Wednesday, October 08, 2008
October 8, 2008
As usual, Nader is being blamed for the Dems not being further ahead. Even with Barr pulling votes from McSame. Apparently, Nader is also pulling Republican votes. I've been asking people who is on the ballot here and no one seems to want to know. The head in the sand method seems to be the way people go.
Luckily the League of Women's Voters has their Online Voter's Guide! Too bad the Greens didn't get on the ballot here.
You can also celebrate the Fair Housing Act here! Thanks to Machi for the idea to post it here.
This has to be one of my favorite quotes from Vicente Navarro:
"...for those wishing to optimize the health of populations by reducing social and income inequalities, it seems advisable to support political forces such as the labor movements and social democratic parties, which have traditionally supported larger, more redistributive policies..."
Now I appreciate the Labor Party's choice of waiting to have 1,000 members before becoming an official political party. But in New Mexico 100 votes in a block could make a difference. For example if a coalition of small parties were able to pull 500 votes, they could use that to try and negotiate with candidates for specific issues.
But I regress...
What people pushing me to vote for Obama understand is that it does make a difference which party is in power. But "in countries with weaker labor movement labor movements and social democratic parties and stronger capitalist classes, such as the liberal Anglo-Saxon countries, there has been a weaker commitment to redistributive policies and worse health indicators."
As long as we continue to vote moderate to conservative we make that a norm. If the Democrats can depend on your vote regularly, then they can focus on chasing more moderate and conservative voters who are "the middle." The tough thing is getting enough resources to people willing to do labor and social democratic party organizing. Solidarity is key - "mortality reductions result from a larger set of related interventions guided by a political party or parties (socialist, social democratic, communist, labor, or whatever name is used to define these labor-oriented social democratic parties) that generate and reproduce a culture of solidarity and opportunity."
A big challenge is where to start. And starting small seems like the only answer at this point. "It is important to stress that even in countries, such as Italy, that have not been governed by social democratic forces, those regions of the country that have been governed by parties following social democratic policies of reducing inequalities and creating employment, such as the former Italian Communist Party (today the Left Democratic Party), have had lesser inequalities and better mortality indicators than other regions."
As Vicente concludes in "The Political Context of Social Inequalities and Health," ...that to reduce income inequalities and infant mortality, it is advisable to support labor base social democratic parties."
KEEP LEFTING!!!
Luckily the League of Women's Voters has their Online Voter's Guide! Too bad the Greens didn't get on the ballot here.
You can also celebrate the Fair Housing Act here! Thanks to Machi for the idea to post it here.
This has to be one of my favorite quotes from Vicente Navarro:
"...for those wishing to optimize the health of populations by reducing social and income inequalities, it seems advisable to support political forces such as the labor movements and social democratic parties, which have traditionally supported larger, more redistributive policies..."
Now I appreciate the Labor Party's choice of waiting to have 1,000 members before becoming an official political party. But in New Mexico 100 votes in a block could make a difference. For example if a coalition of small parties were able to pull 500 votes, they could use that to try and negotiate with candidates for specific issues.
But I regress...
What people pushing me to vote for Obama understand is that it does make a difference which party is in power. But "in countries with weaker labor movement labor movements and social democratic parties and stronger capitalist classes, such as the liberal Anglo-Saxon countries, there has been a weaker commitment to redistributive policies and worse health indicators."
As long as we continue to vote moderate to conservative we make that a norm. If the Democrats can depend on your vote regularly, then they can focus on chasing more moderate and conservative voters who are "the middle." The tough thing is getting enough resources to people willing to do labor and social democratic party organizing. Solidarity is key - "mortality reductions result from a larger set of related interventions guided by a political party or parties (socialist, social democratic, communist, labor, or whatever name is used to define these labor-oriented social democratic parties) that generate and reproduce a culture of solidarity and opportunity."
A big challenge is where to start. And starting small seems like the only answer at this point. "It is important to stress that even in countries, such as Italy, that have not been governed by social democratic forces, those regions of the country that have been governed by parties following social democratic policies of reducing inequalities and creating employment, such as the former Italian Communist Party (today the Left Democratic Party), have had lesser inequalities and better mortality indicators than other regions."
As Vicente concludes in "The Political Context of Social Inequalities and Health," ...that to reduce income inequalities and infant mortality, it is advisable to support labor base social democratic parties."
KEEP LEFTING!!!
Labels: Chicana and Chicano Votes, Hell In Handbasket, Real Democracy
