Are you part of the problem?
If you’re not against the establishment, then you’re for it, and you’re part of the problem. Twelve short years ago, nearly 1 out of 5 voters chose a third party candidate in Ross Perot. Now the establishment parties demonize third parties. Thank goodness the courts are more firmly grounded in the American traditions of fairness and free speech. In state after state, Democrats are coming up on the wrong side of the law, as Nader gains ballot access. In Oregon, The Court found that Bill Bradbury, the Democratic Secretary of State, made up "novel" rules for the purpose of applying them to the Nader Campaign. See the Ballot Access Update at http://www.votenader.org/ and http://naderoregon.org/.
posted by Tom Cleland @ 9/21/2004 10:15:00 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
Hi Tom,
Just tried downloading one of your songs (since the streaming was jamming--for some reason my various programs won't recognize the file as an MP3 though. So I'll have to try the .rm file again later this evening.)
The reason that the courts are blocking the democrats is because they have been packed with Republicans.
Sometimes that doesn't work though. The judge who ruled against Nader here in Texas Lee Yeakel was a Bush appointment. I wonder how many democratic judges are actually left anymore? The whole Texas Supreme Court is made up Republicans--9 of them.
Take a look at this list of nominations Bush has made (and he's left some of the controversial ones off his website at that):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/nominations/Right now there are 3 semi-liberals on the Supreme Court. Two were democrats appointed by Clinton. The main one was actually a Ford appointment. Then there are some moderates. Several judges are about to retire. If Bush gets another term, he gets to replace them.
Bush is a religious weirdo. One of his first executive orders was to create an Office of Faith Based Community Initiatives to break down our separation of church and state:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/In terms of your arguement of involvement making a person part of the problem. That is almost as ludicrous as suggesting that not voting is the solution to our world's problems. Is it patriotic to sit in front of the boob tube watching reruns of Friends while your country gets hijacked from the right? But then, you aren't "part of the problem." Or as Moliere put it: "It is not only what we do, but also what we do not do, for which we are accountable."
The truth of the matter is that coplex problems require complex solutions, and there are no easy answers. But if you are going to take apart a system, you are going to have to involved to do it.
Can a surgeon have an operation without opening the wound? Involvement is the first step to solving problems.
The problem with third parties is that they think by separating themselves from the grub and grime that they are somehow superior. It's a bit like telling your neighbors that they have a dirty house. It's always easy to pass judgement on someone else when you excluse yourself and make it "their fault."
The fault is with the American people for being complaisant about what our government has done with our tax money in our name.I'm not going to sit on the sidelines and pretend it's not my country or my responsibility and place the blame on someone else.
The reason I hate the green party is because I was in the peace movement and that is what I saw from Green supporters. Always pointing the finger. No solutions, no examination of the details or facts. Just a overall condemnation of the system. If your house is in chaos, you don't complain about, you bloody well clean it up.
The ease of the third party is that the members know they can't win elections, so they cam always pretend to be good guys, but good guys do more than just point the finger. That's too simple. It's a copout.
The problems aren't just people. They are institutional, and you can't reform institutions from the sidelines. You can't change the laws, unless you can get people elected to change the laws. Just yelling loudly or marching down the street waiving signs doesn't cut it.
I'm sorry. I know I'm venting, but that is how I feel about it.
Senator Kerry is actually a good choice. I didn't think that at first, because he is doing whatever he thinks it will take to get elected.
But it was he who exposed Iran Contra. He he found against the CIA drug running of Noriega and Columbia. He who is promoting small businesses that don't exploit people abroad, that strengthens the middle class, so that we are not at the mercy of the corporate elites. He who has promoted alternative energy research, so we will not be dependent on oil and feel the need to murder people abroad for resources.
And the only reason he isn't making a case for himself is because the right has managed to make the word "liberal" a dirty word. And it was Senator Kennedy who gave him a lot of help getting elected and having decent committee assignments, and the right has also turned "Kennedy" into a dirty word. Just like they smeared Carter's good name.
I was drawn to your blog by unknown forces;) In the spirit of democracy I am going to link your blog and the Nader site on mine. Happy Nov 2nd!
Hey Gecko. Tom posted on your site in your energy topic.
Thanks, Gecko, and I respond in like spirit.
Hi Tom,
You're full of shit. You sound like a republican with that statement "If you're not against the establishment, then you're part of the problem." Is analogous to W. saying I'm unpatriotic if I'm against his policies.
It's really sanctamonious of you to think you are free of any wrong doing in this country. You drive, you take a shower more than once a week, you eat well, and you don't have to wear second hand clothes imported from an industrialized nation. All of these things would be a luxury in a third world country like Sudan. Just because I choose not to support an arrogant a-hole like Nader doesn't mean I don't want change. I'd rather work within the infrastructure of the democratic party. G.W. is criticized with "Going it alone" policy yet Nader is an egocentric meglomaniac and a spoiled brat that can't affect change within the boundries of an established system and hence he's alienated many policy makersand a system that perhaps he could have used to implement his agenda. If he can't work within the system now what makes you think he can work within the system as commander in chief?
-ted
Hi Ted, thanks for posting. Sheryl is a Democratic blogger from Texas. I think we bumped into each other because we both enjoyed “The Distinguished Gentleman” with Eddie Murphy. Sheryl, Ted is my best of buddies from my childhood neighborhood, though sometimes these days we like to totally rip each other politically! You both are similar, worthy adversaries, and I have had some of the same arguments with each of you.
Ted I worked within the infrastructure of the Democratic Party for much of 1990s. I’m glad that you, Sheryl, and my sister-in-law are taking an interest in progressive activism. I used to take your side of the argument. I sometimes think that you have to be a Democratic activist before you can graduate to the Green Party or the Nader campaigns. That may sound arrogant, but it is righteous. I will not dignify our broken system by taking any part in it.
Yes, I’m a U.S. citizen, but I drive a hybrid and I take bird baths (don’t worry, I’m clean). I’m trying to walk the walk. I don’t wear custom neckties like Kerry. People have a right to live the good life, but I draw the line at $200,000/yr.
If having too much money is bad, then I am the paragon of virtue, because I have no money. I have used up most of my savings, so that I could focus on this election.
And yet I can tell you things about Kerry that most people in this country cannot.
I can prove we are in a class war, and that Kerry is on our side. It was he who busted the Reagan administration on Iran Contra, on the CIA funding of drug cartels in Central and South America. He not only took part in it. It was his staff who did the independent research that exposed it all. He has fought for small business that separates us between a culture with a healthy middle class and a third world sewer.
There is only one major thing that Nader says he is for that Kerry s not promoting and that is a third party. Otherwise, he stuck up for the environment, for the middle class, for the consumer, for healthy standards and protections.
And I don't see Nader sticking up for other parties. He cries that he is being left out of the debates, that he is being left off ballots, but I don't hear him complaining that other presidential candidates are being excluded as well. So is this really even about multiparty access or is it merely about Ralph Nader's access? Is it about improving the system or just a power trip?
And Ted, thanks for the kind words about my song. :) I agreed with everything you said, although I am glad the lifelong friend said it, because you can probably get by with saying more. :)
The truth of the matter is that Kerry is the "pure vote," because Kerry has been sticking up for progressive values for nearly 20 years and has the political experience, as political clout, to turn our vision into reality.
Anyone who takes on the CIA and the Reagan administration and still wins has got what it takes. Who helps save the Arctic Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling has got what it takes. Nader is just a blowhard.
I prefer your suggestion this part week or so where you said he'd be a good Barry Manilow. Let him play the Barry Manilow role and leave policy making to folks who know how the work with within our political reality to evolve it beyond what it is into what it can and should be.
Ted, now you're the one who sounds like a Republican. I suppose you like those Lexus ads where they give them as Christmas gifts with big bows on the tops – the best love that money can buy.
I can see investing more than that in an attempt to retire, but if a person needs to spend more than $200,000 a year on one's self to be happy, then they probably never will be.
In a world where resources like food and fuel are limited, if you take more than your share, no matter how much you think you deserve it, you're taking from someone else. People are suffering and dying. I'm not saying people shouldn't use birth control, work hard, and do everything right. And I'm not saying I'm perfect. I'm just saying that some people are unwittingly killing other people, and until it stops, there needs to be a cap.
I actually think it would be easier to be neutral in the war on terrorism than in the war on the poor. At least with the war on terrorism, you could say you don't have enough information about who initiated it or what to do about it. But with the war on the poor, you know who started it (the establishment) and you know what to do about it (don't let them horde all the capital and resources).
Sheryl, here’s what Mike Ruppert has to say about Kerry and Iran-Contra:
"I have a long history with Kerry. Back in 1986, 1987, and 1988, I was in contact with his office and his chief of staff Jonathan Winer on a number of occasions about CIA drug trafficking. They eagerly asked for any material I could send them and gave me a direct line. It was one of my most bitter lessons about how hot issues are controlled. Kerry, in charge of the potentially explosive Iran-Contra drug hearings succeeded in producing a 1,200-page record that was a treasure trove of information for researchers, but absolutely useless in unraveling a corruption that controls the US government to this day. What lies buried in those pages was enough to have turned the American political system inside out. In the end, its greatest usefulness was as a benchmark against which to compare the CIA's investigation of itself after the 1996 Dark Alliance stories and hard revelations of CIA connections to cocaine smuggling that Kerry knew all about anyway. Those of us close to the issue took the lemons Kerry had left us and made lemonade, as we forced the CIA Inspector General to reconcile his 1998 report with what we already knew was in Kerry's. And still - as intended - nothing changed. John Kerry had successfully contained what was, up to that time, the biggest scandal in American history."
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102003_beyond_bush_2.html.
We can debate about whether you trust Ruppert. I ordered his new book "Crossing the Rubicon" and I’ll post a book review when I’m done reading it.
I’m trying to stop it by sitting at my computer and spreading my gospel. Yes, we shouldn't horde or use too many resources because someone else is dying because of it. It’s not spurious, it’s the truth.
Do you seriously believe there’s an unlimited supply of iron ore, of land for trees and crops, of oil and natural gas? I hate to break this to you, but every drop of gasoline you use is a drop that somebody else at some point won’t get. You can’t argue with the laws of physics. You can’t magically produce things out of thin air. Their car won’t go, they won’t be able to get to work, they won’t get paid, and they won’t get to buy food.
Yes, point taken, the longevity of a vehicle could justify part of its cost. I’m not sure that the Lexus is at the cutting edge of fuel-efficiency, though. I’m a reverse snob when it comes to cars, but with good reason. When the oil runs out, there will be hell to pay, as I’ve written in other posts. I don’t think it will happen at once, but I can see a slow squeeze with the price of everything going up indefinitely.
I enjoy a good movie as much as anybody, but I’d say that’s a drop in the bucket compared to auto emissions. Plus they’re making great strides with computer graphics, etc., and many movies don’t require elaborate effects. But if the price of production needs to go up, so be it.
I have no quarrel with a reasonable amount of woodworking. I have a nice wooden chessboard, and it costs nothing to play. The best things in life are free.
On the subject of Iran-Contra, mentioned above, I've been posting to:
http://szettner.blogspot.com/2004/09/kerrys-work-uncovering-iran-contra.html
I agree and disagree with you both. I think it's great that Tom drives a hybrid, but Senator Kerry would provide tax incentives, so that we could all drive hybrids (or maybe better.) The alternative is that Bush could get elected and we could go on subsidizing SUVs.
Kerry has the environmental history in Congress to prove that he promotes the kinds of tax incentives that would make these choices you prefer more possible for those of us who don't make loads of money.
Isn't that what government is about? The consumer end is great, but government is about making these things feasible through tax incentives and tax penalties (for waste.) Government makes some choices more desirable and some choices less desirable dependent on the priorities of those in charge. Bush has promoted conspicuous waste. It's gotten us into trouble. It's made us selfish and ignore the fact that we are humans more than we are Americans.
But that is not what Kerry has a history of promoting. We have choice between a major shmuck and conscientous leader and throwing our vote away on someone who can't win. So while I applaud you for driving a hybrid car, I am going to vote for a man who would work towards an America where we all can afford to drive a hybrid.
Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon" has arrived! Just finished the chapter on oil depletion.
You're so diciplined. I can't hardly read books anymore.
It seems like like newspaper articles concentrate more on facts though. Is that my imagination? Like books get more into speculation and theory. Probably I am just too impatient.
Just posted a statement by Kerry in the Congressional Record about his 400 someodd page report from April 1989 and the bill he submitted, which appears to have gotten lost in committee.
Post a Comment
<< Home