April 01, 2005

Message to ABB Liberals

Over the last several weeks, Democrats have given Bush another year's worth of funding for occupying Iraq, helped pass draconian bankruptcy "reform," and even managed to come along for the Terri Schiavo ride. These are all major betrayals, if that term can be applied in a case when the perpetrator never made any pretense of doing otherwise.

Semantics aside, several prominent figures from last year's Anybody-But-Bush "movement" have begun producing searing indictments of the Democratic Party for being pro-imperialist and pro-corporate. Progressive editor Matthew Rothschild even called a bunch of Senate Democrats "spineless" (oh snap!). We here at ReverseVoteSwap.org would like to deliver our own message to the ABB liberals who spent all of last year telling people to vote for these creatures without spines: Until They Invent Time Travel--Shut the Fuck Up.

When humans finally come to master the temporal stream, then the ABB liberals can make good on their insight-come-lately by travelling back in time and arguing against themselves, or at least keeping themselves physically detained in undisclosed locations. Even better, they could travel back to 1968 or 1936 and obstruct/assassinate their fellow lesser-evildoers. Until then, ReverseVoteSwap.org isn't very impressed by all this ritual cavilling. We fully expect, as soon as 2006, to be betrayed--if that term can be applied in a case when the perpetrator never made any pretense of doing otherwise.

Posted by convener at 05:43 PM

April 03, 2005

Ted Glick in Plain English

Trying to read and understand the writing of left-liberals is hard, onerous work. They are, by nature, slippery creatures who gravitate toward the most ambiguous and mushy formulations. They communicate as if through a thin but just-visible gauze, like a Barbara Walters interview. Fortunately, we at ReverseVoteSwap.org are experts. As a service to our readers, we would like to present the following translation into Plain English of liberal misleader Ted Glick's latest meditation. The original appears in italics, our translation in plain text.

Some Thoughts on Where We Are
Stop Criticizing Me and My Friends Just Because We Were Totally Wrong

The progressive movement, broadly defined, from socialists/Marxists on the left to reasonably progressive Democrats on the right, has been doing its best over the past several months to counter the various Bush/Republican attacks: the continuation of the Iraq war, maddening appointments to Cabinet positions and judgeships, the bankruptcy bill which will tighten the economic vise for many working people, the weakening of legal avenues for challenging corporate violations of people's rights, the efforts to dismantle Social Security, etc.

I would like to start by implying that some Democrats are part of the progressive movement.

It's an uphill battle, and we are very much on the defensive, but there is reason to believe we can hold off some of the worst plans, such as on Social Security, and moderate others. The Republicans are not monolithic; there are internal divisions that will probably grow deeper and wider as the jockeying develops over who will be the '08 Presidential nominee.

Maybe progressives should support a centrist Republican in 2008 as the lesser evil. Something to think about!

However, the progressive movement can in no way count upon the Democratic Party in either the House or the Senate. What else is new?

The progressive movement should totally count upon the Democratic Party, but it's really too embarrassing to say so.

As has been true for a long, long time, there is a crying need for a unified, independent political movement which can both bring pressure to bear around critical issues and build towards a political realignment that will bring about the creation of a strong and powerful people's alternative.

Man, it would be cool to be a paid staffer for a social-democratic party rather than a bunch of liberal think-tanks.

There are a number of factors preventing the emergence of such a movement....

There are a number of excuses preventing the emergence of such a movement.

There are hopeful signs that a growing number of progressives outside of the Democratic Party and progressives within it are seeing the importance of consciously working together to counter the dangerous, fascist-like tendencies of the Bush/Cheney administration and to discuss longer-term strategy.

Foundation money and professional liberals have created an exciting new front group!

The Progressive Dialogue III meeting in early December which led to the birth of United Progressives for Democracy is one such sign.

The name of this front group is "United Progressives for Democracy."

Another is the successful coalition work in December and early January between the Green Party, IPPN, other independent progressives, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep. John Conyers, Progressive Democrats of America and others which led to the successful January 6 challenge to the Ohio electoral college electors. That success has in turn inspired an on-going, new voting rights movement....

Damn, I really thought Kerry was going to win the election. My friends and I can't stop whining about it!

At the same time, there is a political current on the Left which underestimates the dangers posed by the near-dominance by the Republicans of all three branches of government. Though a very minor current within the overall progressive movement, and even within the progressive third party movement, they have some influence.

People like Ralph Nader and ReverseVoteSwap.org were completely right about everything, and now everyone's starting to realize it. Oh snap!

The tactics used by some, probably a small percentage, go over the line into sectarianism. Within the Green Party, as a prime example, some supporters of Ralph Nader's 2004 independent Presidential campaign are continuing to level ridiculous attacks on David Cobb and those who supported him as little more than fronts for John Kerry.

I think it's really mean to tell the truth about someone, even when they've completely fucked up your organization.

Nader's VP candidate, Peter Camejo, just sent out a fund-raising letter to try to retire Nader's campaign debt in which he wrote that long-time, prominent progressives Norman Solomon, Medea Benjamin and Matthew Rothschild, in his words, "embraced the pro-war corporate Democrats" last year....

It's really cynical to use the truth to raise money.

United Progressives for Democracy is a prime example of the kind of conscious communication and collaboration that is needed right now. Though still young and resource-poor, it is a model for both the kind of respectful, dialogical political process and the kind of seeking-for-unity-in-action that are so essential today.

Instead of giving money to the jerks at Nader/Camejo, why not give money to me?

Author Immanuel Wallerstein, in an essay "Antisystemic Movements," spoke of this way of working in relationship to the building of unity among diverse groups. He spoke of the need for "a conscious effort at empathetic understanding of the other movements, their histories, their priorities, their social bases, their current concerns. Correspondingly, increased empathy needs to be accompanied by restraint in rhetoric. It does not mean that movements should not be frank with each other, even in public. It means that the discussion needs to be self-consciously comradely, based on the recognition of a unifying objective, a relatively democratic, relatively egalitarian world."

I am the kind of person who has read Immanuel Wallerstein, and I am comfortable enough with his work to employ it in brilliant non sequiturs.

The last thing we need right now is the "correct line" approach, individuals or small groups claiming to have all the answers or quick to jump on other progressives for their supposed failings.

There are things more important than being right, for instance: being popular; being a full-time foundation flunky instead of having to get a real job; being called "savvy" by Katrina vanden Heuvel; and getting a slice of that sweet, sweet liberal cheddar!

Sometimes, the most revolutionary of acts is the act of listening.

Stop criticizing me and my friends just because we were totally wrong!

Posted by convener at 10:47 AM

April 04, 2005

Advice to ABB Liberals: Name Changes to Fool Red-Staters

Nothing fails like failure, and countless liberal lobbyist organizations have chosen to further their causes by sticking with the same, useless method of adjusting their messages to connect with their idea of what the working stiff on the street wants to hear. A standard practice for liberal groups is to abandon any language that even hints at what they're trying to accomplish. The argument such groups make goes something like this: We can't possibly get anyone to agree with us on principle, so we should just give ourselves a name that people can agree with in part, or else a name sufficiently bland to prevent all but insiders from having any idea what our group is about.

For instance: the word NARAL is, in fact, an acronym, even though this organization has abandoned any ties to troublesome terms like "abortion rights" or "action" and has opted for the more red-stately moniker Pro-Choice America. Note the addition of a NASCAR-friendly term like "America." If your liberal lobbyist organization is not willing to change its name to include buzzwords like "America" or "Freedom" or "Fuck Osama" then it's likely that you are simply unserious and out of step with the liberal intelligentsia's latest research on working class yokels. Likewise, the gay rights organization with the absolute best track record when it comes to wasting money on Democrats is called the Human Rights Campaign, a perfect name for an organization dedicated to furthering the struggle for the rights of gays and lesbians due to its utter lack of any red-state unfriendly terms like "gay" or "lesbian." (Sometimes, just to be safe, they just use the acronym HRC, as this could also stand for some sort of red-state group, like the Houston Ranching Coalition.)

Although many progressives are insulted by this kind of silly and counterproductive pandering to the right, we at ReverseVoteSwap.org consider it a positive step. Our hope is that as Democratic Party front groups adopt more and more conservative-sounding names, their followers will become disgusted and jump ship, realizing that social change comes not through throwing ca$h money at Democrats, but through mass action and mass Reverse Vote Swapping. With this goal in mind, RVS.org has drawn up a list of suggested name changes for different liberal groups. Each name is guaranteed red-state friendly!

The name of each existing liberal group is followed by a possible new, Kerrycrat-style name which will certainly sit well with pragmatic, triangulating Democrats!

NARAL Pro-Choice America:
Patriots for Freedom (of choice)

Progressive Democrats of America:
American Patriots for Progress and Democracy

National Organization for Women:
Patriotic Ladies' Auxilliary

Win Without War:
America Rules! Coalition


American Civil Liberties Union:
No Osamas Union

Democratic Socialists of America:
National Socialists of America

The Nation Magazine:
The Nation BBQ and Grille

Posted by convener at 01:50 PM

April 09, 2005

ABB to English Dictionary

Despite our impressive growth during the last year, the independent Reverse Vote Swapping current within the progressive movement remains the minority position. Therefore, many of our loyal ReverseVoteSwappers must communicate with Anybody But Bush-style hopeless idealists. This can be a difficult and frustrating enterprise, but is sometimes necessary nevertheless. Unfortunately, ABB liberals cannot help but cloud their naivete with fuzzy, largely incomprehensible language. Alternately, ABB liberals use words like "pragmatic" to mean their literal opposite, confusing things further.

In order to better facilitate the ability of serious pragmatists to engage in debate with Kerrycrats, ReverseVoteSwap.org is happy to announce the launch of our ABB to English Dictionary project. We hope you find this initial batch of translations useful. We would also be pleased to post additional translations upon request, should you stumble across some new, incomprehensible ABB-ism overlooked by our dictionary.

ABB to English Dictionary

organ for unlimited transmission of ca$h money from the economic bourgeoisie to the political bourgeoisie; well-suited to individual rich twits with exotic agendas (eg, destroying Ralph Nader) that do not motivate cohesive fractions of the ruling class
voting for a Democrat and shutting the fuck up
constituencies that voted for Democrats 30-40 years ago
organization which, although strictly following the Democratic Party line, is named something other than "Democratic Party"
subsidiary political actions attached to an ordinary electoral campaign, but legally structured to circumvent financing laws
any group of people that might vote for Democrats on any basis; though meaningless given political equivalence of two major parties, the fundamental category of liberal sociological theory
cultural issue
material issue that Democrats wish to avoid
obligatory political accessory, like American flag lapel pin
institution involving a certain nonzero percentage of non-millionaires
utter insignificance
international cooperation
utilization of modern public relations techniques to obscure American unilateralism
organ for unlimited transmission of ca$h money from the organized proletariat to the political bourgeoisie
see 527
NASCAR dad (var: person of NASCAR, people of NASCAR)
primitive humanoid organism that, to liberals, comprises vast majority of Americans
right-wing policy smeared with a small coat of left-wing gloss
a state in which the opressed are relatively quiet about their oppression
political education
explaining to serious progressives the need to 1) vote for Democrats with whom they disagree on all political points and 2) shut the fuck up
the art of the currently-existing
complete capitulation without any demands, eg: entering the Kerry camp without winning even a single progressive plank in his campaign; also: any strategy that defies elementary logic, eg: voting for reactionary Democrats to encourage them to move left
ceremonial declaration; non-binding rhetoric that does not serve as a guide to action
a condition in which the majority of reactionary measures are undertaken by Democrats rather than by Republicans
the state of being not quite as reactionary as a thing could possibly be under different circumstances
progressive infrastructure
a new channel through which people can donate ca$h money to triangulating Democrats, generally made possible through the careful use of new letterhead
progressive movement
the act of telling serious progressives to 1) vote for pro-war Democrats and 2) shut the fuck up
real world
bizarro world of liberal fantasies
condition of having a Democrat restrict civil rights
security mom
terrorism-obsessed mother whose previous soccer-related concerns now seem trite and naive
soccer mom
soccer-obsessed mother who has not yet comprehended the awesome threat of terrorism
voting for Democrats in spite of major disagreement
any series of tactics, possibly with no mutual interconnection, provided the final action is voting for Democrats
stark differences
alternate phrasings
satisfaction of goals set in retrospect of failure of original goals
center-right policy presented as far-right moral imperative, eg: "John Kerry stands for allowing straight married couples to deduct a portion of their out-of-pocket medical expenses, which encourages marriage and procreation. Now that's real family values!"
attainment of what one has attained, including nothing and less than nothing
ability to raise issues under conditions where it cannot possibly have any effect
wedge issue
issue where difference between beliefs of liberals and the position of the Democratic Party is unusually vast

Posted by convener at 12:45 AM

April 11, 2005

United Progressive Papists for Victory!

We keep our ears pretty close to the liberal ground here at ReverseVoteSwap.org, and as such have become pretty inured to the manifold ways in which lesser-evilism tries to burrow into the minds of the people. But man, even we didn't see this one coming. We present it here for your education and innoculation.

A Savvy New PAC for Progressive, Pragmatic Catholics

Friends, like us you've probably been worried about the direction of the One Holy and Apostolic Church these days. As progressives, you've been disturbed to see the Church taken over by a bunch of shrivelled misanthropes who think Thomas Aquinas is the last word in science--but as pragmatists, you're totally committed to reforming the Church through its own feudal and monarchic structures. Finally, there is a PAC tailored to your needs. United Progressive Papists for Victory is building a strong, grassroots movement to change the Church.

The 2005 Papal Conclave is surely the most important election of our lives. The next pope could appoint as many as 100% of the College of Cardinals, or in fact abolish it, or in fact have them all boiled in oil for heresy. And since the pope is by definition always right, there's nothing we can do about it! The stakes have never been higher.

Unfortunately, the Vatican's outdated, no-party election system means that openly campaigning for progressive papal candidates can appear to many voters as a "spoiler" to the Will of God. It would be a serious strategic mistake to alienate key "swing cardinals" with a self-indulgent left-wing campaign--that's just reality. Reform-minded Catholics should opt for the more savvy, nuanced approach of praying for divine intercession and giving ca$h money to UPP for Victory.

But we're not stopping there--UPP for Victory is also initiating a massive lobbying campaign for Instant Runoff Apostolic Succession. IRAS allows progressive papal candidates to run strong campaigns without risking the "spoiler" label. Plus, IRAS is easy and cheap to implement. This sample ballot, from a simulated papal conclave run with real Catholic priests, demonstrates the elegant simplicity of IRAS:


Progressive Catholics are on the move, and UPP for Victory is leading the way! Together, we can change the Church! Sic transit gloria mundi!

United Progressive Papists for Victory

Posted by convener at 09:02 PM

April 12, 2005

The Complicated Mill

Ordinary common sense tells us that if you support the goals of an organization, it is rational to support the organization. Thus, Nader fans donated to the Nader campaign; Reverse Vote Swappers utilized ReverseVoteSwap.org; Bolsheviks personally participated in one of the Party organizations; and so on. As with many other things, however, the iron laws of logic become molten in the fevered minds of liberals who wish to support the Democratic Party. In this case, it is considered a virtue to squeeze one's cheese through the most byzantine conduits into the Party's coffers. To the extent that middlemen take a cut at every opportunity, thereby reducing the amount that the Democrats ultimately receive, this is very progressive. To the extent that people bamboozle themselves into thinking they're doing "independent politics," this is very harmful.

As a reductio ad absurdum, let us consider a recent ZNet "Action of the Week" proposal by Michael Albert. (Some of you may know Albert as a leading proponent of Participatory Economics, which shows the proletariat how, if it does not deviate an inch from Albert's utopian schemes, it can avoid all mathematical contradictions in the struggle for anarchism!) Here's the proposal, for those of you who like to conserve bandwidth:

MoveOn takes up campaigns that are in accord with their member's [sic] desires. To determine if their member's [sic] would support an effort to urge Bush and the U.S. government to withdraw our military from Iraq MoveOn would need to poll its members [got it right that time!]. It is, as of now, not doing so, claiming it knows that they would not support such a stance. The proposed action is to urge the leaders/hosts of MoveOn not to decide for their base, but to poll it and act on the results.
A poll follows. Which is to say, ZNet is polling its members on whether ZNet members should lobby MoveOn.org to poll its members on whether MoveOn.org members should lobby liberal Democrats to lobby the Democratic Party to favor withdrawal from Iraq. Hmm. In the spirit of fraternal Internet criticism, ReverseVoteSwap.org would like to suggest to ZNet that it may be more directly effective to induce butterflies to flap their wings in a different fashion.

On a final note, although 629 people thought the proposal was a good idea, only 370 said they would participate "for sure." To the extent that the numbers reveal the utter passivity of ZNet members, this is very harmful. To the extent that the whole idea is stupid anyway, this is very progressive.

Posted by convener at 09:52 PM

April 20, 2005

Ehrenreich sez: "Demand Cars for Darfur Killers!"

ReverseVoteSwap.org was shocked to learn of Barbara Ehrenreich's comments at the 2005 Left Forum opening plenary, where she said of the Darfur situation: "These people are riding around on camels and then going and committing genocide." The majority of ABB liberals are, of course, racists who think that all Arabs are terrorists, led by the supreme Arab terrorist mastermind Ralph Nader--but usually they don't go in for the Coulter-style "camel jockey" rhetoric, at least not while sober. We were preparing to mobilize the Reverse Vote Swapping masses for militant protest action until we received an advance copy of the following apologia from Ehrenreich. We found it puzzling enough to stay our plans, at least for now.

The Killers of Darfur Must Be Given Cars
by Barbara Ehrenreich

I've been asked a lot of questions about my statement about "people" in Darfur "riding around on camels and...committing genocide." Some have suggested that it was racist against Arabs. That is simply not so; as a leading member of the liberal intelligentsia, I am intrinsically incapable of racism. Besides, my anger is not directed against the swarthy killers of the Janjawid--rather, I am outraged at a system that compels them to do genocide without all the modern conveniences.

As an American it would indeed be racist of me to condemn the violence of some little Arab militia, given my support for the Kosovo War, the Afghan War, the occupation of Iraq, and other imperial adventures which are a thousand times worse. But I've always been a supporter of unprincipled violence provided that it's carried out properly. It is simply a disgrace that, in our world of abundance, innocents must still be slaughtered by people on primitive beasts. Nothing makes senseless murder worse (or, well, less good) than medievalism and lack of efficiency.

This is, I'm afraid, another example of the callous disregard this administration shows for America's global standing. Would it really be too expensive to equip the ethnic cleansers with modern vehicles? The costs would be more than repaid in international goodwill.

Now THAT'S the war on terror!

Posted by convener at 11:10 PM

April 24, 2005


In These Times is carrying an article in its latest issue on the prospects for union backing of labor-oriented television and publications. Many unions do, in fact, have newsletters, but an SEIU focus group found that the "huge majority of people receiving a union publication are not looking at it, in the sense of not looking at it--period." The fact that it took a focus group to discover this is probably suggestive of a larger problem, inasmuch as most union mags read like grandma's family newsletters: a bunch of idle, and probably false, boasting about non-accomplishments.

The article suggests that labor invest in independent progressive outlets with a known pro-labor orientation. Sadly, our sources indicate that labor leaders are going in a somewhat different direction. Instead of issuing dozens of little bulletins, labor bureaucrats have decided to consolidate their efforts into One Big Magazine. It's called One Day Longer, and ReverseVoteSwap.org is giving you a special sneak-peek!

Here's a look at the cover of the inaugural issue:


And an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel's interview of Andy Stern, which appears in the issue:

KvH: SEIU has recently launched an organization called Purple Ocean. Tell us about this savvy, nuanced new initiative.

AS: Thanks Katrina. As you know, unions in this country were built on an understanding of the collective power of workers to bring the profit system to a halt at the point of production. But thanks to the Internet and the French academy, we now know that's all outdated. Today people's true power lies in voting for Democrats and giving money to Democrats as atomized individuals.

KvH: That's a very savvy and pragmatic realization. It seems that, until recently, unions have resisted the insights of postmodernist theory.

AS: Yes, which is why it's so fortunate that so many current labor leaders are Ivy Leaguers. A very high percentage of Purple Ocean's revenue goes straight into Democratic Party politics, cutting out all the superfluous costs of organizing, legal defense, strike funds, and other detritus associated with class-based unionism.

KvH: Well, you do give out bumper stickers. Isn't that a bit 20th century?

AS: We're hoping to phase out the bumper sticker in favor of a blog-ad and Blackberry wallpaper.

KvH: Savvy!

Posted by convener at 12:44 PM

April 25, 2005

ABB Abroad: Only Voting Blair Can Stop Blair!

As the scope and influence of ReverseVoteSwap.org increases, it is only natural that we would begin to gain more of a presence amongst progressives internationally. Therefore, it behooves us take on more international reporting, particularly when the issues facing progressives in different countries are so similar. Anybody But Bush-ism has a peculiar British variant: New Labour. This is a phenomenon similar to the rise of triangulating Democrats in the US, but with a strange twist. This lot have actually won some elections, and thus are all the more dangerous!

Thanks to the global ABB pandemic, Labour is borrowing several numbers from the John Kerry textbook. In order to foster greater relations between serious progressives on both sides of the Atlantic, we publish this cryptic bit of electioneering, forwarded to us by a member of our British section.

Stopping Blair's Illegal War: Why Progressives Must Vote Labour

In March, 2003, Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair followed US president George W. Bush into Iraq, endangering British lives and killing scores of innocent Iraqis in an unjust, illegal war. We must send the people of Iraq a message of peace. We must vote Labour.

Tony Blair has waged war against our system of public education. He has attacked the independence of the BBC. He has pushed a nation into war using false intelligence while still maintaining that the brutal war against Iraq is justified. Labour's Tony Blair has tainted Downing Street and tarnished the whole of British government.

There is only one man who can stop Tony Blair's reckless planning at home and abroad. That man is Tony Blair. We must show our support for a true, progressive agenda by awarding Blair his third Premiership on May 5. The differences have never been so clear, the stakes never so high, the pragmatic choice for progressives never so obvious. The only means at our disposal for sending a message of peace and hope is to vote for Blair's New Labour, no questions asked. Otherwise, we risk the continuation of Blair's disatrous policy in Iraq.

The world community is counting on us. Send Tony Blair a message for change on May 5: vote for him.

Posted by convener at 03:43 PM

May 30, 2005

Future Liberal Marriages of Convenience

Loyal Reverse Vote Swappers are doubtless familiar with the tendency of the most "pragmatic" liberals to triangulate themselves in bizarre alliances with the most reactionary forces. These marriages of reactionary convenience, although fun to ridicule, always result in decreased prospects for progressive movements and an empowered right-wing.

Take the strange case of Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich, now fast friends after years of ostensible bitter hatred. Now that they're pals, the benefit for each is obvious. Newt gets the second shot at a political career he never deserved, and Hillary gets to prove that she can get along with Newt, a feat that will doubtless earn her meager amounts of respect amongst Republicans who will still vote against her in 2008 anyway.

In a similar vein, we are thrilled to inform you of arch-imperialist Thomas Friedman's kookie scheme to unite right-wing hawks and environmentalists in a movement to decrease US oil consumption. Currently only in the theoretical arena, such "unity" would offer the right some green gloss, while offering the liberals the chance to demonstrate their pragmatism.

We can only assume that these moves will be trend-setters, as the one core principle of the Democratic Party is the incessant repetition of the most backwards ideas. As a service to our loyal Reverse Vote Swappers, we provide the following list of predicted future alliances between liberals and reactionaries, which will surely be explained as "pragmatic" when they inevitably come to pass.

Campaign Against Unexploded Ordnance
A joint venture of pro-war and anti-war forces
"Surely, we can both agree that extra stockpiles of unexploded weapons are a critical problem. They should either be recycled, or used to bring democracy to one of seventy failed states."

Coalition for Global Cooling and Refreshing
Activists against global warming plus the Coca-Cola Corporation
"Surely, we can all agree that keeping the planet cool and refreshed will go far to prevent global warming."

League for Attractive Animals
Wildlife preservationists and rich yuppie tourists
"Surely, we can all agree that America must preserve its rich heritage of animals that are not ugly or stinky."

Committee Against Extremist Media
Air America joins hands with FOX News
"We can all agree, surely, that extremist left-wing media is a threat to the American way of life."

Not In Our Dogs
Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum fight as one!
"Surely, we can all agree that the scourge of bestiality must be rigorously opposed."

United for Popes and Fetishes
Liberal and reactionary Catholics bridge the gap
"Surely, we can all agree that the dazzling, jewel-encrusted lustre of the Catholic Church must be defended from atheistic decadence."

Posted by convener at 08:15 AM

June 17, 2005

Bürokratzeitung II

We here at ReverseVoteSwap.org were stunned to learn that the first issue of One Day Longer was successful enough to justify a second issue! Looks like we owe an apology to Messrs. the Bureaucrats for our initial skepticism, although the staff pool still has it that we'll find most of the inaugural press run buried with Jimmy Hoffa. But until then, let's give ODL the benefit of the doubt and crack open the exciting new issue!

Big Labor is in the midst of some dramatic changes. Or at least, it is in the midst of some dramatic speeches about changes. Or at least, it is in the midst of speeches by some labor poobahs which are dramatic given their typical level of emotion. Cutting through the sound and fury, the fundamental issue at stake is: which set of buzzwords can lead the way forward? ODL gets to the heart of the matter!


We also excerpt the helpful quick reference cheat sheet:

New Unity
New Voices
PURPOSE:Calls for new voices (sic)Calls for new unity (sic)
MODEL:MegachurchCatholic Church
LATIN TAG:Deus ex machina Beati possidentes

Posted by convener at 01:45 PM

July 15, 2005

SUV Crackers for Peace!

Even with majorities within the US opposing the occupation of Iraq, the "common sense pragmatists" within sections of the antiwar movement continue to insist that the way to build opposition is to aim our message at the most right-wing, backwards, apolitical, and chauvinist sections of society.

This train of thought has perhaps reached its truest expression with the creation of the new organization, SUV Crackers for Peace. Although loyal ReverseVoteSwappers will doubtless be outraged by such a ridiculous formation, we consider it important to avail our legions of activists of even the most backwards developments within the movement. SUV-CP will doubtless soon take on the full trappings of faxtivism and develop some nice letterhead and a blog, but thus far they have managed only a short press conference, which we reproduce below.

Transcript: SUV Crackers for Peace Kick-Off Funstravaganza and Box Social

SUV-CP: SUV crackers, the most importance force within society due to the power of disproportionately large vehicles, have long been silent on the peace question. No longer. Previously, SUV crackers felt alienated from the antiwar movement. "I would think about going to peace rallies sometimes," says one of our founding crackers, "but sometimes they would be at the same time as important sporting events. Also, I would see lots of signs and banners, but none that were about my unique needs as an SUV driver and cracker."

Today, the literally dozens of SUV crackers from across the country who once felt shut out from the peace movement can participate proudly by becoming members of SUV Crackers for Peace and spreading the peace cracker message. To join, SUV crackers must meet the following criteria:

  1. Must own an SUV. (Acceptable exception: "The family has it. I don't have it.")
  2. Must agree that a thing needed in the world today is peace.
  3. Must get extremely uptight about the presence of actual antiwar content within the antiwar movement.
Bush administration, be forewarned! Now that the SUV crackers are getting organized, peace shall prevail!

What is the political ideology of SUV-CP?

Let me clarify. SUV-CP is a lot of things, but it is not political. To us, peace is not a political question. It's just a thing that people want, like better tasting low-carb cookies or a new Colin Farrell epic. So no. We do not have any politcal ideas, or in fact any ideas at all.

Why do you peace crackers want to end the war?

Let me make things more clear. We're not saying, "end the war." We're saying that peace is a thing that we would like to have. That's all.

What will SUV-CP do to move the US toward peace?

We're going to be spreading the peace message. So for instance, many of our members have already put peace sign themed spinners on their SUVs. So next time you find yourself next to an Expedition or Aviator, take a look at the hubcaps. What you see might surprise you.

Will SUV-CP be involved in the growing trend toward counter recruitment?

Yes and no. We're not going to tell America's youth that they shouldn't join America's army. We do think that some of the recruiters give enlistees some faulty information, though. For instance, did you know that only a relatively small portion of our people serving in the armed forces get to drive Hummers? That's the kind of thing they don't tell kids in recruitment sessions. We want to tell the young crackers, who are really the crackers of the future, that they might find better opportunities for driving oversized vehicles in civilian life.

What would you say to those who would call you unpatriotic for opposing your nation's policy abroad?

Let me clarify. We never said that we wanted to criticize our Commander-in-Chief's policies. We're just saying, as Americans, as SUV drivers, and as crackers, that a thing that we would not at all be against, would be peace. Furthermore, I believe that the highest calling for an American patriot is to invest the time and money needed to become a full-fledged SUV cracker. So we've proved our patriotism. Now, we're just saying that peace is not, by definition, unpatriotic, in all circumstances.

Posted by convener at 03:48 PM

July 23, 2005

Bürokratzeitung III

Loyal readers, ReverseVoteSwap.org's favorite magazine for labor tops gossip, One Day Longer, has made it to an astonishing third issue! Truly, these are the days of miracle and wonder!

In the last issue we saw ODL take on the big debate in the AFL-CIO. Now, only days before the AFL-CIO's National Convention, the crisis has become both more dire and less principled--a combination of traits that is, perhaps, only attainable by the unique genius of American labor bureaucrats. Yesterday's New Unity Partnership is today's Change to Win Coalition, which blends some of the more progressive-minded unions with others that are more oriented to, ah, Family values. The newest ODL profiles the CtWC, and we have special sneak peek below!


We have to confess to being pretty confused when we saw the cover; to our knowledge, no actual grassroots worker has anything to do with the CtWC or this whole kerfuffle generally. Then we realized, of course, that ODL wasn't speaking about grassroots workers, but grassroots bureaucrats. ODL sat down with a few small-fry labor fakers-and-shakers: Thurston St. Windsor III, Assistant Deputy Political Director of the SEIU; Anthony "Tony da Wop" Giopazlianocomo, Business Agent for Teamsters Local 777 in New Jersey; and Robert Robert Roberts, President of United Brotherhood of Carpenters Local W in Idaho. We excerpt from the interview.

Could each of you describe, in your own words, what the Change to Win Coalition is all about?

Thurston St. Windsor III: That's an excellent question; this is a critical discourse to problematize. We have to ask: what is the project of the labor movement--I prefer the term "subaltern conjectural multitude"--in the post-industrial society? Can this multitude deconstruct, or, better yet, subvert, the hegemonic power relations? If we lack the proper orientation, we'll simply wind up regressing through an infinite series of demoralized Weltanschauung. I frankly don't think John Sweeny has any answer for this.

Robert Robert Roberts: I could put it in three words: jobs, jobs, jobs, stupid! Workers need jobs, and my union is for anyone who makes jobs. Why is the AFL spending money on Democrats when Bush is creating jobs? Drilling things, shooting things, these are things that create jobs.

"Tony da Wop": Hey, when you get the muscle, you start your own family. That's how it's done.

One of the original New Unity Partnership demands was to reorganize unions along core industry lines. Doesn't the Teamsters model violate this?

TdW: We're proud of our union, which spans all sectors of the legitimate business world. Do YOU have a problem with that?

Well, um...

TSW III: Could I intervene? I really think this disjunction resolves itself, inasmuch as what the Teamsters have realized is that the modes of industrial technê are not quite so monadic as originally conceived by the pre-post-structuralists.

TdW: Yeah, good one, Poindexter. I like this fuckin' kid.

RRR: Look, I think there's one industry everyone in labor should be in, and that's the supporting people who create jobs industry. Why isn't the AFL giving massive support to Bush's proposals for Mars exploration? You'd need a lot of carpenters to send a man to Mars, probably. Labor really lacks vision.

SEIU gave tens of million to the Democrats in 2004, while the Carpenters had Bush speak at their convention. How can the CtWC remain politically coherent with these kinds of divisions?

RRR: Two words: pro-jobs. I think that says it all. The Carpenters will support anyone who's giving us jobs!

Isn't that kind of like saying Jesus should have backed the Romans because they ran the crucifix trade?

RRR: Look, Jesus was a fine carpenter and an interesting guy, but I don't think there's any evidence he would have made a very effective trade union leader.

...OK, final question: how do you respond to those who accuse you of needlessly dividing the labor movement?

TSW III: You know, when I was a member of the Wand & Cumberbun Society at Harvard, we used to start each meeting by declaring, "Poiêsis Über Praxis!" I think that's something today's labor movement should really take to heart.

TdW: Sweeny's been the don for a long time. I give him respect. But when your guy can't get business done anymore, well, sometimes you've got to push a button on a guy. People take it personal, of course. But it's not personal; it's strictly business.

RRR: It's business unionism.

Posted by convener at 05:00 PM