Saturday, February 26, 2011

Amy Goodman-Democracy Now

Amy Goodman editorials appear in our local paper. Sometimes I try to read them, but the lack of common sense and logic usually causes me to stop reading after a few paragraphs. However, I have read enough to discern a few things and to be left with a few questions.

Amy's organization is called "Democracy Now." This leads to the first question: Is the name of the organization meant to indicate that they promote democracy? If so, why? As a governmental system, democracy is not one that anyone should want to live in. (In a democracy, eligible citizens--often that means property owning males--have the opportunity for direct votes on all issues of government.) Democracy is highly susceptible to emotional whims and decisions based on personal gain of money or power. In a large organization, like most nations today, it is quite literally unworkable. The founders of the USA recognized this and consequently gave us a republic.

Now perhaps Miss Goodman and her group are using the word democracy as many Americans, including most politicians, commentators, and even educators do, to mean liberty; in particular a government that recognizes the citizens as the utltimate holders of power and gaurantees rights such as freedom of speech, worship, ownership of arms, no unreasonable searches or arrests, private property ownership, and a voice in their governance not tied to wealth, gender, race, etc. If this is the case, then it would be a really good idea to pick a new name. However, based on the views put forth by Miss Goodman, I don't think she supports the above freedoms.

Most recently she has been taking a stand against the citizens of Wisconsin who voiced by their vote that they want their state government to become fiscally responsible. Miss Goodman supports those who would ignore the choice of the majority of voters and to allow rule by a combination of a political minority and the leaders of labor unions. If she actually believed in democracy (or free elections), she would support the decision of the voters.

This is not the first time I have seen from her this expression of contempt for the citizens of the USA. From what I have read, she actually supports a system of government that can best be described as despotic or tyrannical. Although she doesn't always agree with the policy's of power holders like Barack Obama, she does appear to strongly support a huge, domineering central government (as long as that government makes decisions that fit progressive/liberal positions).