The link to your article wouldn't work for me.
The idea of settling for changes at the local level when national efforts fail is reasonable but dangerously insufficient unless it leads to a groundswell for bigger change.
The longest journey begins with one step, but we can't forget where we want to go.
They will strive to change the map to keep us from getting there, and if that fails, they will give a little, and try to convince us we've arrived, though we're short of our goals.
Like Bush said about nukes in Iran, it isn't enough to deny them the capability, they want to prevent them from having the knowledge... that same mentality applies to everything and anyone who stands in the way of the establishment getting what they want.
Like Walmart closing any store that dares to unionize, we are up against a group that will slash and burn to maintain their grip.
I'm not trying to be a downer, but let's not, er, misunderestimate what we're up against (sorry, two Bush quotes in one comment).
Just saying that if we truly want the big changes that will make life better, we must recognize our foe will respond, and they are usually successful. They will sell us a militaristic corporatist who calls herself a peace-loving progressive, and enough of us may be sold.
They write the rules. We should expect losses. We should expect casualties without losing our will.
The best way to do that is to recognize that Obama or Edwards would be better than Hillary, even though they don't share Ralph Naders ideology.
It will be a while, if ever, until we get the big win. Until then, the little wins we hear about from Sirota and Progressive States Network should remind us what is possible, and what we're trying to do.




Loading comments…

Posted October 26, 2007 | 03:11 PM (EST)