C-Span is illuminating as usual.  A caller spoke of the wealth of military equipment the USA has left around the globe, free for the taking by others.  She implied this is a bad idea. 

Brad Bowman made the interesting statement that the same people who criticize the leaving of military equipment around the globe, also often are the people who don’t wish the arming of foreign nations for their own use.  And Mr. Bowman said this with a straight face.  The US military equipment is best used, in one person’s opinion, to protect the USA.  The language of some military-equipment-industry distributors implies the USA has no choice other than to be a global arms dealer.  When such stark statements are made, it seems to be intellectual laziness to take these statements on face value, rather than to imagine an entirely different and more logical scenario.  ———

https://www.c-span.org/video/?527284-4/washington-journal-brad-bowman-discusses-biden-administrations-afghanistan-withdrawal-report   —
APRIL 16, 2023  | PART OF WASHINGTON JOURNAL 04/16/2023

Washington Journal

Brad Bowman on the Biden Administration’s Afghanistan Withdrawal Report

Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Brad Bowman discusses the Biden administration’s report on the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan.–end of c-span info–

Another topic on C-Span this morning was whether an upper-age-limit should be in place for politicians, this time specifically relating to Diane Feinstein.  

https://www.rockthevote.org/explainers/the-26th-amendment-and-the-youth-vote/     –In 1942, in the midst of World War II, Congress lowered the minimum age to be drafted into the U.S. Military to 18 from 21. This wartime change launched a decades-long debate over lowering the voting age in the United States, as young men were being drafted to fight for their country while simultaneously being denied the right to vote. From this discrepancy, the slogan “old enough to fight, old enough to vote” was born, and it became a rallying cry for a youth voting rights movement, which was powered by the activism of young people and their allies.

–end of rockthevote info–

Boys straight out of high school were expected to register for the draft, and were then drafted to fight in the Vietnam War, where many died.  They didn’t have the right to vote.  Young people of that era were more than a little motivated to speak out.  That is a reason some people are baffled with the small number of young people who vote in 2023.  Or when they vote, they seem to be bridled by political Party bosses of Party corporations.  And so while many young people supported Bernie Sanders for President, young people didn’t vote accordingly.  This is an embarrassment.

As the topic of whether age limits would address some mental degradation among people of a certain age, left unaddressed is similar cognitive dissonance among young people. 

Demands for age limits on political candidates exposes inability from younger people to function in democratic style as relates to the responsibility to vote.   

Those who are enthusiastic in physical protest are too often the same who don’t vote.  Everybody loves a good party.

And by the way, as one who is over 70, I personally cast votes for President over the last several cycles for Jill Stein and Howie Hawkins, both younger than Biden and Trump.  Not being sure if “young” ideas are worthier, one is certain that fresh ideas are needed.

One is interested in a culture of youngsters who seem so stodgy and set in their ways.  

Climate Change should be a primary concern for young people, logically speaking.  Fascination with technology-without-bounds seems dissonant.  —  https://act.earthjustice.org/a/for-the-record-monthly-newsletter?utm_source=crm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=newsletter&utm_campaign=230416_ForTheRecord_April2023&utm_content=HTMLFTRLogoLink&sourceid=1045734&emci=52a25b92-87d5-ed11-8e8b-00224832eb73&emdi=acfb4210-54dc-ed11-8e8b-00224832eb73&ceid=1816532     —
The following link raises the notion that American chauvinism may blind us from recognizing the obvious.——

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9GCftACeRE      —

#GreenSocialist Notes, Episode 121

–end of howiehawkins info–
****

As one who would be perfectly contented to retain the Senate if they adhered to Oaths of Office more than to Citizens United campaign donations, one is interested in a topic raised as to the reason we maintain the US Senate—-

 This is a reminder of how much we don’t know.  This brings one around to Howie Hawkins, who continues to impress with original thought.  We also could acknowledge Hawkins often speaks to censored information.
One such topic about which one would never have even considered, is whether the USA needs The Senate.  Apparently The Senate is little other than expensive window dressing, promoting hierarchical interests, and too often placed in positions of power by big-money via Citizens United.  But the public gets to fund this curiosity of pompous supremacy.  Who knew?
The Democratic Branch of the Republican/Democratic Duopoly are especially functional in voter suppression—–https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNbdkuU1edw          —#GreenSocialist Notes #76
Howie Hawkins brings up the concept of whether the USA needs the Senate.  Apparently according to some people, the Senate isn’t necessary.  This brings up the blockage from the Senate of many bills that would benefit We The People.  Combined with Citizens United that promotes big-money interest choice of Senators, in which laws are passed that benefit big-money interest rather than We The People, and that We The People support economically, the members of the Senate, this seems a good topic for discussion.
The US Constitution doesn’t seem to sanction elections run by political Parties, and to permit control of political debates by political Parties seems equally corrupt.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ7kn2-GEmM       —

Ross Perot in 1992 on NAFTA and the “Giant Sucking Sound”

Centralization is the lifeblood of the R&D duopoly.  It’s the way to enforce capitalism onto workers in 2022.———————–We can do better———-

That “we are a 2-Party system” is a fabrication of the Republican/Democratic duopoly and spread by MSM.  In FACT the majority of voters aren’t either registered Democratic or Republican.  The censorship about this info must be envied by bureaucrats of the Former USSR and their simplistic style of 1-Party elections.  

Regardless of which character sits in the Oval Office, We The People have work to do to maintain principles of our democratic (small d) Constitutional republic.  Several items to challenge—*We need the integrity of ranked-choice voting so voters won’t feel compelled to “hold your nose and vote”*Censored debates must be stopped.  The Democratic/Republican duopoly pretends to legitimate debates in what is nothing other than another campaign show.  Independent debates run by uninterested sponsors such as The League of Women Voters, must be restored.  (Access www.debates.org to understand the extent of duopoly control).  The so-called Debate Commission is a corporation to promote the Democratic corporation and Republican corporation, not to inform We The People*Challenge and stop gerrymandering that is a trick especially of the Republican branch of the duopoly.*Stop voter suppression by political Parties, and especially confront and stop Party suppression, which is the over-arching approach to voter suppression.  Party suppression seems to have been the responsibility of the Democratic corporation*Promote by law ranked-choice voting, so we won’t be told again, by D&R duopoly, to “hold your nose and vote”
If these issues are handled, our next elections can be honorable. 
*******************************************************************https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx—-Political Party affiliation of voters.
    https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud–LEAGUE REFUSES TO “HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD”

WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FROM FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE–end of lwv info–Murray Bookchin, who founded social ecology, a theory that strongly influenced early Green Socialist thought, strongly advocated the discussion and study group as the first step of any revolutionary movement. A group of individuals meets to expand their knowledge of radical thought and form a radical intellectual community; through the give and take of discussion, can eventually form ideas for next steps in organizing and political activity. According to Bookchin, study groups help create solidarity and a shared language — with a shared coherent vision — for building a mass, organizing, political movement!