Something is very wrong...don't you think?

[rooftoprevolutionary]

Run time: 01:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyTHxOUPF48   Posted on YouTube: February 26, 2010 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: February 26, 2010 By DU Member: rooftoprevolutionary Views on DU: 8204

 

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Superb video

[roosterpack]

55. great video

my personal kudos on the effort.

but i'll echo some of the previous posters sentiments in which they saw the need to remove the mask.

personally i want the gop thugs to see my face in full glowing red anger. i want them to be 100% aware that i'm not their friend.

dissent doesn't need a mask..........niether does the truth.

[mifdsam]

2. Very wrong

I totally agree, something like this should not happen

[liberalhistorian]

3. Can you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

give at least SOME idea of what this is, or any video is before posting, for those of us who are hearing impaired and rely on closed captioning, of which the videos are NOT? PLEASE? We've asked this here a million times and it's really getting frustrating and annoying. Just a couple sentences of what it's about would help. Is that really too much to ask?

[rooftoprevolutionary]

4. Sorry about that

Thank you for watching the video - apologize for not putting up the appropriate information, will for sure do so in the future.

Thanks again,
RR

[quark219]

8. Synopsis for hearing-impaired

This is a montage of photos and quotes that covers a variety of wrongs in America of today: two expensive wars that are draining resources and taking lives, bank bailouts, home foreclosures, etc. There is no voiceover, just a soundtrack of a mournful, slow, electric guitar.

[nilram]

18. +10! thanks

[D-Lee]

31. I know there is a UTube captioning link -- hint to the moderators

add it automatically to video postings, if that is possible?

[Double T]

5. Great video!

Pathetic, disgraceful country to allow this to happen. Revolution the cure.

[tavalon]

20. I used to think that revolution was the cure

But looking at history, it carries some dangers I'm not sure are worth the cathartic price. See the French Revolution as an example. The French may have felt very justified being at the barricades but Napoleon found a power vacuum and fucked with the French even worse than Marie Antoinette did.

Power abhors a vacuum. Unless we have a good solid plan to follow the revolution, it is a dangerous thing to wish for.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

29. I tend to agree with you tavalon

really hadn't put it into words, but now that I see yours, I feel very sure that change through rule of law is the best longterm way to go.

Yeah yeah, impatience wants to strangle idiots who create the lies fooling too many into bizarro world, but ...hmm you make another good point -- it's not necessarily revolution in itself that's dangerous, but revolution with no structure to support it through the longterm is very dangerous.


hmmm, hmmm... I'm not a history scholar... I wonder what's been the outcome of other revolutions through history.....

[ladywnch]

34. it would kinda be like invading a country and over throwing the sitting

government without any post invasion plan for governing. Sound vaugely familiar......I know I've heard of this kinda thing before......I just can't seem to put my finger on where........it'll come to me......oh yeah, I remember........IRAQ!

[ooglymoogly]

42. Gandhi did it. Why can't we. The answers

are right in front of us and we can't see them. The blinders and pacifiers, that have been placed on us, are just about any inane grabber on Tee Vee that diverts our attention and hides what is really happening. Add to that deadly mix, a corporate media telling us only what it wants us to hear, and hyping that which is dangerous to us, not counting those blessed and intrepid few and at least here on DU, we know who they are and heap on them the accolades they deserve.

[peacetalksforall]

30. Thank you for that tavalon. Never thought about that hole. And it's so obvious.

[rooftoprevolutionary]

38. Totally agree

I'm not advocating a revolution, although I would like to point out our own revolution as an example of how people organizing and standing up together can yield positive results.
The French Revolution was incredibly violent and disorganized. It became a paranoid blood fest that turned on its own people. I'm calling for an organized, intelligent uprising, a peaceful one. Marching together as a people towards a common goal doesn't mean firing off rockets from rooftops and shooting people who disagree with you. It's a civil rights movement, a movement to ensure that we the people decide who governs and how they govern, not mr. citi bank or blackwater.

The more we make excuses as to how revolutions are bad or unwieldy, the more power can be taken from us, and will be. Again, I don't advocate violence, I hate violence. I do advocate change, and I advocate that the people stand up for themselves. If we don't stand up for our own rights, why should we expect anyone else to?

[Drops_not_Dope]

41. you do have some interesting associates

http://www.meetup.com/Rooftop-Revolutionaries/members/

[rooftoprevolutionary]

49. yes i do

thank you for noticing. hope to see you on the 6th

[tavalon]

58. I don't believe this person has done anything to warrant a call out

[liberation]

40. Wrong historical context. The French revolution was not due to Marie Antoinette

Granted she did not help things, but Napoleon's rule and the monarchical clusterf*ck of the Luises were two very different phenomenons.

I agree completely with the notion that revolutions can only be successful if there is a clear objective and a proper protocol to deal with the ensuing power vacuum.

[tavalon]

59. Teach me to throw out references without checking them

I have a mind like a steel sieve.

[timeforpeace]

6. Obama likes war. Who knew?

[truedelphi]

7. rooftoprevolutionary Thank you and good to make yr acquaintance

Glad to meet someone who doesn't have pom poms where their grey
matter should be

[winyanstaz]

9. K & R...great post...

I am forwarding this to family and friends...
This needs to be seen by everyone.

[rooftoprevolutionary]

10. Thank you!

Please invite them as well to the skype video and chat on March 6th!

[asdjrocky]

11. Very good.

The woman on the grave is very moving. Wish you'd let the great quotes you picked burn the screen for a little longer.

Thought it was a powerful vid.

[JSK]

23. Yeah, the images go by too fast

especially the quotes.

[bertman]

12. Very moving. Rec.

[midnight]

13. Yes. Something very wrong continues. Neocon wars, and banking.

[theFrankFactor]

14. With All Due Respect, and I Mean That...

How do we go forward and ignore our differences? People are selling this right now but I'm not clear what that means. I can't fathom an issueless movement.

The things you show in this video cause me to feel anger at the failure of Democrats to stand up to the decisions that lead to those results as well as being complicit in causing them. I look to Republicans for absolutely NOTHING but trouble. What am I not getting?

I want Progressives to triumph. I mean, maybe I'm a political and social Neanderthal but I can't sign up for "not left, not right but forward". That has no meaning to me.

PS I'm not trying to be a dick. I listened to some of your other video and you sound bright, articulate and like you are passionate. I'm just having trouble with the goal.

[quark219]

15. I'll second that.

Frank said it well. I'm thinking the same thing. I'm chiming in just to let you know Frank's response isn't a one-off--but there's probably quite a few who feel the same.

The "not left, not right" slogan, and the video you posted awhile back where you seemed to be addressing all of us here at DU at "idealogues" or "extremists," are both off-putting because they suggest a shallow understanding of where the nation is at politically and economically.

The central problem confronting this nation is not two parties that bicker constantly and get nothing done, but that seems to be your take on it. Ergo, the solution you seem to be offering: "Let's put aside our differences and move forward!"

The central problem confronting this nation is that since Ronald Reagan's election, forces on the right have been pushing this nation farther and farther in the direction of fascism, to the point that we have entered a stage of "fascism light," or, in other words, a corporatocracy. At the same time, progressive institutions and even a basic spirit of civic duty have come under attack, to the point that (as reported recently on "The Young Turks") fire departments in some communities are now providing bills to homeowners for putting out their fires.

ALL of the problems that your most recent video features in its montage, in fact--such as pointless wars that are promoted by the military-industrial complex, banks that are "too big to fail" that are rescued with trillions of dollars from the middle class, which then use that money to lavish executives with $10M bonuses--can be seen as a result of this nation's slide toward fascism. What's needed to counter this trend is a reassertion of liberal and progressive ideas--not some kind of apolitical forget-our-differences mindset that you seem to be repeatedly calling for.

I'm also puzzled by what seems to be an inherent contradiction in what you're doing. You call your group "Rooftop Revolutionaries" and you always appear in the videos wearing a kerchief, as if the "revolutionary" message you're broadcasting might get you in trouble. Revolutionaries challenge the status quo, and the status quo is almost always conservative and right-wing. Ergo, most revolutionaries are left-wing, liberal, or progressive. But it seems you don't really want to identify yourself as a liberal or a progressive.

Just how much success do you expect to have changing any of the things featured in your most recent video without being a progressive, let alone a true revolutionary?

Not too long ago, I suggested you read Thom Hartmann's "Screwed: The Undeclared War Against America's Middle Class." From your response, it was clear you had not read it. I encourage you to do so because it will quickly give you a deeper understanding of this nation's politics and ideological trends than you have now.

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Screwed-Undeclared-Against-Middle-ebook/dp/B001AFF25M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=digital-text&qid=1267249621&sr=8-1

I admire your spirit and energy, but I think you need to do a little more homework if you're going to be effective as an up-and-coming revolutionary.

[LatteLibertine]

24. Agree with all of this

Add in the prison industrial complex. Incarceration is big business. It is also used to oppress, abuse and exploit.

This nation is firmly in the grasp of crony capitalism and corporatism.

[dotymed]

26. May I add

"SHOCK DOCTRINE" by Naomi Klein. This gives a great, realistic view of the accompanying financial dictates that are controlling both our foreign and domestic policies. Honestly, I have to read "SCREWED", I really appreciate Thom and I have not read that. While I have heard him quote from it, it is not the same. I will have to request an "inter-library loan" from my small town library. Oh... if I could just earn now...:hurts:

[bread_and_roses]

27. excellent post (n/t)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

33. "Rooftop" revolution = voting from the rooftops i.e. with guns.

In other words, violent revolution.

I think we can pretty much figure out where OP is "coming from".

[quark219]

36. A number of things puzzle me about the "Rooftop Revolutionaries"

I suspect that the "Rooftop Revolutionaries" moniker comes from the Iranian revolutionaries, who have a tradition of taking to the rooftops in the cover of night and loudly screaming "Allahu akbar!" (God is great!) when trying to foment change. But I really don't know.

More broadly, I'm having a hard time figuring out what the RR agenda is. On their website (http://www.meetup.com/Rooftop-Revolutionaries/), they feature a slogan with the words, "No Candidates... No Partisanship... No Ideologies...."

A revolutionary without an ideology? Huh?

But more troubling to me than that oxymoron are the website's numerous links and mini-ads for conservative, right-wing groups: The John Birch Society, the Los Angeles ProServative Group ("pro-guns, pro-life, pro-states' rights"), and the California Rifle and Pistol Association.

The Rooftop Revolutionary slogan notwithstanding, EVERYONE has an ideology. Those who claim they don't are either unaware of their own bias or they are deliberately hiding it. I'm beginning to think that Eleanor G (the one behind the kerchief in the RR videos) may have an ideology closer to the Tea Party movement than to the progressive ideologies found on DU.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

37. The expression "voting from the rooftops" far predates the current Iranian situation.

The links you have described are not "puzzling" at all, it's obvious enough that you/we are being trolled by right wingers.

[quark219]

43. You may be right on both counts, but . . .

The Iranians have taken to their rooftops to protest their rulers at least 31 years, since the time of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. I suspect it goes back in their culture farther than that, but don't really know.

I hadn't heard the expression you cite ("voting from the rooftops") before, but from a quick Google search it seems nearly everyone else has. :) So you may well be right. I'm hoping Eleanor G will state, for the record, where her name comes from.

As far as all the right-wing groups that are linked on the RR website: I'm not quite ready to write her off yet. Reason: The Meetup website, which she's using to organize, may be automatically plugging in the Meetup groups that are nearest to her geographic location (Los Angeles), and it may simply be the case that the vast majority of those groups are right-wing. I don't know if Meetup gives users the ability to select which other Meetup groups display on the user's homepage.

Still, if that's the case, you've got to ask: Wouldn't most people who have a progressive bone in their body find ANY association with those groups so repellent that they'd find a different platform through which to organize?

Bottom line (for me): You may be right on both counts. But I'd like to hear from Eleanor G. She's responded to feedback on DU before, and I'm hopeful she'll do so this time.

[rooftoprevolutionary]

46. Interesting

First of all, hahahaha to the insinuation that I got my name from Iranian revolutionaries - that's a good one, I'll have to use that at my next meeting. However, as assumption is a dangerous thing, particularly in politics, let me set the record straight. I live on a roof. There you go, no more complicated than my geographical location.

And speaking of danger, ideologies are incredibly dangerous. May I recommend that you read "The Death of Conservatism" by Sam Tanenhaus, where he discusses the dangers of adhering blindly to any one ideology. If you read further on any posts of mine, you might see that that is what I'm against. In politics, if you support any one ideology without question, you are in no place to govern. Whether you like it or not, government is about constant compromise. You have to continuously question and analyze your standpoints and how they affect the people you govern, what your decisions will mean for the millions asking for them.
Furthermore, I am not afraid to show my face, although I'm quite sure some government agency has a file on me for speaking my mind, since that is a dwindling right. I wear the flag as a statement. I wear it to show that this country is strangling its own people, holding people back, covering them up, as it were. You may choose to see it however you wish, but again, since you seem to be a fan of assumptions, I'm just setting the record straight.

I think that you sir, are the exact kind of person that is holding this country back. You cling so blindly to your leftist ideologies that you don't see where they go wrong. You think that anyone who questions the left is a member of the Tea Party movement or harboring an NRA membership, as you wrote. I used to be like that too. And then I realized that that isn't getting us anywhere. All that does is perpetuate the in-fighting that is dragging this country down. If you fail to recognize all the back and forth bickering that causes major issues to be ignored, you need to pay more attention.

Oh, and p.s. nice try with the links and mini-ads on my page. They name other political meetup groups and posted ads by whoever pays for them, aka whoever has the money to. I have no more control over them than I do your blindly thrown, ill advised and poorly researched insults.

Thanks for watching.

[quark219]

54. Response to "Rooftop Revolutionaries" (LONG POST)

Eleanor, I’ve been trying to engage in a dialogue with you, but you seem to be taking it personally, which is regrettable.

Let me respond to your recent post in as dispassionate a fashion as possible so we can keep the focus on your ideas.

1. In your first paragraph, you say that I “insinuated” that your group’s name comes from the Iranian revolutionaries of the past year. I never “insinuated” anything ("insinuate," after all, means to make a disparaging implication). Rather, I openly stated that I suspected that’s where the name of your group came from, but also plainly said that I did not know if that was the case.

While you seem to have been offended by this, there was no insult intended. I think the behavior of the Iranian revolutionaries in 2009 was an inspiration—and I figured anyone who is calling for American citizens to act and demand change of their own government would have been following the Iranians closely. I know I was. The audio of the revolutionaries crying out from the rooftops all over Tehran in the wake of Neda Agha-Soltan's murder was profoundly moving. Frankly, it puzzles me that anyone could decide to call a group “Rooftop Revolutionaries” in the months following that uprising and be surprised that others would make the connection.

Note that another poster was guessing that your group’s name comes from the phrase “voting from the rooftops,” a euphemism for armed revolution. I didn’t agree with that theory (while allowing it might be right), but responded that “I'd like to hear from Eleanor G. She's responded to feedback on DU before, and I'm hopeful she'll do so this time.”

Well, you certainly did respond—and with indignation that strikes me as misplaced. Eleanor, if you post videos on the Web, and name a group “Rooftop Revolutionaries” without explanation, it will provoke questions. Being offended by the questions is a bit like walking out on the street painted green from head-to-toe and then becoming angry when passersby ask, “What’s with the green paint?”

Your explanation of your group’s name (that you live on a roof) certainly clears things up. Thank you. But without your saying that up front, how were your viewers to have known?

2. In your second paragraph, you begin by making the statement “ideologies are incredibly dangerous,” which is nonsense. Ideologies are simply “the integrated assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program” (Websters). They are the very basis for political action. There is nothing wrong with ideologies or ideologists, per se; the only case where ideology becomes problematic is in the case of the ideologue, one who is a “blindly partisan advocate of a particular ideology” (also Websters).

I’m taking pains with this error of usage because I think it is contributing to the confusion in your thinking. You seem to believe that any ideology is, ipso facto, bad. And therefore (according to this reasoning) argue that the only way forward is to avoid all ideologies. (Thus the slogan of your group: “Not left, not right, but forward!”)

What seems to elude you is the fact that there is no way to move policies forward without that movement tilting the political landscape, however slightly, more toward the left or more toward the right.

Also in this second paragraph of yours, you suggest I read Tanenhaus’s “Death of Conservatism.” I already have, but in light of your post, I took it off the shelf to review it. I can appreciate how this book has become central to your thinking—but I have to say that when I first read it, it struck me as containing a lot of muddled thinking—and now, in the wake of Obama’s first year in office, it already seems hopelessly out of date. Nonetheless, I do have to ask: You are aware, are you not, that the general thrust of Tanenhaus’s book is that modern conservatism is “dead” because the conservatives, unlike the liberals, have become increasingly extreme and have lost the ability to reason with and work with their opponents? In short, Tanenhaus argues that conservatives have become ideologues.

Since you’ve recently read the book, I’m surprised by your oft-stated position that liberals and conservatives are equally to blame for the current state of affairs and need to meet in the middle. (“Screw conservative principles, screw liberal principles—we need to meet in the middle." --Rooftop Revolutionaries, Video 6, 2/7/2010, 1:46-1:51.)

3. In your third paragraph, you talk about the flag kerchief you use to hide your face in your videos. This seems to be in response to my main post, where I point to an apparent contradiction: you label yourself, and appear in your videos, as a revolutionary—yet revolutionaries, by definition, advocate an overturn of the status quo, which is almost always conservative in nature (as it most certainly is now in the United States). I find it odd that you are labeling yourself and appearing in your videos as a revolutionary, but far from being a progressive or liberal, you argue against all ideologies.

You explain the use of the flag kerchief by stating that it is “to show that this country is strangling its own people,” which is interesting and original. But it doesn’t answer the central question: How can you expect to foment a revolution without taking a political stance?

4. In your fourth paragraph, you claim that I wrote that “anyone who questions the left is a member of the Tea Party movement or is harboring an NRA membership.” That’s a fabrication; I never wrote any such thing. What I did state, after seeing the advertisements for the John Birch Society and other far-right political groups on your website, was that I was “beginning to think that you may have an ideology closer to the Tea Party movement than to the progressive ideologies found on DU.”

Your indignation about this comment of mine, mild as it was, is all the more peculiar since you have already stated in one of your videos that you were, in fact, recently a member of the Tea Party movement. ("The Tea Party movement began as a populist movement about a year ago in response to the bailouts and the stimulus plan—and, actually, I was a part of it." –Rooftop Revolutionaries, Video 5, 2/5/2010, 0:49-1:01.)

In the same video, you state your reasons for leaving the Tea Party, which is all well and good. But I have to tell you: few of us at DU would ever have joined the Tea Party at any point. Its ideology has never made much sense. Unfortunately, you seem to still be espousing some of that Tea Party policy confusion. For example, in one of your recent videos, you decry the state of America’s infrastructure. ("This country's infrastructure is fucked and we need to do something about it ASAP." –Rooftop Revolutionaries, Video 7, 2/10/2010, 3:31-3:38.) But somehow it doesn't occur to you that the very same stimulus bill that you were protesting against as a member of the Tea Party does more to repair that infrastructure than any piece of legislation in the past 30 years.

5. In your fifth paragraph, you remark “nice try” regarding my observation that your website has several ads and links for far-right conservative groups. Eleanor, I wasn’t trying to “get you” or implicate you dishonestly; this isn’t a game. I think it is a legitimate cause of concern when someone shares their webpage with advertisements for the John Birch Society and the “Los Angeles 9/12 Project for Glenn Beck Fans.” You respond that you have no control over those ads. But similar to my response regarding your membership in the Tea Party movement, I’ve got to tell you: very few of us in DU would be willing to share our Web presence with ads for groups championing Glenn Beck. We’d find another medium that didn’t force us to rub elbows with someone who is dishonest, appeals to the lowest common denominator, and is stirring up fear and hatred.

You close out your final paragraph by characterizing the feedback I’ve offered you as “blindly thrown, ill advised, and poorly researched insults.” I’m sorry you’re not able to respond to my points, but view them as some sort of personal attack. That’s not the spirit in which they were offered. You've got a lot to learn; but with such a hair-trigger temper in response to feedback, I'm not hopeful.

[rooftoprevolutionary]

63. oh my

well, if i've taken it personally, may i say, sir, so have you.

again, assumption is dangerous. i actually haven't taken any of this personally. i view it as a discourse between two politically engaged people. i just feel that some of your comments have little to do with politics and called you out on them.

to clear up a few points that you still don't seem to understand: you didn't ask "what's with the green paint," you assumed. assumption is the mother of all fuck ups and i don't see why you wouldn't just ask. if you would have asked, i would have happily replied.
as far as my meetup group goes, again, if you look at my previous post, the groups that are previewed on my page are for other los angeles meetup groups. it has nothing to do with me that they made that meetup group. in fact, it's their right to make a meetup group. you can go on there and make a meetup group saying "rooftop revolutionary is out of her mind." that's your right.

also, be careful to speak for many of your peers. again, perhaps you should try asking what they would do instead of assuming their actions just in order to talk me down.

as far as the kerchief goes, here is the definition of ideology: 1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

i have no body of doctrine or belief system that walks me towards my goals. i have ideas. there is a big difference. i am not into the religious idea of having to do this or that simply because my ideology dictates it. government is a constant state of compromise, always questioning your own ideals against what is best for those you govern. hence, my skype video and chat on the 6th. i want people to come together and tell me their ideas. for example, i think the biggest issue to tackle at the moment is the corporate stranglehold on our government. i'd like to open up a dialogue with other concerned citizens and see where they stand. i don't want followers, i want informed people walking with me, not behind me.
i am glad that you have read that book and agree with your conclusions that you have drawn. but i also think outside of the book and argue that many on the left are ideologues as well.

you seem to take it personally that i blog here on democratic underground since i'm not so clearly left. you are right. i'm not clearly left, but i'm not right either. i'm sorry this bothers you. to be honest tho, most americans don't stringently adhere to either, they are moderate thinking. therefore, i don't see why you appear so angry at the idea of me not running to the left side and hoisting a flag claiming my undying devotion. i'm devoted to the US, not a group of greedy-eyed politicians, which I might point out, that both sides harbor.
my goal is to move forward, as i said, with a group of concerned citizens, to work together, not because we support this candidate or this party but because we support the ideals of this country. again, i'm sorry that this perplexes you.

thanks for reading, watching and responding.

[quark219]

65. Well, considering that you were a Teabagger less than a year ago...

... and are now posting on DU, I guess that's good progress.

Good luck with your March 6 meeting.

[quark219]

66. CORRECTION: Considering that you were a Teabagger a FEW WEEKS ago...

It's amazing what turns up in the Google cache:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:PgTir4YGgsEJ:www.meetup.com/Los-Angeles-Tea-Party/members/8257986/

I thought I smelled a rat. And sure enough...

[rooftoprevolutionary]

69. you are hilarious

if you took just a little bit of the time you seem to obsess over me and actually do something useful, you might make a good political activist...

good luck with that.

[lib_wit_it]

72. Well said!

[dotymed]

25. Hi Frank

I'm sorry I have not stopped by your sight for awhile. Medical necessities..anyway, I hope this is another step in the direction to start a Progressive Party. We have a few Democrats and 1 great Independent, who could begin the leadership of a newly created PP (lol). IMO, that is a great way to begin a non-violent revolution. Who knows, maybe President Obama would be emboldened by this and maybe not join, but see this as an opportunity to steer left?

[theFrankFactor]

32. Thanks MIke!

[rooftoprevolutionary]

39. you're not a dick

I appreciate you watching and your comments.
I understand where you're coming from and just think you're looking at it the wrong way.
I'm not saying that we should all sit around a campfire singing kumba-ya and eat smores together. I feel as you do, that Democrats have done nothing to slow or stop the demise of this country, and the Republicans haven't either. They both have blood on their hands. Lewis Black once said that the Republican party is a party of bad ideas and the Democratic party is a party of no ideas.

I tend to agree. So, since that is the case, why do we stand by them? I refuse to stand on the left side or the right, because neither one of them do a damn thing to better this country. The idea of moving forward, not left or right, is the idea of progression. The sooner we come out of the murky, corrupt corners of our respective parties, the sooner we'll be able to facilitate real change and not just throw shit at each other like two banana-less monkeys in a cage.

And the movement is certainly not issueless! Quite the contrary - the movement is the issue. It's the issues that we deal with on a day-to-day basis that aren't being dealt with by government: money, health care, schools, wars. Now, obviously, you can't change that all in a day, but you can organize for change. You can say, screw this, I'm not gonna allow this shit to happen with my name on it. Because, after all, in a republic, your name is on every bomb dropped, every dollar spent. I'm not ok with those bombs and those dollars being spent where they are. That's the movement.
More of this will be discussed on the 6th at the skype video and chat, hopefully you can join. I'd like to come up with a plan of action. I have my ideas on where to start, but I'd like to hear what others have to say.


Hope to see you there and thanks for watching.

[boston bean]

56. You can dislike both parties, but you must have an ideology. do not confuse the two.

what is your ideology, not party affiliation or non party affiliation?

What is your stance on the issues? Do they lean left or right?

If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing.

You may be able to bring people together for a very short time without defining and just demanding somethings change, but the same old ideologies will be there. You will have infighting, the parties trying to take you over.

There has got to be a clear, well defined set of principles and goals for any group to effect change.

Then disparate or different groups can work together for one common end goal. The anti war movement had many warring factions, yet they wanted an end to war for instance. But each of those groups stood for something, whether or not they wanted the end goal for the same reason.

Hope that makes sense..... it's a jumbled up I know, but I think you can get the drift.

[rooftoprevolutionary]

61. goals are not ideologies

the end war movement had a goal to end unnecessary war, i have goals to change the way this country is run. i agree that is far too broad to exact change with, which is why i'm holding a skype video and chat on the 6th to hear from people what they think the biggest issue to tackle is. in my mind, the first and biggest issue is the corporate stranglehold on our government. i'd like to hear what other people have for ideas as well.
as i see it, ideologies are like faith. if you're catholic, your ideologies are those set down by that religion: you have to go to confession, you must take communion, you must do this and that. why? well, just because.
ideologies are: 1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group. 2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

i do not have a body of doctrine, i do not have a set list of beliefs that must be followed. i have goals and ideas. my goals will be carried out by incorporating other ideas into mine. the more people you have thinking, working towards a common goal, the better. i don't want followers, i want informed citizens with minds of their own. government is a constant state of compromise, of questioning your own ideals against what is best for the people. both parties are fucked, both are entrenched in corporate trenches. we may like to think it's just the right, but it's not, unfortunately.

thanks for watching.

[tavalon]

60. As a bleeding heart liberal to my very core, I can tell you there

are few in the government who represent me. Nonetheless, a movement without a coherent philosophy is just asking for huge bloodshed followed by a right wing coup. And they have already had a quiet coup, I'm not interested in a bloody right wing coup. I want us to move massively left, so I can't support "not left, not right." but I certainly am aware that I have no representation and I'm pissed that my taxation without representation goes to fight wars. That said, I'm no teabagger, I'm more of a Jeffersonian. He didn't like the idea of a two party system and neither do I.

I've considered trying to find common ground with the teabaggers but they are racists and rudderless to boot.

[rooftoprevolutionary]

62. so what did jefferson advocate?

i agree, the teabaggers are out there and no safety lines can bring them back to earth.
however, as you say, the left isn't exactly being a beacon of light these days either. the movement i'm attempting to create has a very steadfast philosophy: there is something very wrong, and we the people have to change it.
i'm sorry if i don't make that clear, i will do better to do so.

[tavalon]

64. I think it's the not left, not right that is offputting to us

While Duers are all over the map, we are, as a whole, far more liberal and far more activist than the average voter. If you focus on "there is something very wrong, and we the people have to change it", you'll get a lot further. As well, we need solutions for the followup to revolution. I'm not going to stand behind gentle or not gentle revolution unless there is a solid next step. It's just too dangerous to leave that up to chance (power abhors a vacuum). I'm not disagreeable to taking power away from the upper class because, as usual, they are giddy and selfish on their power trip.

Jefferson adamantly opposed the two party system. He felt it was rife with the possibility of collusion and dilution, both of which have come to pass. I personally prefer the instant runoff idea and of course, the rapid demise of proprietary voting machines like the ones by Diebold.

[rooftoprevolutionary]

68. definitely agree

we do need solutions. i do say that something is very wrong and we have to change it, that's what the video is all about.
that solid next step, in my mind, is to bring together informed, concerned citizens, like many of the people here on DU, and discuss what that is. i am having that skype video and chat on the 6th (this saturday) and i hope to get some really good ideas from there. i have my ideas as to what that next step is but i wanna hear what others have to say.

hope to see you there.

[tavalon]

70. I agree and while some here have trying to call you out

I'm joining your group. We need solutions and this game the politicians have been playing with us has served to keep us divided. It only serves the ruling elite and screws We The People.

[rooftoprevolutionary]

71. thanks

i'm very glad to have you - and look forward to hearing your ideas. hope to see you/talk to you on the 6th!

[liberation]

44. I think part of the problem is that progressives in this country....

... keep looking at a moderate conservative party to provide them with answers and representation.

If the Dem party as a platform feels they have to continue shifting to the right for whatever demented reasons, that is indeed their prerogative. I'd appreciate it if progressives got the memo already and started supporting actual progressive political platforms/candidatures. Until that happens, our perennial bitchfests and "surprise-a-thons" are and will continue being useless. Many liberals in this country simply can't get that the right declared hunting season on the left for the better part of the past 4 decades. Under that context, liberals continuing support for a party which is more interested in courting moderate conservative voters than actually support and stand up for liberal policies... that is in no other terms "f*cking retarded" (as Mr. Emmanuel would most likely put it).

[rooftoprevolutionary]

48. agree

we've both been at each others throats for a long time, ignoring the falling country around us. i think it's time to stop looking at somebody else or somebody's party to fix this for us, i think it's time to do it ourselves. if you ask the average american what they want, chances are, even if they're a registered republican, they agree with you: good education, health care, peace, sound money. the differences come with looking into issues and educating ourselves on them. i've spoken to many people who used to be hard right that ended up seeing faults in their party and leaving. why can't we do the same? are we so infallible? the conservatives have a lot of blood on their hands, but we're not perfect either. what i'm saying isn't to go over to the right and offer up a white dove and an olive branch. I'm saying it's time to stop moving right and left and move forward instead.

[Loudmxr]

16. That picture breaks my heart each time I see it.

We had a loss here in Burbank. A young police officer. His fiancee said at his funeral "I still smell you on my pillow." I remember that and say it often and aloud.

It is the poetry of love lost and love eternal. Just like that picture. :patriot:

[Hekate]

17. The photo of a young widow is FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

[BlueIris]

19. Thanks for posting. nt

[DisgustedInMN]

21. Of course something is very wrong..

.. but as The Frank F and Quark said above, almost all of the issues you raise, are products of the rightward movement of this Nation's political power. I don't want to "get along" with "the right" and that includes supposed "centrists," a phony name which is merely a mask for a rightie. I want them out of positions of power, ALL positions of power, forever. I want no compromise, no capitulation. I want their war-mongering greed and evil banished from our society. Reaching out to evil, is the problem, NOT the solution.

[rooftoprevolutionary]

47. agreed

Nowhere do I say that that is the answer. I also don't say we should reach out to the right, or the left for that matter. Fuck them both. Neither one of them is doing a damn thing for this country. It's time to think for ourselves and not just for our parties.

[DisgustedInMN]

52. Pardon me RR...

.. but I am "left" thank you very much. What makes you believe that I somehow can't "think for myself?" Neither major party is "left," perhaps the Dems might be "left" of the lunatic fringe righties, by not by a whole lot. There is no substantial political party for people who actually are "left" in this Nation and that is the problem. I suggest you rethink that there really is a significant difference between "Coke and Pepsi" parties. There isn't, beyond that one uses lube and the other doesn't. If you know what I mean.

[Joanne98]

22. Great video. K&R!

[ensho]

28. kick

nt

[orbitalman]

35. Oh the PAIN. nt

[ooglymoogly]

45. Excellent video, also went to Utube and gave it five. kr nt

[democracy1st]

50. K & R

[Shining Jack]

51. K&R n/t

[lunasun]

53. powerful

Think Bush/Cheney was using that Hitler quote as a mantra when starting up in Iraq???????

[butterfly77]

57. K&R!

[ellenfl]

67. kick for later. eom