Hello from Chicago USA

[Rosendula]

Hello

[weatherwax]

Hi and welcome

[FarmerPhoebe]

kiwi, I'm so impressed! Look at your spuds!

Your allotment is not in London proper, is it? It looks so big! The two photos I saw made it look like you are well out in the countryside. very cool. And I LOVE your compost bin. Where did you get such a brilliant idea? My patch is too small to accommodate a bin made from 4 pallets, but I'm not always going to live in the city. My bin is much smaller. I made it out of chicken wire hooked in a square pattern around 4 green metal fence posts that were driven deep into the ground. Not so pretty, but it works!

I was shocked to see strawberries blooming in September! Even ever-bearing around here don't usually produce so late. Lucky girl.

morning Phoebe, i do have some photos, but there isnt much to see really as i'm still in the process of fighting weeds with trying to grow the odd thing in the meantime.

you can add photos here either via photobucket (i think ) or as an attachment.

to view mine, the easiest thing to do is clip on the link for my blog in my signature and you'll see some pics...mostly of what i've grown this year plus a couple of full plot shots if you go back enough!.

[FarmerPhoebe]

Ouch! I take exception to your remark, b/c it's just not true. From where I come from, we're the good guys. If we had a strong 3-party system, I'd convert to the Greenies in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, every green vote is one less for Obama, or Kerry, or Gore.

Hi Phoebe

Hi Everybody! Let me start by saying, "It wasn't my fault! I'm a lifelong Democrat."

If that was "Green" or "Libertarian", that might be exculpatory. Unfortunately, Democrats are just as responsible... It's never too late to repent.

[FarmerPhoebe]

Thanks for the (mostly) warm welcome, all. I look forward to learning more about YOU all and what brings you here.

Cheers!

[Rod in Japan]

every green vote is one less for Obama, or Kerry, or Gore.

Exactly!

Obama and Kerry and Gore are all in favour of military intervention around the world, especially on behalf of Israel. All of these candidates are for nuclear and/or coal. They are all totally beholden to corporate sponsors. They campaign on a reasonably sane platform during the primaries, then adopt actual policies that are so close to Republican as to be indistinguishable. Most of the crimes of the Bush years were initiated in the Clinton/Gore years (preparing the Patriot Act, DU bombing of civilians, trashing the Kyoto Protocol, genocide in Iraq, regime change, deregulation of the media and exclusion of independent media, weakening environmental legislation - good guys indeed).

Every green vote is a rejection of these policies and a practical step towards a 3-party system. It's so bleedin' obvious, it shouldn't even need saying. I often have this debate with my parents, trying to wean them off 'tactical voting' for the 'lesser of two evils'. It gets frustrating...

Please don't personal offense at this. But your very first words on this forum were overtly political, and I just wanted to express my disagreement with your opinion that being a Democrat somehow makes you more acceptable.

You are of course fully acceptable whatever your politics, so a very warm welcome to you.

[Ellendra]

I'm with Rod on this one, sorry.

If you'd like to talk about veggies or livestock or other self-sufficiency topics, I'm all for it, but it might be wise to avoid overt party endorsements or blame.

[FarmerPhoebe]

*WARNING* Looooooooooong post

Rod,
First off, how old are you? That info. will help give me a frame of reference. As for your claims that Obama's, Kerry's, and Gore's voting records (can't say "policies" b/c none of them have held the office of president) are indistinguishable from Republicans is neither fair nor accurate. Let me see if I can answer your allegations point by point.

Obama and Kerry and Gore are all in favour of military intervention around the world, especially on behalf of Israel.

There's a BIG difference btw. their approach to military intervention and Bush's. Are you familiar with the Bush Doctrine? It was drafted by names you may recognize: Former Sect'y of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, forced to resign in 2006; former Cheney right hand Scooter Libby, currently serving a prison term as the fall guy for leaking the name of former CIA agent Valerie Plame; Paul Wolfowitz, considered by many to be the principal architect of the Bush Doctrine, former higher-up in Bush's Department of Defense, recently forced to step down from his position of President of the World Bank amidst allegations of hiring and promoting his girlfriend and other unethical acts.

The Doctrine, first drafted in 1992, proposed the necessity of preemptive strikes and unilateral invasions, both concepts virtually the antithesis of U.S. military policy for the previous 200+ years. It was placed on the back burner during the Clinton years. After Bush stole the election in 2000, the doctrine was brought out, dusted off, and became the framework with which Cheney, Rumsfeld et al., justified preemptive strikes against Iraq in order to take down the dictator Hussein, who, ironically was installed as dictator during the Cold War to protect U.S. Middle East interests against Russia's Afghan invasion.

As for "on behalf of Israel," that's just not true. The U.S. has acted in defense of Israel but generally doesn't act on behalf of anybody, such as during the Bosnian war or the Rwandan genocide. Have you looked at a map of that region lately? Israel is a teeny, tiny little country surrounded on almost all sides by giant Muslim nations that would like nothing better than to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Although I don't condone all of Israel's decisions around the Gaza and The West Bank, or its general treatment of the Palestinians in recent years, I do believe that Israel has the right to exist. And, as one of our ever-dwindling number of allies, I do not think it is inappropriate for the U.S. to help protect her from hostile forces.

Until we (the human race) reach the Age of Enlightenment, there will be wars - the religious ones being the most historically bloody and vicious. The U.S. has the right to defend itself and its allies, which is pretty much where Obama et al. are coming from. The Bush Doctrine, on the other hand, drafted by a bunch of neoconservative fear mongers (do you remember the Axis of Evil speech?) will quickly be dismantled by the Obama administration.

All of these candidates are for nuclear and/or coal.

BUT in the first debate last night btw. Sens. Obama and McCain, the Republican said he wants to build 40 more nuclear reactors; the Democrat said he has a 10-year plan to explore and implement alternative energies: solar, wind, water, & bio-diesel. Personally, I would prefer to throw my support behind the candidate whose thinking is more in line with my own, rather than vote for someone like Kuccinich (who is my personal hero - he wants to form a Department of Peace), who has no chance in hell of getting elected.

They are all totally beholden to corporate sponsors. They campaign on a reasonably sane platform during the primaries, then adopt actual policies that are so close to Republican as to be indistinguishable.

These statements are neither true nor fair. Clearly, the democratic party needs to beef up its PR in the rest of the world. For most of us who live here, there is a crystal clear distinction between the policies of the moral majority neoconservatives currently in power and Clinton, Obama, Gore, & Kerry. For instance, Obama, during the beginning of his U.S. Senator term voted against the Iraq War from day 1, as did my other senator, Dick Durbin. I can't say for sure about Kerry, but both Gore and Obama campaigned AGAINST special interests. In fact, Sen. Obama has raised something like 10x as much campaign money as McCain - from people off the Internet! Unlike McCain, he is not using public funds and he does not have dozens of lobbyists on his campaign staff as McCain does.

Most of the crimes of the Bush years were initiated in the Clinton/Gore years (preparing the Patriot Act, DU bombing of civilians, trashing the Kyoto Protocol, genocide in Iraq, regime change, deregulation of the media and exclusion of independent media, weakening environmental legislation - good guys indeed).

Although it's convenient to lump all this together and claim that most of it was "initiated" during the Clinton/Gore years, it does not mean that Democrats supported or approved these initiatives. The Patriot Act was drafted by neoconservatives. Please refer to the history of the Bush Doctrine for further elucidation. Also, and this is a biggie, IMO, Congress was controlled by the neocons from 1996 until 2006. It made a big different in what the Clinton admin. was able to accomplish in its lame duck term. For instance, the Kyoto Protocol was passed by the international body toward the end of 1997. The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate voted to reject ratifying such protocols for economic reasons. Although VP Gore symbolically signed the Protocol, they did not have the political will to get it ratified for the reason cited above. I am pleased to note that since then 165 U.S. cities (I'm guessing that most of them are controlled by Democrats) have passed resolutions to ratify the Protocol. I suspect that it will be revisited next year when Sen. Obama is sworn in as President.

Weakening of environmental legislation was all Bush. In a very unpopular, sweeping decision, Bush set U.S. environmental progress back by more than 30 years - all in favor of Big Business. Clinton/Gore admin. did a lot to protect the environment and we know that Gore is the biggest proponent of reducing carbon emissions. In fact, I daresay that if Bush hadn't stolen the 2000 election, the Kyoto Protocol would have been ratified by now and we would be making progress on global warming.

As for media deregulation, that's a sore spot for me. The FCC is a joke. I do not know whether the move toward deregulation was initiated in the '90s, but the Republican-controlled FCC passed the deregulations, which allows corporate media consolidation, in 2003. This Media Watch article is pretty insightful: http://tinyurl.com/4u7nre

Every green vote is a rejection of these policies and a practical step towards a 3-party system. It's so bleedin' obvious, it shouldn't even need saying. I often have this debate with my parents, trying to wean them off 'tactical voting' for the 'lesser of two evils'. It gets frustrating...

I appreciate your passion. Personally, I do not see voting for Sen. Obama as a lesser of two evils. This is a BIG deal & I am very proud of the work Sen. Obama has done first in the IL legislature, then U.S. Senate, and soon on to the presidency. As you have suggested before, he is not as beholden to special interest as anybody on the Right. His campaign was funded by We the People & he will take his responsibility to We the People VERY seriously.

If this were not such an important election to take control away from a bunch of corporate-influenced neocons, I would agree with your assessment. I support a 3-party system. Once there is a candidate who can be assured of getting enough votes to get on the ballot, I'm there. We (the electorate) are not there yet. But I don't give up hope that it will happen in my lifetime.

My parents were big-time civil rights activists in the 50s & 60s. It saddens me that neither of them lived to see this day - that we are about to elect our first black president. I know race is much more prickly here than in Europe. I believe Sen. Obama will do a great job - especially if we can keep control of the House & a bigger majority in the Senate.

Bottom line: My point is that U.S. politics is not as black and white as you have painted it. I'm willing to bet once we do have the Green Party officially on the ticket and get a Green candidate elected, it will not solve all of our problems. Overall, I think we have a pretty good system that, ideally, provides for checks and balances. But it's not perfect Nevertheless, I think it's better than most.

You are of course fully acceptable whatever your politics, so a very warm welcome to you.

Thank you.

[Millymollymandy]

Gosh, never mind the politics , hello and welcome to the forum!

[Rod in Japan]

I'm 41, how old are you?

> If this were not such an important election to take control away from a bunch of corporate-influenced neocons, I would agree with your assessment. I support a 3-party system. Once there is a candidate who can be assured of getting enough votes to get on the ballot, I'm there.

The first part is what tactical voters say in every election, and the second part is quite obviously self-fulfilling.

Thanks for the potted history lesson, and the introduction to the candidates, but I think you're misinformed.

Anyway, I don't expect I'll persuade you, but at least you know now that not everybody thinks Democrats are any improvement.

[FarmerPhoebe]

Pretty cool! This is the first time I've been put in my place by someone further to the left than I am! Well done! I'm used to arguing to the point of name-calling with people who think Reagan was the greatest thing ever for America. I think I'm going to like this place.

PS For the record, Rod, I'm actually very well-informed, thank you. Methinks you hear and see what you want to, which actually puts you closer to the neocons than ME! neener-neener-nee ner

I'm 41, how old are you?

> If this were not such an important election to take control away from a bunch of corporate-influenced neocons, I would agree with your assessment. I support a 3-party system. Once there is a candidate who can be assured of getting enough votes to get on the ballot, I'm there.

The first part is what tactical voters say in every election, and the second part is quite obviously self-fulfilling.

Thanks for the potted history lesson, and the introduction to the candidates, but I think you're misinformed.

Anyway, I don't expect I'll persuade you, but at least you know now that not everybody thinks Democrats are any improvement.

[FarmerPhoebe]

Gosh, never mind the politics , hello and welcome to the forum!

Thank you, Millymollymandy! So glad to be here!

[Decentralist]

Welcome FarmerPhoebe. I'm new too and it seems like a wonderful little place here.

Ouch! I take exception to your remark, b/c it's just not true. From where I come from, we're the good guys. If we had a strong 3-party system, I'd convert to the Greenies in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, every green vote is one less for Obama, or Kerry, or Gore.

I must say I sort of agree with you. A vote for Bob Barr or Nadar or writing in Ron Paul means a vote not cast for Obama. And even if Obama is disappointing at least he isn't John McCain.

But then on the other hand we do need to support real movements for change if they are going to get anywhere. It is a hard choice isn't it.

[Rod in Japan]

FarmerPhoebe, you didn't tell me how old you are.

Can I recommend that you have a look at Counterpunch and Antiwar. They will give you a change from what you're currently getting, and reading something from sane Israelis may help to dispel some of your misconceptions about that country. Both are non-partisan. They are updated daily except Sundays. Of course, neither are to be taken as the Gospel Truth, but they do have what I like to call 'explanatory power', something I feel that you're probably lacking with your current sources.

I have no wish to argue with you, be rude to you, or patronize you (even though the last sentence is straying in that direction... )

> I must say I sort of agree with you. A vote for Bob Barr or Nadar or writing in Ron Paul means a vote not cast for Obama. And even if Obama is disappointing at least he isn't John McCain.

That's the view of Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan. He writes for both Counterpunch and Antiwar. His article on Obama is trenchant as ever, although I disagree with his call to vote tactically.

[Decentralist]

Interesting article. I largely agree with him, Obama is bad but he is still not as bad as McCain. McCain is scary, I think it was Pat Buchannan who wrote about him making Cheney look like Gandhi.