciples, often using the same tactics (which of course the hypocrites criticized under Bush.

This is your type of site

obamamessiah dot blogspot dot com

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 4:00 pm

"To you, this is about Democratic party allegiance and you've said as much by your, "i am convinced what what we have is better than a republican-led white house."

I've barely even been a Democrat for all the 32+ years I've voted. My first vote was for an Independent, so you got me pegged wrong on that, sorry.

And I do see past the corporatist 2-party system. Bla bla bla...why are you so focused on damning me? Really, what does that give you?

Your main gripe seems to be that I am wasting my time—we all are—by giving energy to a movement. Then pray tell, what do you suggest we do? I'd love to hear.

This all gets very boring to me in the end. I'm interested in action. I'm interested in the health of the planet. And I wish there were ONE party only, cause all these labels don't do us much good either. They just keep us in separate camps, comfortable either there, or in these blogs insulting each other's intelligence w/ what we think we do or don't "see". Get over yourself, and use your energy to make a difference. Otherwise, it's all a lot of hot air, and I've heard it all before.

Posted by Daniele E. on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 7:33 pm

et voila! In fact, there is only ONE corporate party: the Party of Wall Street...or whatever you wish to call it. It is divided into two factions to give the appearance of a difference (and a choice), but there is no difference in actual fact. But don't fret. Just close your eyes and click your red heels together, and if you imagine very hard, you might convince yourself that Obama is your candidate in shining armor. That he cares, and if only you yell loud enough, he'll heed the call. Because there's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place... And nothing like a good dollop of delusion.

Posted by Glinda, the Good Witch on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 1:36 pm