I guess my question is, Why are speeches important? They all say what they
think their audiences want to hear. The people at the Republican convention
say what the Republican base wants to hear and the Democrats at the
Democratic convention say what the Democratic base wants to hear. They say
whatever they think will get votes from their bases. But it doesn't have
anything to do with how the government functions. I used to believe that
there was some connection between the speeches and government policy. But
I've experienced an epiphany with the Obama presidency. It's one thing to
enjoy the performance of a play or a piece of music. But people talk about
political speeches as if you can enjoy them as an art form, and there's no
holding people to account for what they say in them.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman
Humel
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 1:05 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The mothers of the movement
OK, but I was not talking about that, I only said his speech was good. Did
you hear Guiliani's? All the horrible things he was responsible for were
still right there in his awful speech. And then, there's Christie's.same
deal. It was one of the ugliest rants I've heard in the last 70 years or so.
That's why I said, words are cheap. But they are words, they can still
express something.
On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:24 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Bloomberg? Who sent the cops to destroy the Occupy encampment in the
middle
of the night, who supported charter schools in New York City? Whose
police
department's policy was "stop and frisk"? Well, I guess he was an
improvement on his predecessor.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice
Dampman
Humel
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 10:55 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The mothers of the movement
oh, and Bloomberg's speech was also very good, as was Biden's, at
least by
and large for Biden...
On Jul 28, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Alice Dampman Humel
<alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
all true.now excuse me while I go throw up in utter disgust...
I must say, though, that Obama's speech was, as is so usual for him,
very moving and stirring.but as we all know, words are cheap, and he
does
have a silver tongue in his head.but at the same time, I believe he
believes
what he is saying, it is not pandering or deceit or in any other
way
disingenuous. On Jul 28, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not only that. There's no relevance to the campaign or to
anything that the
party has done, or will be doing, to help the African
American population in
any way. The whole convention is a show that has nothing to
do with
reality. I posted a link to the video of the conversation
between Robert
Sheer and Thomas Frank last night. They are terrific people.
Robert Sheer
was editor of The Ramparts in the old days. Anyway, one
thing they said is
that there are 2 groups at the convention. There are real
people who have
absolutely no power and are being used, and there are people
who are there
to find jobs or get new jobs. All of the real transactions
take place at the
corporate parties where the second group can be found. The
first group are
stage dressing. And Sanders asking for a vote for Clinton
by acclamation? I
don't know how any of his delegates can manage to respect
him after that.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Alice Dampman
Humel
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 8:10 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The mothers of the movement
that's what I was talking about yesterday when I remarked
that the mothers'
speeches and comments sounded very scripted, run past the
powers that be for
approval, and, therefore, rather hollow...
On Jul 27, 2016, at 7:11 PM, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Now that I've listened to Democracy Now, and heard the
mothers of
murdered
young black people talk at the convention, my response is
that this
was a
cynical use of people who have endured unspeakable tragedy,
for
Hillary's
benefit. I remember hearing Sandra Bland's mother on
Democracy Now
after
Hillary had contacted her. Hillary already knew she was
running for
the
presidential nomination. Perhaps her campaign had begun. I'm
not
sure. But
it was obvious that she cultivated a relationship with this
grief
stricken
woman so that she could use her in her campaign. These women
were
props in a
well planned show. Interestingly, I noted that many of the
Sanders
delegates who were interviewed during the first hour of
Democracy
Now, were
African American. During the campaign, the mass media kept
saying
that
Bernie wasn't doing well with black people. But he sure had
a lot of
black
delegates that we never heard about.
Miriam
